DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed December 1, 2025 have been entered into the record. Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, para. 3, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the subject matter eligibility rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment of claim 1 to claim the interaction between the two sensors overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set out in the previous office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, para. 5, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment of claim 1 to recite the limitation, “activate the second sensor responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value” overcomes the rejection to claim 1 laid out in the previous Office Action. The specificity of stating that the second sensor is activated, “responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value” renders the claim non-obvious over Fukagawa in view of Valentin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims (note: boldface added for emphasis),
A vehicle comprising :a first sensor and a second sensor; a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to: receive a first signal from the first sensor and a second signal from the second sensor, wherein the first signal is indicative of a first initial distance between the vehicle and a surface below the vehicle, and the second signal is indicative of a second initial distance between the vehicle and the surface; and receive a third signal from the first sensor, wherein the third signal is indicative of a third distance between the vehicle and the surface below the vehicle: determine a difference between the third distance and the first distance compare the difference to a first threshold value associated with the first sensor; activate the second sensor responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value…
The metes and bounds of the boldface limitations are unclear because the claim as written suggests that the second signal from the second sensor is received before the second sensor is activated. This sequencing renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a sensor could receive a signal before said sensor has been activated.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected because they depend upon, and include all the limitations of, indefinite claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected because they depend upon, and include all the limitations of, indefinite claim 12.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected because they depend upon, and include all the limitations of, indefinite claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-14, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Fukagawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0080792 A1). Valentin (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0132643 A1) and Ahn (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0089148 A1) are also close prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Fukagawa et al. discloses (note: what Fukagawa does not teach is struck through),
A vehicle (fig. 2, vehicle 30) comprising: a first sensor and a second sensor (fig. 2, height sensors 12); a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (paras. 0033-0034, “The control unit 20 is a control apparatus, which includes a CPU (not shown) as its main component and also includes memories (e.g., a ROM, a RAM)… The control unit 20 includes a sensor signal obtaining section 21, an initial value setting section 22, a comparing section 23, a determining section 24 and a warning section 25.”); and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions (para. 0063, “The control unit 10 is a control apparatus, which includes a CPU (not shown) as its main component”) to: receive a first signal from the first sensor and a second signal from the second sensor (para. 0040, “When each height sensor 12 and each tire pressure sensor 13 are provided to the corresponding suspension 33 and the corresponding tire 32, respectively, a change of the sensor signal, which corresponds to a change of the tilt of the vehicle 30 in any of the front, back, left and right directions, can be effectively sensed.”), wherein the first signal is indicative of a first initial distance between the vehicle and a surface below the vehicle, and the second signal is indicative of a second initial distance between the vehicle and the surface (fig. 4, steps S1 and S2. See also para. 0038, “Alternatively, each height sensor 12 may be formed as a sensor that senses a distance between the vehicle body 31 and a contact plane G, at which the tire 32 contacts the ground.” See also para. 0042, “First, in the control unit 20, it is determined whether the initial value θi of the angle signal θ initially outputted from the tilt sensor 11, the initial value Hi of the height signal H initially outputted from the height sensor 12, and the initial value Pi of the pressure signal P initially outputted from the tire pressure sensor 13 are all obtained by the sensor signal obtaining section 21 (FIG. 1) upon parking (upon turning off of the ignition switch) of the vehicle at step S1.” The examiner note that fig. 2 shows four height sensors, and para. 0149 notes that there can be one height sensor for each tire); receive a third signal from the first sensor, wherein the third signal is indicative of a third distance between the vehicle and the surface below the vehicle (fig. 4, step S3, noting that the measurements from the tilt sensor 11, the pressure sensor 13 and additional height sensors 12 depicted in fig. 2 could all be understood to read on the third signal, since the tilt and tire pressure are indicative of the distance between the vehicle and the surface below the vehicle); determine a difference between the third distance and the first distance (fig. 1, step S4); compare the difference to a first threshold value associated with the first sensor (fig. 4, step S6); activate the second sensor (para. 0152, “In the first embodiment, the tilt sensor 11, the height sensors 12 and the tire pressure sensors 13 may be operated intermittently such that the tilt sensor 11, the height sensors 12 and the tire pressure sensors 13 sense the movement of the parked vehicle 30 and output its sensor signal only for a predetermined time period. For example, each sensor may be operated after step S1 and may be stopped after steps S2, S3. With this construction, the electric power consumption, which is required to operate the sensors, can be reduced.”); receive a fourth signal from the second sensor (fig. 4, step S3), wherein the fourth signal is indicative of a fourth distance between the vehicle and the surface below the vehicle (fig. 4, step S3, noting that there are four height sensors 12, and further noting that the pressure signal P1 is also indicative of the distance between the vehicle and the surface); and determine, based on the third signal and the fourth signal, that the vehicle is at an incline relative to the surface below the vehicle (para. 0151, “Furthermore, it is possible to sense the change in the height signal H and the change in the pressure signal P, which correspond to the change in the tilt of the vehicle 30 in all of the front, back, left, and right directions. Thus, it is possible to improve the accuracy of the vehicle theft detection system 1. Furthermore, when at least two height sensors 12 are provided, it is possible to sense the change in the distance between the vehicle body 31 and the tires 32 in response to the tilt movement of the vehicle 30 in all of the front, back, left and right directions of the vehicle 30.” See also fig. 4, step S7), with at least one wheel raised off the surface below the vehicle (para. 0142, “In the case where the above construction is used, when the front end of the vehicle 30 is lifted and is towed by the wrecker without a notification like in the case of FIG. 5, the vehicle weight applied to the front suspensions 33 is reduced, and the front suspensions 33 are pulled downward in the vertical direction by the weight of the lifted front wheels 32a. Therefore, the height signal H1, which is sensed by the height sensor 12, significantly changes from its initial value Hi, which is obtained upon the parking of the vehicle 30.”).
Valentin discloses activating a sensor responsive to a determination that the vehicle is at an incline (para. 0014) but does not teach,
receive a first signal from the first sensor…wherein the first signal is indicative of a first initial distance between the vehicle and a surface below the vehicle…receive a third signal from the first sensor, wherein the third signal is indicative of a third distance between the vehicle and the surface below the vehicle; determine a difference between the third distance and the first distance; compare the difference to a first threshold value associated with the first sensor…
and thus cannot teach,
…activate the second sensor responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value (boldface added for emphasis)
Due to the phrase “responsive to,” the claim as written requires that the processor determine that the difference is less than the first threshold value before activating the second sensor. That is, the limitations that Valentin does not teach are a necessary step to activating the second sensor. Because Valentin does not teach or reasonably suggest that the vehicle is determined to be at an incline based on the comparison of a measured sensor height to a threshold sensor height difference, the sensor activation of Valentin cannot be combined with the invention of Fukagawa to render obvious, “a processor configured to…activate the second sensor responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value” without improper use of hindsight. Fukagawa teaches activating the second sensor independent of the determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value, and thus does not responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value. Valentin does not determine that a height difference is less than a first threshold value, thus cannot teach activating the second sensor responsive to said determination. Therefore, the combination of Fukagawa with Valentin does not render obvious the claimed invention as a whole.
Ahn teaches,
A vehicle (fig. 3a, unnumbered vehicle ) comprising: a first sensor and a second sensor (fig. 4a, sensors 400, 402); a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (para. 0027, “an associated non-transitory memory storing software instructions…); and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions (para. 0027, “an associated non-transitory memory storing software instructions which, when executed by the one or more processor(s), provides all or some of the functionalities of a parking initiator 200, a radar controller 210, a signal processor 220, a determinator 230, and a controller 240”) to: receive a first signal from the first sensor and a second signal from the second sensor (para. 0020, “That is, at least one radar 100 may transmit a radar signal in at least one direction of the front direction, the rear direction, and the side directions of the vehicle and may receive a radar signal reflected by a ground surface.” The examiner notes that para. 0018 states that the sensors can be UWB sensors), wherein the first signal is indicative of a first initial distance between the vehicle and a surface below the vehicle, and the second signal is indicative of a second initial distance between the vehicle and the surface (fig. 4A shows the calculation, using two signals from two sensors, of the vertical distances VD1 and VD2 between the vehicle and the surface)…and determine…that the vehicle is at an incline (para. 0047, “The determinator 230 may be configured to determine whether a ground surface around the vehicle 10 is a slope based on information about the first to Nth regions.”)…
However, Ahn does not teach any form of sensor activation, and thus also does not teach,
…activate the second sensor responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value
Ahn does not teach or reasonably suggest sensor activation, let alone sensor activation based on the determined height difference. Thus, Ahn cannot correct the deficiencies of Fukagawa in view of Valentin to render obvious, “a processor configured to…compare the difference to a first threshold value associated with the first sensor” in combination with the same processor being configured to “activate the second sensor responsive to a determination that the difference is less than the first threshold value” without improper use of hindsight.
In reference to independent claim 1, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 1. Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-11 are allowable because they depend upon, and therefore include all the limitations of, allowed claim 1.
Claim 12 is allowable for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1, with the note that Ahn teaches a first UWB sensor and a second UWB sensor, as laid out in the previous office action.
In reference to independent claim 12, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 12. Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are allowable because they depend upon, and therefore include all the limitations of, allowed claim 12.
Claim 18 is allowable for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1, with the note that Ahn teaches a first UWB sensor and a second UWB sensor, as laid out in the previous office action.
In reference to independent claim 18, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 18. Claims 19-20 are allowable because they depend upon, and therefore include all the limitations of, allowed claim 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648