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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-4 and 9 have been amended. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 06/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/08/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragai (US 20200290511 A1), hereinafter Aragai, in view of Klinkner (US 10735909 B1), hereinafter Klinkner.
Regarding claim 1, Aragai, as shown below, discloses a vehicle occupant detection device comprising the following limitations:
a distance detection section configured to detect a relative distance of a vehicle and a first occupant (See at least Figs. 1A-1B, [0099] “The distance detecting unit 1a of the first control unit 1 detects the distance from the vehicle 30 to the portable device 20 based on the RSSI values detected by the RSSI detecting unit 3b.” Aragai discloses a first occupant with a portable device wherein a distance range is determined through RSSI between the vehicle and user/device);
an occupant detection section configured to detect presence/absence of a second occupant in the vehicle (See at least Fig. 2, [0069] “the leaving determination unit 41b detects that the target living body is present in the vehicle interior. In a case where it is detected that the target living body is present in the vehicle interior, the leaving determination unit 41b determines that the target living body is left behind.”); and
Aragai does not explicitly disclose an execution timing control section configured to change an execution timing of a detection operation at the occupant detection section to another execution timing differing in execution frequency in accordance with the relative distance detected. However, Klinkner, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
an execution timing control section configured to change an execution timing of a detection operation at the occupant detection section to another execution timing differing in execution frequency in accordance with the relative distance detected (See at least Col. 39 Lines 41-45 “The tracking system 100 can configure a scanning device to operate in a first mode when the user 1200 is inside the geographic boundary and a second mode when the user 1200 is outside the geographic boundary. Configuring the scanning device can include changing the scanning frequency”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide important or useful information in a timely manner (See at least Col. 36 lines 46-50 “In each of these circumstances, the user is provided with important or useful information before the user realizes that such information would be important or useful, thereby beneficially improving a user's experience with the tracking device and the tracking system 100.”).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Aragai and Klinker, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Aragai additionally discloses
the execution timing control section controls the execution timing of the detection operation at the occupant detection section when the vehicle is stopped (See at least [0073] “The second control unit 41 starts detecting the state of an IG power (not illustrated) from the time point when the vehicle 30 stops (step S101 in FIG. 3).” Aragai discloses a state change to an active state).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Aragai and Klinker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Aragai does not disclose in accordance with the relative distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a first execution timing, or a second execution timing with lower execution frequency than the first execution timing. However, Klinker further discloses
in accordance with the relative distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a first execution timing, or a second execution timing with lower execution frequency than the first execution timing (See at least Col. 39 Lines 41-45 “The tracking system 100 can configure a scanning device to operate in a first mode when the user 1200 is inside the geographic boundary and a second mode when the user 1200 is outside the geographic boundary. Configuring the scanning device can include changing the scanning frequency”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide important or useful information in a timely manner (See at least Col. 36 lines 46-50 “In each of these circumstances, the user is provided with important or useful information before the user realizes that such information would be important or useful, thereby beneficially improving a user's experience with the tracking device and the tracking system 100.”).
Regarding claim 9, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Claim 4-5 and 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragai, in view of Watanabe (US 20190259165 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Aragai and Klinkner, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. The combination of Aragai and Klinkner does not explicitly disclose wherein when a relative distance is longer than a first distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the first execution timing, and wherein when the relative distance is shorter than the first distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the second execution timing. However, Watanabe, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein when the relative distance is longer than a first distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the first execution timing (See at least Fig. 8, [0035] In addition, in the third disclosure, a fourth disclosure includes a separation time meter that measures a separation time from the time when the owner of the unattended object is detected to the time when the separation distance exceeds a predetermined distance, in which the alarm issuing time controller controls the alarm issuing time so that an alarm is issued immediately irrespective of the alarm issuing time according to the type of the unattended object in a case where the measured separation time is less than a predetermined threshold time.” Watanabe discloses a first time limit for an unattended object but also discloses a method where the time may be bypassed when a relative distance is exceeded. The Examiner additionally notes that the execution time is not limited to an execution frequency.), and
wherein when the relative distance is shorter than the first distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the second execution timing. (See at least Fig. 5, [0057] “Alarm issuing time controller 13 controls the alarm issuing time which is the time from when an unattended object is detected to the time when an, alarm is issued in accordance with the type of unattended object determined”),
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner with the execution time system disclosed by Watanabe. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce burden on the individual responsible for safety and reduce left behind objects (See at least [0002] “it is necessary to automatically detect an unattended object based on captured images of a monitoring area in order to reduce the burden on the observer”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Aragai, Klinkner and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4. Aragai further discloses
the vehicle is detected by an opening closing detection section, (See at least Fig. 3, [0076] “Next, the second control unit 41 causes the operation information acquisition unit 41a to acquire the detection result of the open/close state of the first type of opening/closing unit from the first door open/close detecting unit 16 (step S104 in FIG. 3).”).
The combination of Aragai and Klinkner does not explicitly disclose wherein the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the first execution timing when
wherein the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the first execution timing when (See at least Fig. 8, [0035] “In addition, in the third disclosure, a fourth disclosure includes a separation time meter that measures a separation time from the time when the owner of the unattended object is detected to the time when the separation distance exceeds a predetermined distance, in which the alarm issuing time controller controls the alarm issuing time so that an alarm is issued immediately irrespective of the alarm issuing time according to the type of the unattended object in a case where the measured separation time is less than a predetermined threshold time.” Watanabe discloses a first time limit for an unattended object but also discloses a method where the time may be bypassed when a relative distance is exceeded), and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner with the execution time system disclosed by Watanabe. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce burden on the individual responsible for safety and reduce left behind objects (See at least [0002] “it is necessary to automatically detect an unattended object based on captured images of a monitoring area in order to reduce the burden on the observer”).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Aragai, Klinkner, and Watanabe, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4. The combination of Aragai and Klinkner does not explicitly disclose a notification section configured to make a notification that presence of the second occupant is detected when the relative distance is longer than a second distance that is equal to or longer than the first distance, and presence of the second occupant is detected. However, Watanabe, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a notification section configured to make a notification that presence of the second occupant is detected when the relative distance is longer than a second distance that is equal to or longer than the first distance, and presence of the second occupant is detected (See at least Fig. 8, [0035] “In addition, in the third disclosure, a fourth disclosure includes a separation time meter that measures a separation time from the time when the owner of the unattended object is detected to the time when the separation distance exceeds a predetermined distance, in which the alarm issuing time controller controls the alarm issuing time so that an alarm is issued immediately irrespective of the alarm issuing time according to the type of the unattended object in a case where the measured separation time is less than a predetermined threshold time.” Watanabe discloses a first time limit for an unattended object but also discloses a method where the time may be bypassed when a relative distance is exceeded. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘second distance’ is that it is the same as the ‘first distance’.), and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner with the execution time system disclosed by Watanabe. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce burden on the individual responsible for safety and reduce left behind objects (See at least [0002] “it is necessary to automatically detect an unattended object based on captured images of a monitoring area in order to reduce the burden on the observer”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Aragai, Klinkner, and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4. Aragai further discloses
comprising a notification section configured to make a notification that presence of the second occupant is detected when the relative distance is continuously longer than the first distance and shorter than a second distance for a predetermined time in a case where presence of the second occupant is detected (See at least [0103] “As illustrated in FIG. 1B, the UHF communication range B is wider than the vehicle exterior LF communication range A. In other words, a reaching distance of the UHF signal is longer than a reaching distance of the LF signal.” [0129] “In a case where it is determined that a predetermined time has elapsed after it is determined that the living body is left behind (step S213 in FIG. 5: YES), the leaving determination unit 41b causes the alarm device 15 to output an alarm sound (step S214 in FIG. 5)” See also [0140] Aragai discloses a first range as a distance from a vehicle and second distance as a maximum communication range.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragai, in view of Klinkner, in view of Watanabe, in further view of Golombek (US 20240172946 A1), hereinafter Golombek.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Aragai, Klinkner, and Watanabe, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, 3, and 4. The combination of Aragai and Klinkner does not explicitly disclose the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the first execution timing when
the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at the first execution timing when (See at least Fig. 8, [0035] “In addition, in the third disclosure, a fourth disclosure includes a separation time meter that measures a separation time from the time when the owner of the unattended object is detected to the time when the separation distance exceeds a predetermined distance, in which the alarm issuing time controller controls the alarm issuing time so that an alarm is issued immediately irrespective of the alarm issuing time according to the type of the unattended object in a case where the measured separation time is less than a predetermined threshold time.” Watanabe discloses a first time limit for an unattended object but also discloses a method where the time may be bypassed when a relative distance is exceeded).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner with the execution time system disclosed by Watanabe. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce burden on the individual responsible for safety and reduce left behind objects (See at least [0002] “it is necessary to automatically detect an unattended object based on captured images of a monitoring area in order to reduce the burden on the observer”).
The combination of Aragai, Klinkner, and Watanabe does not explicitly disclose
(See at least [0333] “Another vehicular monitoring application is the field of detection of a baby or a toddler remaining in the vehicle after a threshold amount of time following engine disengagement and door locking.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant detection system disclosed by Aragai with the scanning system disclosed by Klinkner with the execution time system disclosed by Watanabe with the lock timing system disclosed by Golombek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance passenger safety (See at least [0090] “The information may help to operate safety devices and track any passenger left in the vehicle.”).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648