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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 2/26/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 6/29/23 and 2/19/24 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0319379 by Armstrong, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication2023/0356728 by Jain et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Armstrong teaches a vehicle safety system, comprising: operational sensors configured to sense one or more operational characteristics of a vehicle and to output operational data based on the one or more operational characteristics that are sensed (paragraph 203; a driver seat sensor for example); environmental sensors configured to sense one or more environmental characteristics and to output environmental data based on the one or more environmental characteristics that are sensed (paragraphs 198 and 199; air pressure sensors sense environmental characteristics); and one or more processors configured to examine the operational data and the environmental data to determine whether the vehicle is in a safe state for an onboard operator of the vehicle to exit the vehicle while avoiding the vehicle rolling away from a stationary state (paragraphs 53, 219 and 220; figure 1; risk [including roll-away risk] is determined based on the various sensor data), the one or more processors configured to examine the operational data and the environmental data to determine whether the vehicle is not in the safe state and to generate one or more notifications to the onboard operator in response to determining that the vehicle is not in the safe state (paragraph 205; warning is issued in unsafe situation).
Armstrong does not specifically teach sensing environmental characteristics of an environment external to the vehicle.
Jain teaches sensing environmental characteristics of an environment external to the vehicle (paragraph 222; outside temperature can be sensed to determine whether it is safe for driver to exit vehicle).
NOTE: system of Armstrong could incorporate outside environment data to make safety determinations.
Armstrong and Jain are combinable because they are both from the vehicle safety field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Armstrong with Jain to add an external environment sensor. The motivation for doing so would have been “detecting a safety hazard” (paragraph 222). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Jain to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 5, Armstrong teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the operational sensors include one or more of a location sensor configured to output location information indicative of a location of the vehicle, an orientation sensor configured to output orientation information indicative of an orientation of the vehicle, or a pilot sensor configured to output presence information indicative of a presence or absence of the operator onboard the vehicle (paragraph 203; pilot sensor [i.e. driver seat sensor] is disclosed).
4) Regarding claim 6, Jain (as combined with Armstrong in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the environmental sensors include one or more of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, or a precipitation sensor (paragraph 222; external temperature sensor is disclosed).
5) Claims 7, 11 and 12 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 1, 5 and 6 above, respectively.
6) Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0319379 by Armstrong, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication2023/0356728 by Jain et al. as applied to the rejections of claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0180607 by Choi et al.
7) Regarding claim 2, Jain does not specifically teach the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the operational sensors are configured to provide the operational data to the one or more processors and the environmental sensors are configured to provide the environmental data to the one or more processors after the operator leaves the vehicle.
Choi teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 1, wherein the operational sensors are configured to provide the operational data to the one or more processors and the environmental sensors are configured to provide the environmental data to the one or more processors after the operator leaves the vehicle (figure 4A and 4B; sensors of paragraph 76 and 77 continue collecting data after driver exits the vehicle [paragraph 68]).
Armstrong and Choi are combinable because they are both from the vehicle safety field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Armstrong with Choi to add continuing to collect sensor data after driver leaves the vehicle. The motivation for doing so would have been for autonomously parking the vehicle (paragraph 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Jain and Choi to obtain the invention of claim 2.
8) Regarding claim 3, Choi (as combined with Jain in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to continue examining the operational data and the environmental data subsequent to the operator leaving the vehicle to determine whether the vehicle is no longer in the safe state, the one or more processors configured to implement one or more responsive actions in response to determining that the vehicle is no longer in the safe state subsequent to the operator leaving the vehicle (paragraph 84; safety risk can be determined after driver leaves the vehicle and engages the emergency brake in response).
9) Regarding claim 4, Choi (as combined with Jain in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the vehicle safety system of claim 3, wherein the one or more responsive actions include changing a brake setting of the vehicle (paragraph 84; brake is engaged is response to risk detection).
10) Claims 8-10 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 2-4 above, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights