Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 01/21/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 21-24 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended, claims 8 and 18-20 have been canceled, and claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 21-24 have been examined.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharwani (Pub. No.: 2024/0101059 A1) in view of Salter (Pub. No.: 2023/0177888 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Bharwani discloses the claimed system (fig. 1: 100), comprising a computer having a processor and a memory (fig. 1: 102), the memory storing instructions executable by the processor (¶0030) to:
detect an entity (fig. 9: 902) within a specified distance of a vehicle (fig. 8: 804 and 808);
output a first audio outside of the vehicle in response to detecting the entity (fig. 9: 910 and ¶0056);
classify the entity based on data about the entity reacting to the first audio, the data collected about the entity after outputting the first audio (¶0056 discloses real-time data, e.g., animal actions, are received, and the neural network determines a recommended vehicle deterrence feature); and
output a second audio based on classifying the entity (fig. 10: 1006 and ¶0056 discloses when animal classification data is received determines a recommended vehicle deterrence; ¶0049 discloses the deterrence may be a specific frequency in which the speaker should sound toward the animal).
Bharwani does not explicitly disclose assign a permission to the entity based on classifying the entity, the permission specifying actions with respect to vehicle that the entity is permitted to perform; and based on the permission.
However, Salter discloses it is known for a vehicle system to assign a permission to the entity based on classifying the entity, the permission specifying actions with respect to vehicle that the entity is permitted to perform; and execute and action based on the permission (¶0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Bharwani to assign a permission level to the detected entity, as taught by Salter.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify X as described above in order to determine if a detected entity is an authorized user.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, the instructions including further instructions to activate a vehicle feature based on classifying the entity (Bharwani ¶0056).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the detection of the entity within the specified distance of the vehicle is based on image data (Bharwani ¶0053).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the second audio is responsive to a verbal communication by the entity (Bharwani ¶0056).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter disclose the system of claim 1.
Bharwani and Salter do not explicitly disclose the second audio is selected from a stored plurality of phrases.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to store phrases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Bharwani to store a plurality of phrases.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Bharwani as described above in order to use an alternative technique to deter threats from the vehicle.
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, the instructions including further instructions to identify the entity based on stored data collected from the entity prior to outputting the first audio (Bharwani ¶0055).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, the instructions including further instructions to classify the entity based on a plurality of images collected at different times (Bharwani ¶0055).
8) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the classification of the entity is at least one of threatening and nonthreatening (Bharwani ¶0067).
9) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani further discloses the system of claim 1.
Bharwani does not explicitly disclose the first audio is output in a first language and the second audio is output in a second language based on detecting the second language in an entity audio.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to communicate in a first language and a second language.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Bharwani to communicate in a plurality of different languages.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Bharwani as described above in order to allow the system to communicate different sounds for different situations.
10) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising detecting a first entity and a second entity within the specified distance of the vehicle, the first entity being prioritized based on a risk score (Bharwani ¶0067).
11) In regard to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 12), claim 13 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 12), claim 14 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 12), claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 4 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 12), claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 12), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to select the second audio from a list of phrases based on classifying the entity and based on the permission (Bharwani ¶0093).
18) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the permission is selected from a plurality of stored permissions, and the stored permissions include that the entity is permitted to operate the vehicle (Salter ¶0075).
19) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 22), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 22, wherein the stored permissions include that the entity is permitted to converse with the computer (Salter ¶0075).
20) In regard to claim 24 (dependent on claim 1), Bharwani and Salter further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to output the second audio include instructions to output the second audio based on a combination of classifying the entity as threatening or nonthreatening and the permission (Bharwani ¶0093).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims. Furthermore, the well-known in the art statements in the above Office action is taken to be admitted prior art due to applicant failure to traverse the examiner’s official notice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685