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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claim. The previous grounds of rejection has been withdrawn.
Independent claims 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have not been amended in the response filed 4/28/2026 and no arguments have been provided relative to the claims. Accordingly, the previous grounds of rejection are maintained with respect to claims 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
New claim 17 will be addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 9-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehner et al.
(hereafter Kuehner)( PgPub 2023/0339431) and in view of Kiyokazu (JP 2006274677 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kuehner discloses a vehicle control method that is executed by a computer (Figure 1), the vehicle control method comprising: detecting a person around a vehicle (Figure 1, Element 120 and Paragraph 0023 where the vehicle control system detects a user within a specified distance or communication range to the vehicle); starting a camera mounted on the vehicle when a person around the vehicle is detected (Figure 1, Elements 121, 124 and Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0027 and 0034 where the vehicle includes camera 124 for capturing facial images of the approaching user); authenticating the detected person as a user of the vehicle by using an image captured by the camera and deciding authentication completion under a condition that the authentication is established an authentication criterion number of times or more (Figure 1, Element 121 and Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0027 and 0034 where the user is authenticated when captured facial images/features match stored facial images/features); and bringing an openable and closeable object operation unit into operation when the authentication completion is decided, the openable and closeable object operation unit performing at least one of releasing a lock of an openable and closeable object and executing an opening operation of opening the openable and closeable object, the openable and closeable object being included in the vehicle (Figure 1, Elements 111, 120, 123 and
Paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0022, 0031, 0032, 0033 and 0035 where vehicle door(s) are unlocked based on
authenticating the approaching user). Kuehner discloses facial recognition of the user but does not
specifically disclose wherein the computer is configured to determine that a motion of the person is a
motion of getting in the vehicle when the image captured by the camera includes an image of a face of
the person facing front, and to change a setting of face authentication based on a result of the
determining. In the same field of endeavor, Kiyokazu discloses a vehicle door control system where
user intent is determined by detecting that a face of the user is facing front as the user approaches a
vehicle door (Page 9, Paragraph (6)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the user intent determination based on a face of the user facing front
of Kiyokazu to the vehicle system of Kuehner, thereby authenticating a face of the user by further
determining that the user is facing front as the user approaches the vehicle, motivation being to
determine user intent while preventing false door openings, conserving system resources and increasing
vehicle safety.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection for claim 9 which discloses all of the claimed limitations.
Apparatus claim 11 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 9. Therefore apparatus claim 11 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above. It is noted that "control an execution mode of face authentication based on a result of the determination" is read on by "changing a setting of face authentication based on a result of the determining" where a face of the user facing front is authenticated and vehicle doors are opened/unlocked.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection for claim 9 which discloses all of the claimed limitations. It is
noted that "control an execution mode of face authentication based on a result of the determining" is
read on by "changing a setting of face authentication based on a result of the determining" where a face
of the user facing front is authenticated and vehicle doors are opened/unlocked.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection for claim 9 which discloses all of the claimed limitations. It is
noted that "control an execution mode of face authentication based on a result of the determination" is
read on by "changing a setting of face authentication based on a result of the determining" where a
face of the user facing front is authenticated and vehicle doors are opened/unlocked.
Regarding claim 17, Kuehner discloses a vehicle control apparatus (Figure 1) comprising a processor configured to: detect a person around a vehicle (Figure 1, Element 120 and Paragraph 0023 where the vehicle control system detects a user within a specified distance or communication range to the vehicle); start a camera mounted on the vehicle when the person is detected around the vehicle (Figure 1, Elements 121, 124 and Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0027 and 0034 where the vehicle includes camera 124 for capturing facial images of the approaching user); authenticate the person detected as a user of the vehicle by using an image captured by the camera and decide authentication completion under a condition that authentication is established an authentication criterion number of times or more (Figure 1, Element 121 and Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0027 and 0034 where the user is authenticated when captured facial images/features match stored facial images/features); and bring an openable and closeable object operation unit into operation when the processor decides authentication completion, the openable and closeable object operation unit at least releasing a lock of an openable and closeable object or executing an opening operation of opening the openable and closeable object, the openable and closeable object being included in the vehicle (Figure 1, Elements 111, 120, 123 and Paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0022, 0031, 0032, 0033 and 0035 where vehicle door(s) are unlocked based on authenticating the approaching user), and the processor is configured to specify a detection range in which the person is detected, and to start, among a plurality of cameras mounted on the vehicle, a camera corresponding to the specified detection range (Figure 1, Elements 121, 124, 125 and Paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0027 and 0034 where the vehicle includes a plurality of cameras. Camera 124, for capturing facial images of the approaching user, is activated when the user is in a detection range of the camera). Kuehner discloses facial recognition of the user but does not
specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine that a motion of the person is a
motion of getting in the vehicle when the image captured by the camera includes an image of a face of
the person facing front, and to change a setting of face authentication based on a result of the
determination. In the same field of endeavor, Kiyokazu discloses a vehicle door control system where
user intent is determined by detecting that a face of the user is facing front as the user approaches a
vehicle door (Page 9, Paragraph (6)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the user intent determination based on a face of the user facing front
of Kiyokazu to the vehicle system of Kuehner, thereby authenticating a face of the user by further
determining that the user is facing front as the user approaches the vehicle, motivation being to
determine user intent while preventing false door openings, conserving system resources and increasing
vehicle safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 14-16 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a vehicle control apparatus comprising a processor configured to: detect a person around a vehicle; start a camera mounted on the vehicle when the person is detected around the vehicle; authenticate the person detected as a user of the vehicle by using an image captured by the camera and decide authentication completion under a condition that authentication is established an authentication criterion number of times or more; and bring an openable and closeable object operation unit into operation when the processor decides authentication completion, the openable and closeable object operation unit at least releasing a lock of an openable and closeable object or executing an opening operation of opening the openable and closeable object, the openable and closeable object being included in the vehicle, wherein the processor is configured: to determine whether a motion of the person detected corresponds to a specific pattern or not, to determine that the motion of the person detected does not correspond to the specific pattern when a first image obtained by capturing the person detected after the camera is started includes an image of a face of the person facing front, and to change a setting of face authentication by setting the authentication criterion number of times to a first number of times when the motion of the person detected corresponds to the specific pattern, by setting the authentication criterion number of times to a second number of times which is smaller than the first number of times when the motion of the person detected does not correspond to the specific pattern.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 14-16 are allowed with their base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights