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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 have been amended. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled. No claims are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains the prior art rejection with previously presented references.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner agrees with Applicant that Aragai does not disclose timing control which would “completely stop” the detection operation. However, the Examiner argues that Klinker discloses a complete stop with at least Col. 38-39 Lines 48-2 “The electronic device 1230 can be configured to operate in a particular mode based on the presence or absence of the user within a geographic boundary, or based on a location of the user more generally […] a mobile device 102 can be configured to stop scanning for tracking devices when the user is at home”. The Applicant noted a similar section of Klinker but emphasized that another device can instead scan for tracking devices, however this embodiment is merely listed as a possible alternative and is not limiting or teaching away from the scan stopping disclosed by Klinker. While Klinker discloses the possibility of transferring a scanning task, Klinker clearly discloses a complete stop by the mobile device system. Therefore, the Examiner cites the teachings of Klinker below. The same or similar reasoning is applied to all dependent and similar independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
The phrase “distance detection section” in claim 1 uses the generic placeholder “section” with the functional language “distance detection”. The functional language is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the function. However, sufficient structure, material, or acts for this limitation is found in the specification.
The phrase “occupant detection section” in claims 1 and 9 uses the generic placeholder “section” with the functional language “occupant detection”. The functional language is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the function. However, sufficient structure, material, or acts for this limitation is found in the specification.
The phrase “execution timing control section” in claim 1 uses the generic placeholder “section” with the functional language “execution timing control”. The functional language is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the function. However, sufficient structure, material, or acts for this limitation is found in the specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-2, 5, and 8-9 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 control an execution timing of a detection operation at the occupant detection section such that: 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 a first execution timing; and when the relative distance is shorter than or equal to the first distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a second execution timing that completely stops the detection operation at the occupant detection section. However, Klinkner, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
an execution timing control section configured to control an execution timing of a detection operation at the occupant detection section such that (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”):
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 a 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”); and
when the relative distance is shorter than or equal to the first distance, the execution timing control section causes the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a second execution timing that completely stops the detection operation at the occupant detection section (See at least Col. 38-39 Lines 48-2 “The electronic device 1230 can be configured to operate in a particular mode based on the presence or absence of the user within a geographic boundary, or based on a location of the user more generally […] a mobile device 102 can be configured to stop scanning for tracking devices when the user is at home”)
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 changes to another 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 5, the combination of Aragai and Klinkner as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Aragai further discloses
(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).”).
Aragai 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 and the relative distance is longer than the first distance. However, Klinkner, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
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 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”), 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. 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 8, the combination of Aragai and Klinkner, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 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.).
Regarding claim 9, Aragai, as shown below, discloses a vehicle occupant detection device comprising the following limitations:
detecting 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); and
controlling an execution timing of a detection operation of an occupant detection section configured to detect presence/absence of a second occupant in the vehicle, such that (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.”):
Aragai does not explicitly disclose when the relative distance is longer than a first distance, causing the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a first execution timing; and when the relative distance is shorter than or equal to the first distance, causing the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a second execution timing that completely stops the detection operation at the occupant detection section. However, Klinkner, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
when the relative distance is longer than a first distance, causing the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a 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”); and
when the relative distance is shorter than or equal to the first distance, causing the occupant detection section to execute the detection operation at a second execution timing that completely stops the detection operation at the occupant detection section (See at least Col. 38-39 Lines 48-2 “The electronic device 1230 can be configured to operate in a particular mode based on the presence or absence of the user within a geographic boundary, or based on a location of the user more generally […] a mobile device 102 can be configured to stop scanning for tracking devices when the user is at home”)
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.”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragai, in view of Klinkner, in further view of Golombek (US 20240172946 A1), hereinafter Golombek.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Aragai and Klinkner, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Aragai 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 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.”).
The combination of Aragai and Klinkner 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.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aragai, in view of Watanabe (US 20190259165 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Aragai and Klinkner, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1. 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”).
Conclusion
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, Resha H Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights