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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed with RCE on 01/21/2026 for application number 18/434,172, in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination on 02/06/2024.
Claims 1, 15 & 20 are currently amended, no claim(s) has/have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim no priority for this application submitted on
02/06/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 has been received and considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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(s) filed on 01/21/2026 has/have been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 01/21/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the prior art claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1) and/or §103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claim(s) as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Jumpertz (US-2019/0043364-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Jumpertz describes a cooperative, protocol-based communication scheme in which participating vehicles broadcast structured ultrasonic messages containing identity information and timestamps …
Nothing in the portions of Jumpertz cited by the Office, nor elsewhere in the reference, teaches receiving ultrasonic sound that the host vehicle cannot decode or interpret.
By contrast, the present invention describes detecting sound "emitted/reflected by an object" … such as walkers, scooters, and e-bikes that produce ultrasonic emissions without participating in any communication protocol. Specification as filed at ¶¶[0019]-[0021] and ¶[0043]. The system may also detect ultrasonic signals "emitted by ultrasonic sensors associated with [another] vehicle" regardless of the transmitting vehicle's capabilities or protocol compatibility and the processor may compare "ultrasonic signals ... with pre-stored ultrasonic signals" to identify nearby objects without decoding structured message content. Specification as filed at ¶[0065] and ¶[0103]”
(see Remarks pages 7-9; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claim(s) 1, 15 & 20 apparently to overcome the current anticipation and/or obviousness rejections under §102(a)(1) and/or §103, respectively, as recited in the Final Office Action mailed on 10/21/2025. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new limitation(s) rejection(s) outlined below.
Examiner further points to that while Jumpertz discloses the ultrasonic beacon may be modulated to include identity information and a timestamp, Jumpertz also recites that instead of or in addition to using ultrasound the beacon may be broadcasted as a radio wave or in the invisible light spectrum [i.e., the sound comprises an unstructured ultrasonic emission that is not encoded in a communication protocol, or a structured ultrasonic communication signal for which the first vehicle is not a participant in the communication protocol]. See Jumpertz’s ¶86.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s original Specification (and PG. Pub.) has only 60 paragraphs, i.e., mentioned ¶65 & ¶103 does not exist. See rejection(s) under 112(a) outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6- 8, 13, 15, 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. No. US-2019/0043364-A1 by Peter Jumpertz (hereinafter “Jumpertz”)
As per claim 1, Jumpertz discloses a system communicatively coupled to a first vehicle, the system comprising:
a detection unit including at least one sensor configured to measure a sound emitted by an object external to the first vehicle, wherein the sound comprises an unstructured ultrasonic emission that is not encoded in a communication protocol, or a structured ultrasonic communication signal for which the first vehicle is not a participant in the communication protocol (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶85-89, discloses the vehicle system 325 includes ultrasound receivers 342, which has at least a first ultrasound receiver and a second ultrasound receiver which are configured to receive ultrasonic beacons emitted by other vehicles, wherein instead of or in addition to using ultrasound the beacon may be broadcasted as a radio wave or in the invisible light spectrum); and
a processor communicatively coupled with the detection unit (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the Vehicle System 325 includes Processor 302 connection with Ultrasound Receiver 342 through Bus 312), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain inputs from the detection unit (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶86-87, discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors);
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
614
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jumpertz’s Fig. 3
detect a presence of the object in proximity to the first vehicle based on the inputs without the object being within a field of view of the first vehicle (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the vehicle system 325 includes vehicle sensors 306 such as an ultrasonic ranging system and/or one or more other sensors that can detect information about the position, speed, direction and indicated and/or potential changes to position, speed and direction of other vehicles within a certain radius and/or distance in a particular direction, wherein the vehicle system 325 is to sense information about its environment that is beyond the range of on-board sensors [i.e., without the object being within a field of view of the first vehicle] which may be limited to a line of sight. Jumpertz further discloses the processor 302 is configured to determine a position of the point of origin of the ultrasonic beacon, wherein the beacon is broadcasted as a radio wave or in the invisible light spectrum. Jumpertz also discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path);
estimate at least one of an object position or an object direction relative to the first vehicle responsive to detecting the presence of the object (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the processor 302 is configured to determine a position of the point of origin of the ultrasonic beacon, wherein the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path. Jumpertz further discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in the impeding vehicle, a user interface device 308 is used to instruct a human driver as to what action to take. Alternatively, in an automated vehicle operating in a (semi) autonomous mode the processor 302 influences a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314); and
control a vehicle component operation based on the estimation of at least one of the object position or the object direction (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path. Jumpertz further discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in an automated vehicle operating in a (semi) autonomous mode the processor 302 influences a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314).
As per claim 2, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz further discloses wherein the object is a second vehicle or a person (Jumpertz, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5a-d, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the vehicle system 325 includes ultrasound receivers 342, which has at least a first ultrasound receiver and a second ultrasound receiver which are configured to receive ultrasonic beacons emitted by other vehicles).
As per claim 3, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz further discloses wherein the system is part of the first vehicle (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the vehicle system 325 includes ultrasound receivers 342 & Processor 302).
As per claim 4, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz further discloses wherein the detection unit comprises built-in ultrasonic sensors in the first vehicle (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the vehicle system 325 includes ultrasound receivers 342. Jumpertz discloses the vehicle system 325 includes vehicle sensors 306 such as an ultrasonic ranging system and/or one or more other sensors that can detect information about the position, speed, direction and indicated and/or potential changes to position, speed and direction of other vehicles within a certain radius and/or distance in a particular direction, wherein the vehicle system 325 is to sense information about its environment that is beyond the range of on-board sensors).
As per claim 6, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz discloses wherein the processor is further configured to output a first notification on a first vehicle Human-Machine Interface (HMI) or a mobile device based on the estimation of at least one of the object position or the object direction (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path. Jumpertz further discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, the processor 302 influence a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314. That is, the user interface device 308 and/or the vehicle control interface 314 will be used to either inform the driver about the actions required or to control the vehicle directly. In particular, informing the driver about which action to take can be in form of audio, video, or audio-visual communication. The user interface device 308 may thus be, for example, a speaker, a display screen, a head-up display or any similar device).
As per claim 7, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz discloses wherein the processor is further configured to output a second notification to the object based on the estimation of at least one of the object position or the object direction (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in the impeding vehicle, a user interface device 308, e.g., a speaker, a display screen, a head-up display or any similar device, is used to instruct a human driver as to what action to take, wherein informing the driver about which action to take can be in form of audio, video, or audio-visual communication).
As per claim 8, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz further discloses wherein the second notification comprises an audible notification (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in the impeding vehicle, a user interface device 308, e.g., a speaker, a display screen, a head-up display or any similar device, is used to instruct a human driver as to what action to take, wherein informing the driver about which action to take can be in form of audio, video, or audio-visual communication).
As per claim 13, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the object is a threat for the first vehicle based on the inputs, wherein the inputs comprise ultrasonic signature of the object; and control the vehicle component operation based on the determination (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶85-89, discloses the vehicle system 325 includes ultrasound receivers 342, which has at least a first ultrasound receiver and a second ultrasound receiver which are configured to receive ultrasonic beacons emitted by other vehicles [i.e., ultrasonic signature of the object], wherein the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path, and when an impeding vehicle is detected [implies determine that the object is a threat for the first vehicle], in an automated vehicle operating in a (semi) autonomous mode the processor 302 may influence a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314).
As per claims 15, 16 & 20, the claims are directed towards method and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that recite similar limitations performed by the system(s) of claims 1 & 2. The cited portions of Jumpertz used in the rejection of claim 1 disclose the same steps to perform the method and/or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 15, 16 & 20. Therefore, claims 15, 16 & 20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claims 1 & 2 as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 11 & 18 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Jumpertz (US-2019/0043364-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2007/0024431-A1 by Hiroshi Touge (hereinafter “Touge”)
As per claim 11, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz is silent on claim 11 limitations. However, Touge , in at least Fig. 7, Abstract & ¶¶8-9, 39-40, 50-52, 65 & 82 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle's surroundings object detection systems, teaches wherein the processor controls the vehicle component operation by identifying a vehicle door that faces the object based on the estimation of at least one of the object position or the object direction, and disabling vehicle door opening (Touge, in at least Fig. 7, Abstract & ¶¶8-9, 39-40, 50-52, 65 & 82, teaches an obstacle detecting system for a vehicle, which includes an ultrasonic sensor provided at a vehicle body for detecting obstacles surrounding the vehicle, wherein a control means 160 controls a backdoor actuator 161 to stop opening actuation of an opening and closing body when the obstacle 105 specified by the calculating means 151 is positioned within range R1 which is predetermined outside relative to a surface of the rear door 111. Touge further teaches the control means stops opening operation of the opening and closing body when the position of the object specified by the calculating means is within a predetermined region predetermined at an outside relative to a surface of the opening and closing body (vehicle door). Thus, even when an object exists surrounding the opening and closing body at outside thereof, the opening and closing body can be prevented to collide with the object).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jumpertz in view of Touge with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle's surroundings object detection systems and the combination would improve an obstacle detecting performance in the vicinity of the vehicle (see at least Touge’s ¶7).
As per claim 18, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 11. The cited portions of Jumpertz & Touge used in the rejection of claim 11 disclose the same steps to perform the method of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 11 as outlined above.
Claims 9, 10, 14 & 17 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Jumpertz (US-2019/0043364-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2019/0024430-A1 by Jeromin et al. (hereinafter “Jeromin”)
As per claim 9, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. While Jumpertz requires wherein the processor controls the vehicle component operation (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶77 & 85-89, discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path. Jumpertz further discloses analysis of the data received from the vehicle sensors is performed in accordance with rules stored in memory 304, wherein the rules serve to recognize impeding vehicles by their interference with the host vehicle's path, which may in particular be the host vehicle having to travel slower than desired. Jumpertz also discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in an automated vehicle operating in a (semi) autonomous mode the processor 302 influences a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314. Jumpertz further discloses that modifying the vehicle path in process includes accessing vehicle functions required, e.g. speed/acceleration, steering, braking, indication of change of direction, etc. via a vehicle control interface), it does not explicitly discloses by activating a haptic feedback in a vehicle steering wheel.
Jeromin, in at least ¶¶3 & 4 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle's surroundings object detection systems, teaches by activating a haptic feedback in a vehicle steering wheel (Jeromin, in at least ¶¶3 & 4, teaches using one or more ultrasonic sensors to detect the proximity and the movements of objects in a vehicle's surroundings, wherein, based on those movements, the vehicle estimates trajectories for those objects, and determine whether those objects will interfere with the operation of vehicle doors in the future (e.g., the opening of the vehicle doors, the remaining open of the vehicle doors without colliding with an object, etc.). If future interference is determined, the vehicle takes appropriate action to avoid the interference, such as alerting a driver or a passenger of the potential interference by playing a sound through one or more speakers in the vehicle, causing one or more lights inside the vehicle to flash, displaying a visual indication on one or more display screens inside the vehicle, and/or providing vibration to the steering wheel of the vehicle or the driver's seat of the vehicle. In some examples, the vehicle can additionally or alternatively begin to automatically close the door(s) in danger of being obstructed (if the door(s) are already open), prevent the opening of the door(s) in danger of being obstructed (if the door(s) are not yet open), and/or provide an alert to the object (in case the object is a person or controlled by a person) in an effort to alert the person of the potential collision).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jumpertz in view of Jeromin with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle's surroundings object detection systems and the combination would provide an effort to alert the person of the potential collision (see at least Jeromin’s ¶¶4 & 5).
As per claim 10, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. While Jumpertz, requires wherein the processor controls the vehicle component operation (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶77 & 85-89, discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path. Jumpertz further discloses analysis of the data received from the vehicle sensors is performed in accordance with rules stored in memory 304, wherein the rules serve to recognize impeding vehicles by their interference with the host vehicle's path, which may in particular be the host vehicle having to travel slower than desired. Jumpertz also discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in an automated vehicle operating in a (semi) autonomous mode the processor 302 influences a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314. Jumpertz further discloses that modifying the vehicle path in process includes accessing vehicle functions required, e.g. speed/acceleration, steering, braking, indication of change of direction, etc. via a vehicle control interface), it does not explicitly discloses impeding a steering wheel torque associated with a vehicle steering wheel or impeding vehicle speed.
Jeromin, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶3, 4 & 25 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle's surroundings object detection systems, teaches impeding a steering wheel torque associated with a vehicle steering wheel or impeding vehicle speed (Jeromin, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶3, 4 & 25, teaches Step 310, wherein if the vehicle determines at Step 308 that one or more objects will interfere with the operation of one or more doors on the vehicle, then the vehicle takes appropriate action to attempt to avoid such interference, as described above with respect to FIG. 2. If the vehicle is set in an autonomous driving mode, at Step 310, the vehicle additionally or alternatively automatically move (e.g., by automatically disengaging the vehicle’s brakes, engaging the vehicle’s drive motor, and adjusting the steering angle to move at a calculated speed [i.e., impeding vehicle speed] and direction) to a new location at which the one or more objects will no longer interfere with the operation of the vehicle’s doors).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jumpertz in view of Jeromin with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle's surroundings object detection systems and the combination would provide an effort to alert the person of the potential collision (see at least Jeromin’s ¶¶4 & 5).
As per claim 14, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated.
While Jumpertz, requires wherein the processor controls the vehicle component operation (Jumpertz, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶77 & 85-89, discloses the processor 302 is used to continuously monitor data received from the vehicle sensors for the presence of an impeding vehicle within the host vehicle’s path or possibly interfering with the host vehicle’s path. Jumpertz further discloses analysis of the data received from the vehicle sensors is performed in accordance with rules stored in memory 304, wherein the rules serve to recognize impeding vehicles by their interference with the host vehicle's path, which may in particular be the host vehicle having to travel slower than desired. Jumpertz also discloses when an impeding vehicle is detected, in an automated vehicle operating in a (semi) autonomous mode the processor 302 influences a longitudinal lateral motion of the vehicle directly through a vehicle control interface 314. Jumpertz further discloses that modifying the vehicle path in process includes accessing vehicle functions required, e.g. speed/acceleration, steering, braking, indication of change of direction, etc. via a vehicle control interface), it does not explicitly discloses by activating a vehicle camera.
Jeromin, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶3, 4 & 25 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle's surroundings object detection systems, teaches by activating a vehicle camera (Jeromin, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 3 and ¶¶3, 4, 18, 25 & 31, teaches the vehicle 200 begins tracking the movements of one or more objects using a first camera, and transitions to tracking the movements of the one or more objects using a second camera, as appropriate (e.g., transitioning from using camera 230 to using camera 224b to track the movement of object 208 as it moves from field of view 232 to field of view 228 towards interaction space 204d). Jeromin further teaches receiving image data from the first camera, the image data indicative of motion of a first object during a first time period, the first object located outside of the first space; determining whether the motion of the first object during the first time period indicates that the first object will interfere with operation of the first element during a second time period, after the first time period; and in accordance with a determination that the motion of the first object indicates that the first object will interfere with the operation of the first element during the second time period, performing an action that avoids the interference).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jumpertz in view of Jeromin with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle's surroundings object detection systems and the combination would provide an effort to alert the person of the potential collision (see at least Jeromin’s ¶¶4 & 5).
As per claim 17, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 10. The cited portions of Jumpertz & Jeromin used in the rejection of claim 10 disclose the same steps to perform the method of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 10 as outlined above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Jumpertz (US-2019/0043364-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2019/0220248-A1 by Cordourier Maruri et al. (hereinafter “Cordourier”)
As per claim 5, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. While Jumpertz discloses the vehicle system 325 communicates via the communication interface 310 directly to a mobile phone, a mobile wallet or "app", a payment card or any such device (See Jumpertz’s ¶94), Jumpertz does not discloses wherein the system is part of at least one of a mobile device or a smart watch. However, Cordourier, in at least Fig(s). 3, 6 & 7 and ¶¶20, 23, 27, 37, 60 & 63 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle's surroundings object detection systems, teaches wherein the system is part of at least one of a mobile device or a smart watch (Cordourier, in at least Fig(s). 3 [reproduced here for convenience], 6 & 7 and ¶¶20, 23, 27, 37, 60 & 63, teaches the sensor array interface 106 is used to provide input or output signaling to the audio processing platform 102 from one or more sensors of a sensor array (e.g., microphones 116; forward, side, or rearward facing cameras; radar; LiDAR; ultrasonic distance measurement sensors; or other sensors) installed on the vehicle 104, wherein speakers 114 that are incorporated into the vehicle 104 are used to emit audio signals, which are reflected by surfaces of nearby objects 400, 402, and 404. The reflected audio signals are sensed by microphones 116 that are also incorporated into the vehicle. Using principles of echolocation, the vehicle 104 is able to detect objects 400, 402, and 404 around it. Cordourier further teaches when a significant (e.g., non-inconsequential) audio signal is detected, then at 206, the location or direction of the sound event source corresponding to the audio signal is determined using a sound localization process. Cordourier also teaches the audio processing platform 102 communicates with a vehicle control platform 118, which is a component of a larger architecture that controls various aspects of the vehicle’s operation. Cordourier further teaches the circuits, circuitry, or modules, collectively or individually, is/are embodied as circuitry that forms part of a larger system, for example, an integrated circuit (IC), system on-chip (SoC), desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, servers, smart phones, etc., wherein a machine in the example form of a computer system 800, within which a set or sequence of instructions may be executed to cause the machine to perform any one of the methodologies discussed herein. And, the machine is a vehicle subsystem, a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a hybrid tablet, a personal digital assistant(PDA), a mobile telephone, or any machine capable of executing instructions ( sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine).
PNG
media_image2.png
596
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cordourier’s Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jumpertz in view of Cordourier with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle's surroundings object detection systems and the combination would determine whether a sound event is a potentially dangerous event using augment motion detection systems and alert the operator of pedestrians, animals, vehicles, or other objects that the vehicle may collide with (see at least Cordourier’s ¶30).
Claims 12 & 19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Jumpertz (US-2019/0043364-A1) in view of Touge (US-2007/0024431-A1) and further in view of PG Pub. No. US-2020/0070775-A1 to Linden et al. (hereinafter “Linden”)
As per claim 12, Jumpertz discloses the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Jumpertz is silent on claim 12 limitations. However, Touge, in at least Fig. 7, Abstract & ¶¶8, 9, 39, 40, 50-52, 65 & 82 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle's surroundings object detection systems, teaches wherein the processor controls the vehicle component operation by identifying a vehicle door that faces the object based on the estimation of at least one of the object position or the object direction, (Touge, in at least Fig. 7, Abstract & ¶¶8, 9, 39, 40, 50-52, 65 & 82, discloses a control means 160 that controls a backdoor actuator 161 to stop opening actuation of an opening and closing body when the obstacle 105 specified by the calculating means 151 is positioned within range R1 which is predetermined outside relative to a surface of the rear door 111. Touge further discloses the control means stops opening operation of the opening and closing body when the position of the object specified by the calculating means is within a predetermined region predetermined at an outside relative to a surface of the opening and closing body (vehicle door). Thus, even when an object exists surrounding the opening and closing body at outside thereof, the opening and closing body can be prevented to collide with the object).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jumpertz in view of Touge with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle's surroundings object detection systems and the combination would improve an obstacle detecting performance in the vicinity of the vehicle (see at least Touge’s ¶7).
Jumpertz and Touge do not explicitly discloses enabling a double activation mode of the vehicle door. However, Linden, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶43 & 66 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle door controlling systems, teaches enabling a double activation mode of the vehicle door (Linden, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶43 & 66, teaches the vehicle door activation device 200 performs a vehicle door locking process, wherein it double locks all of the vehicle doors 150).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jumpertz & Touge further in view of Linden with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle door controlling systems and the combination would provide authentication process during emergency mode (see at least Linden’s ¶¶71).
As per claim 19, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 12. The cited portions of Jumpertz, Touge & Linden used in the rejection of claim 12 disclose the same steps to perform the method of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 12 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached & previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661