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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5-27-26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 5-27-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being vague and indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention for the reasons stated below.
Claim 1 recites “objection detection”. The Examiner interprets the claim to be that of “object detection”.
Claims 3-4 and 6-12 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 1 under 112(b).
Claim Objections
5. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, and in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation).
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches of an electronic device mountable on a vehicle (See Pages 2-4 single chip machine), comprising:
a port (See Pages 2-4, single chip machine outputs through the I/O port);
a communication circuit (See Pages 2-4, wireless communication module);
memory storing instructions and a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor (See Pages 2-4, execution module for executing), cause the electronic device to:
detect states of doors (See Pages 2-4, detecting the states of the doors to be closed or open);
in response to detecting the states corresponding to a closed state, receive sensor data of a plurality of sensors disposed inside of the vehicle, through the port (See Pages 2-4 which discloses of receiving multiple sensor data such as carbon dioxide, temperature, and passive infrared sensors inside the vehicle fed through the port of the single chip when the states of the doors are closed);
detecting a living organism by performing an object detection (See Pages 2-4 detecting via sensors when a person has been detected, the external object being construed to be that of a person);
using the sensor data to detect a person, transmit a signal to provide an alarm associated with the person to an external electronic device through the communication circuit (See Pages 2-4, which discloses sending via the communication module information to the owner of the mobile phone when a person has been detected).
Du is silent with respect to where the states of the doors is detected based on identifying an interruption of power which was received from a battery of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LV teaches of where the states of the doors is detected based on identifying an interruption of power which was received from a battery of the vehicle (See Pages 1-6 which discloses detecting the door lock switch state based on the vehicle power supply state/on/off/etc. and wherein the power supply device comprises the vehicle battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du to have incorporated the teachings of LV for the mere benefit of limiting false triggers.
Du in view of LV is silent with respect to wherein the detecting of a person/living organism includes detecting motion of the external object/person based on the detecting a living organism/person and providing the alarm based on the motion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Scarborough teaches of wherein the detecting of a person/living organism includes detecting motion of the external object/person based on the detecting a living organism and providing the alarm based on the motion (See [0008]-[0022] which discloses of detecting a person/mammal and motion and sending an alarm based on the motion and detecting of the person/mammal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du and LV to have incorporated the teachings of Scarborough for the mere benefit of providing more accuracy as to detection of a person.
The combination of Du, LV, and Scarborough is silent with respect to based on failure to detect the living organism by performing the object detection, determine whether a current time is within a preset period for detecting the motion; and based on the determination that the current time is within the preset period, maintain monitoring of the sensor data without transmitting the signal/alarm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xia teaches of based on failure to detect the living organism by performing the object detection, determine whether a current time is within a preset period for detecting the motion; and based on the determination that the current time is within the preset period, maintain monitoring of the sensor data without transmitting the signal/alarm (See Pages 5-8 preset time periods for detecting the motion and maintaining the monitoring without transmitting the alarm when there is no motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, and Scarborough to have incorporated the teachings of Xia for the mere benefit ensuring more accuracy of the sensor to detect the motion.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: in response to detecting the motion by using the sensor data, blow a horn of the vehicle or activate a light emitting component of the vehicle (See Scarborough, [0051] horn or flashing lights).
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
8. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation), and in further view of Hill, US 10,102,729.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a camera (See Scarborough, [0047]-[0049] camera), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to receive the sensor data through the port that is connectable with a camera (See [0047]-[0049] and [0061]-[0062] camera is connectable to the port where other sensor data is also received; Du, Pages 2-4).
The combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia is silent with respect to a camera disposed toward a front direction of the vehicle and a camera disposed toward a rear direction of the vehicle.
However, in the same field endeavor, Hill teaches of a camera disposed toward a front direction of the vehicle and a camera disposed toward a rear direction of the vehicle (See Fig.4 and col.7 lines 56 to col. 8 line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia to have incorporated the teachings of Hill for the mere benefit of having multiple cameras capturing different views of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
9. Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation), and in further view of Gintz et al., US 2020/0219335.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: obtain the sensor data of each of the plurality of sensors from an integrated electronic signal, that is received through a device connected to the port, (See Du, Pages 2-4; Scarborough, [0047]-[0049] and [0061]-[0062]).
The combination is silent with respect to the device being a multiplexing device where electronic signals of the plurality of signals are multiplexed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gintz teaches of the device being a multiplexing device where electronic signals of the plurality of signals are multiplexed (See [0002]-[0004], [0072], [0242]-[0244], [0272], and [0297]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia to have incorporated the teachings of Gintz for the mere benefit of being able to communicate multiple signals onto one signal/line.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
10. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation), and in further view of Sison et al., US 2021/0107355.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: receive the sensor data including video within the vehicle from the plurality of sensors (See Scarborough, [0009] and [0047]-[0049] video camera and plural sensors) which are cameras; and by using a neural network to which the video is inputted, perform object detection with respect to the video.
The combination is silent with respect to the plurality of sensors which are cameras and wherein using a neural network to which the video is inputted, perform object detection with respect to the video.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sison teaches the plurality of sensors which are cameras and wherein using a neural network to which the video is inputted, perform object detection with respect to the video (See [0054] which discloses of multiple cameras that can be inside the vehicle and using machine learning to recognize objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia to have incorporated the teachings of Sison for the mere benefit of being able to recognition objects/persons within the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
11. Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation), and in further view of Xiao et al., US 20120162423.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: establish a communication link between the external electronic device and the electronic device by using the communication circuit after transmitting the signal to provide the alarm; and provide data, to the external electronic device through the communication link (See analysis of claim 1).
The combination is silent with respect to receiving another signal including a request associated with a streaming of the video from the external electronic device and where the data received provided from the sensors is video.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiao teaches of in response to receiving another signal including a request associated with a streaming of the video from the external electronic device and where the data received provided from the sensors is video (See [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia to have incorporated the teachings of Xiao for the mere benefit of allowing the owner to view the real-time video to gauge the danger.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches electronic device of claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: transmit the signal to the external electronic device through the communication circuit, to provide the alarm to establish the communication link and a text message associated with the alarm (See Du, Pages 2-4; Scarborough, [0052] and [0064]).
The combination is silent with respect to including a hyperlink. OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken to note that providing hyperlinks to establish links to content is notoriously well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, Xia, and Xiao to have incorporated the well known teachings of hyperlinks for the mere benefit of allowing internet communication and allowing the user the option to view the content which is stored at an internet address.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation), and in further view of YU et al., EP 3742195.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: by using the sensor data received from the plurality of sensors, detect the living organism being moved in the vehicle (See analysis of claim 1).
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the sensors are radars.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches of wherein the sensors are radars (See [0014]-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia to have incorporated the teachings of Yu for the mere benefit of detecting objects with more accuracy.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., CN 216527514, in view of LV et al., CN 210554649 (English translation), in view of Scarborough et al., US 2016/0049061, in further view of Xia, et al., CN 114750687 (translation), and in further view of Yu et al., CN 110660191 (Translation).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a carbon-dioxide sensor configured to parametrize a numeric value associated with carbon-dioxide included in air within the vehicle along with detecting motion within the vehicle, (See analysis of claim 1; Du, Pages 2-4, Carbon dioxide sensor within the vehicle and concentration level and comparing it to the standard value) wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: in response to detecting the states corresponding to the closed state, detect a living organism (See Du, Pages 2-4, the door statuses are determined to be closed, wherein after, a person/living organism is detected in which the carbon dioxide concentration level is measured which is made/synthesized by the living organism and when above the threshold standard value, an alert is sent).
The combination is silent with respect to the detecting of the living organism synthesizing the carbon-dioxide within the vehicle by using the numeric value parametrized by the carbon-dioxide sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches of detecting of the living organism synthesizing the carbon-dioxide within the vehicle by using the numeric value parametrized by the carbon-dioxide sensor (See Abstract; Pages 1-3 detecting animal/living organism based on the concentration threshold value within the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Du, LV, Scarborough, and Xia to have incorporated the teachings of Yu for the mere benefit of allowing for different means for detecting a living organism.
Contact
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights