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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nagata (US 2021/0245711 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 17, Nagata discloses a proximity-based vehicle security system (100) in which the vehicle sensors (120), which includes one or more cameras (120a, 120b), of the vehicle (102a-b) capture the unusual activity or object in the environment surrounding the vehicle (see paragraph 0021; 0033); an electronic control unit, which is the ECU (112), coupled to the vehicle sensors (120) configured to receive the surrounding environment data (e.g., image data) from the objects within the surrounding environment of the vehicle (102a, 102b); wherein the ECU (112) is specifically designed for sensing, detecting, measuring and/or otherwise determining or obtaining the various parameters to detect an unusual activity or object and activate various sensors and cameras surrounding the vehicle 102a (see paragraphs 0025, and 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity-based vehicle security system as taught by Nagata to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of recording a suspicious activity from a vehicle adjacent to the host vehicle when the suspicious vehicle is in the field-of-view and stopping when it stays out of the field-of-view, and therefore saving significant memory as well as energy as compared to “always-on” recording.
Regarding claim 18, in Nagata, the security system, which includes the electronic control unit (112), tracks and follows the unusual activity or object as the objects exits the field-of-view of the vehicle camera by additionally activating another camera in proximity to the vehicle (see paragraph 0017). The ECU (112) is configured to detect an unusual activity or object and activate various sensors and cameras surrounding the vehicle (102a) (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 19, in Nagata, the vehicle (102a, 102b) may be an electric vehicle (see paragraph 0023), and the vehicle (102c) is the vehicle moves in proximity of the vehicle (102a, 102b). The vehicle (102c) is not defined as an electric vehicle. The vehicle (102c) is identified as the object within the surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 20, in Naga the vehicle (102c) is shown as a lead vehicle and the vehicle (102) appears to be a follow vehicle (see Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 21 remain being set in a condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 17, Nagata discloses and suggests the claimed system as the following:
The vehicle security system (100) includes one or more vehicle sensors (120) which are positioned on or coupled to the vehicle (102a-b) and capture image data of the external surrounding environment of the vehicle (102a-b).
The ECU, which is the processing unit of the vehicle security system (100), is coupled to the one or more sensors (120).
The vehicle security system (100) captures image data of the unusual activity or object and records and/or stores the image data.
Although Nagata does not specifically state that the ECU (112) receives surrounding environment data from a second vehicle parked adjacent to activate its own sensors, Nagata describes that the ECU (112) is designed to detect unusual activity and activate various sensors and cameras surrounding the vehicle (102a).
Nagata further discloses and suggests the features recited in claims 18-20 as presented herein above. The claims remain being rejected under the prior art of record for the following reasons:
The ECU (112) of the vehicle security system (100) detects unusual activity and activates various sensors and cameras surrounding the vehicle (102a). The activation of various sensors and cameras surrounding the vehicle (102a) describes the action of engaging “full perception mode” to monitor the surroundings. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the features described in paragraphs 0053, 0072, and 0075) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claim is interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The vehicles (102a-b) may be an electric vehicle, and the vehicle (102c) is identified as an object within the surrounding environment. Thus, the separate vehicle (102c) generally refers to any other vehicle in the scenario regardless of its powertrain. Thus, the vehicle (102c) could be an electric vehicle, hybrid, or internal combustion engine vehicle. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the features described in paragraph 0072) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claim is interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In Nagata, the vehicle (102) is shown as a lead vehicle and the vehicle (102a) is a follow vehicle. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the features described in paragraph 0072) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claim is interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusions
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights