DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 1/28/2026.
Claims 1, 11, 21 and 22 are pending; each is currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller, U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0287326 (“Weller”), in view of Yamamoto, et l., U.S. PGPUB No. 2008/0150709 (“Yamamoto”).
With regard to Claim 1, Weller teaches a vehicle comprising:
a first wheel; a second wheel; a body coupled to the first wheel and the second wheel, the body being movable by the first wheel and the second wheel ([002] describes vehicles such as cars or trucks, which have wheels and a body movable by the wheels as described and is shown in Fig. 1);
a front camera mounted on a front end portion of the body and configured to capture a front ambient image of a front ambient area of the vehicle ([0040] describes a front vehicle camera to monitor regions outside the vehicle);
a back camera mounted on a back end portion of the body and configured to capture a back ambient image of a back ambient area of the vehicle ([0040] describes a rear vehicle camera to monitor regions outside the vehicle);
a left camera mounted on a left side portion of the body and configured to capture a left ambient image of a left ambient area of the vehicle ([0040] describes a lateral vehicle camera to monitor regions outside the vehicle; Fig. 2 shows a lateral camera on a left side);
a right camera mounted on a right side portion of the body and configured to capture a right ambient image of a right ambient area of the vehicle ([0040] describes a rear vehicle camera to monitor regions outside the vehicle; Fig. 2 shows a lateral camera on a right side).
Weller, in view of Yamamoto teaches wherein, in response to detecting a starting condition when a parking brake of the vehicle is ON, the vehicle starts a monitoring process for a target using at least one of the front ambient image, the back ambient image, the left ambient image or the right ambient image.
Weller teaches at [0003] that cameras can be used both for monitoring surroundings and for anti-theft purposes. [0037] describes the use of cameras to monitor for suspicious moving objects; [0038] and [0042] describe examples of using the cameras when the vehicle is parked. Yamamoto teaches at [0078], [0088], and [0100] various conditions for starting monitoring using omnidirectional cameras attached to a vehicle, including releasing the ignition, unlocking door, and closing an open door. Each of these detected conditions can be detected when a parking brake of the vehicle is ON.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein, in response to detecting that the parking brake of the vehicle is OFF, the vehicle terminates the monitoring process for the target using the at least one of the front ambient image, the back ambient image, the left ambient image or the right ambient image the monitoring process being started in response to detecting the starting condition when the parking brake of the vehicle is ON. [0084] describes that a determination can be made whether to deactivate the omnidirectional cameras, where a parking brake sensor may be used to make a decision based on whether the parking brake is released. [0078], [0088] and [0100] describe various starting conditions that can occur when the parking brake of the vehicle is ON.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Weller with Yamamoto. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user safety by enabling for the termination of potentially distracting omnidirectional imaging to be carried out upon detection that a user intends to start operating a vehicle.
Claim 11 recites a vehicle control device mounted in the vehicle of Claim 1, where the vehicle control device comprises a first input configured to be coupled with the front camera; a second input configured to be coupled with the back camera; a third input configured to be coupled with the left camera; and a fourth input configured to be coupled with the right camera. Weller teaches at [0037] a master device that is connected to the cameras and can be adapted to provide control inputs such as controlling the zoom or viewing angle. This claim is therefore rejected as obvious per above.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller, in view of Yamamoto, and in view of Zhang, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,518,750 (“Zhang”).
With regard to Claim 21, Weller does not teach that the starting condition is that an ignition of the vehicle is OFF. Zhang teaches at Col. 4, line 54 – Col., 5 line 2 that the system can determine that a vehicle is parked by identifying that the vehicle switch is being turned off, where one of skill in the art would understand this can occur at a time when the parking brake is ON. Zhang also teaches detecting the parking brake as ON as part of determining a car is parked. The method shown in Fig. 2 for monitoring begins in response to detecting that the car is parked, where the system monitors for moving of the car after the car is parked.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Weller and Yamamoto to make the camera system monitoring responsive to detecting that the car is parked as described in Zhang. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by ensuring that elements of the monitoring system of Weller, such as displaying images to the user or sending alarm messages, are only being done when necessary, and not during times which may be distracting such as when a vehicle is on and being operated by the user.
Claim 22 recites a vehicle control device mounted in the vehicle of Claim 21; this claim is therefore rejected as obvious per above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with regard to amended Claim 1 that the claim is patentable over Weller, Yamamoto and Zhang, for the reason that Zhang does not teach that Zhang does not disclose that the anti-theft system is activated in response to detecting a starting condition when a parking brake of the vehicle is ON, as Zhang discloses that Zhang discloses that the starting condition itself is that the emergency brake is activated.
However, the recitation in Claim 1 of “detecting a starting condition when a parking brake of the vehicle is ON” only requires the detecting of a starting condition that occurs while the parking brake of the vehicle is on. As described in the above rejection, the starting conditions described in Yamamoto of releasing the ignition, unlocking a door, and closing a door are all conditions which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand can occur “when a parking brake of a vehicle is ON,” and are therefore able to be detected at such a time as claimed.
Therefore, Claim 1 remains properly rejected as obvious in view of Weller and Yamamoto, as the amendments do not distinguish from the references for the above reasons. As Claims 11, 21 and 22 are not argued separate from the reasons argued regarding the patentability of Claim 1, these claims likewise remain properly rejected under the cited art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
2/12/2026