DETAID 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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C §§102 and 103”, Clemmons teaches the limitation “identifying, based on positioning data and a vehicle status, a single trigger event” in claims 1 and 9 because the monitoring platform 200 identifies a child or pet has been left unattended inside of the vehicle based on the location of the portable alert device carried by the user is located afar from the vehicle at step 705 and based on the status of the vehicle is in an off state at step 703. See Fig. 3. The single trigger event is the identification of the child or pet is left unattended in the vehicle. The applicant argues at page 8, second paragraph, Clemmons requires multiple outputs (e.g., distance output from the portable alert device and the vehicle output from the vehicle engine) to make the determination would fail to teach the cited limitation is not consistent with the cited limitation “based on positioning data and a vehicle status”. It is very clear that the claim limitation requires both “positioning data” and “vehicle status” to determine a trigger event. To use only one output to determine the trigger event would not be able to fully address the limitation. Therefore, Clemmons’s system and method of using multiple outputs from different sources is consistent and anticipates the cited limitation.
Also, the cited limitation “a single trigger event” with emphasis underlined appears to include new matters not found in the disclosure. Please review.
Clemmons further teaches the claim limitation “issuing, via a user alert application of an alert system of the vehicle, a vibration request to the user device in response to the single trigger event; receiving, at the user alert application of the vehicle, from the user device, a vibration protocol; determining, via the user alert application, an alert level based on the single trigger event and the vibration protocol;” in claims 1 and 9 because the application of the portable alert device (e.g., mobile phone 500) is being interpreted as “a user alert application of an alert system of the vehicle” instead of the application installed in the vehicle as argued in pages 8 – 9. The reason for such interpretation is because the application of the portable alert device is configured to communicate with the vehicle to receive a command at step 707 and to act as an extension of the vehicle to output the alert to the user of the vehicle. In other words, the application of the portable alert device operates in accordance with the command of the vehicle and should be considered as “a user alert application of an alert system of the vehicle”.
Applicant argues Clemmons fails to disclose a two-way communication between the monitoring platform and the portable alert device but Fig. 1 of Clemmons clearly shows the arrows of communication is bidirectional and paragraph [0028] of Clemmons further discloses:
“For example, the first mode may be a “child mode” and may be switched on when, e.g., the driver prefers to detect the presence of a child within the vehicle. The first alarm associated with the first mode may be a unique alarm that indicates that the child has been left unattended in the vehicle. For example, the first alarm may be programmed to include the sound of a crying baby and/or a pre-recorded message, e.g., “You forgot about me!” The second mode may be a “pet mode” and may be switched on when, e.g., the driver prefers to detect the presence of a pet within the vehicle. The second alarm associated with the second mode may be a unique alarm that indicates that the pet has been left unattended in the vehicle. For example, the second alarm may be programmed to include a dog barking and/or a pre-recorded message, e.g., “You forgot about me!” Additionally or alternatively, the alarms may include flashing lights, vibrations, or spoken words or sounds. Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600). As described further below, mobile device 500 may have a mobile device application, which may be used to modify the alarms or to create custom alarms.”.
The underlined passage clearly teaches the alarms emitted by the alert device 201 is located at the vehicle or the portable alert device 500 can be programmed by the application of the portable alert device. Therefore, based on the disclosure of Fig. 1 and the cited paragraph, the monitoring platform of the vehicle and the portable alert device are in two-way communication.
The newly introduce limitation in claim 17 is being interpreted in a similar
manner as claims 1 and 9 above.
Thus, the rejection is sustained based on the reasons provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, recite the limitation “identifying, based on positioning data and a vehicle status, a single trigger event” with emphasis underlined. The limitation “a single trigger event” does not appear to be supported by the disclosure because the limitation was not found in the disclosure. Please consider to provide support or amend accordingly.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 10-16, are also rejected because they depend on claims 1 and 9 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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, 4-9, 12-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clemmons (Pub. No.: US 2021/0366263 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Clemmons teaches a computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Abstract, system and method for determining and alerting a user about an unattended child in the vehicle) comprising:
determining, via location data, a location of a user device relative to a vehicle (Fig. 3 step 705, para [0047], “Optionally, at step 705, monitoring platform 210 receives, from a third sensor disposed within a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500 or key fob 600), a third output indicating that the portable alert device is disposed outside of a predetermined zone surrounding monitoring platform 210.” Determine if the portable alert device is located at a predetermined distance from the vehicle.);
identifying, based on positioning data and a vehicle status, a single trigger event (Fig. 3, step 706, the vehicle identifies the location of the portable alert device at step 705 and the status of the child and the state of the vehicle at steps 701 and 702);
issuing, via a user alert application of an alert system of the vehicle, a vibration request to the user device in response to the single trigger event (Fig. 3, step 707, para [0034], “Mobile device 500 may be an iPhone™ or Android™ device having a user interface, and further may include a mobile device application. The mobile device application may be used to modify the alarms for the first and second mode and, additionally, may be used to create custom alarms” and para [0051], “alternatively, the emitted alarm may include flashing lights, vibrations, or spoken words or sounds.”. The application of the portable alert device issues a vibration alarm via the portable alert device (e.g., mobile phone 500) in response the child has been left unattended inside of the vehicle. The application of the portable alert device is considered as “a user alert application of the alert system of the vehicle” because the application of the portable alert device is configured to communicate with the vehicle to receive a trigger event and to act as an extension of the vehicle to output the alert to the user of the vehicle. In other words, the application of the portable alert device is at least part of the alert system of the vehicle);
receiving, at the user alert application of the vehicle, from the user device, a vibration protocol (para [0013], “The portable device alarm may be a third alarm when the alarm switch is in the first mode and may be a fourth alarm when the alarm switch is in the second mode. The portable alert device may be a mobile device having a mobile device application that is configured to modify the alarms corresponding to the first mode and the second mode. Alternatively, the portable device may be a key fob that may vibrate and/or emit an alarm when the key fob is located outside the predetermined zone surrounding the monitoring platform.” and para [0028], “Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600). As described further below, mobile device 500 may have a mobile device application, which may be used to modify the alarms or to create custom alarms.”. The application of the portable alert device receives the first mode or the second mode vibration protocol according to the user’s input via an interface of the portable alert device.);
determining, via the user alert application, an alert level based on the single trigger event and the vibration protocol (para [0013] and para [0028], “Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600). As described further below, mobile device 500 may have a mobile device application, which may be used to modify the alarms or to create custom alarms.”. The application of the portable alert device determines the frequency and the intensity of the vibration signal according to the custom alarms designed by the user.); and
executing, based on the alert level, an alert on the user device (para [0013], [0028], the portable alert device outputs the vibration according to the custom alarm associated with first mode or second mode).
Regarding claim 4, Clemmons teaches the method of Claim 1, further including executing a calibration protocol and determining, based on the calibration protocol, the distance between a vehicle and the user device (para [0035], “The portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500 or key fob 600) is operatively coupled to monitoring platform 200 and has at least one sensor that may be used to detect whether the portable alert device is moved a predetermined distance from monitoring platform 210. For example, the portable alert device may include a sensor that, upon detection that the portable alert device has been moved outside a predetermined zone from monitoring platform 210, generates an output, which may be transmitted to monitoring platform 210. The output may be communicated to monitoring platform 210 via network 150. For example, the sensor may generate the output when the portable alert device is farther than, e.g., 5, 10, or 20 feet away from monitoring platform 210. The mobile device application may be used to modify when the alarms are triggered. For example, the mobile device application may expand the predetermined zone surrounding monitoring platform 210, such that mobile device 500, held by the driver of the vehicle, is permitted to move farther away from vehicle 101 without triggering the portable alert device alarm.”. The portable alert device includes a sensor and instructions to determine the distance between the portable alert device and the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 5, Clemmons teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the location of the user device includes detecting a digital key and matching the detected digital key to a stored digital key profile (para [0013], “Alternatively, the portable device may be a key fob that may vibrate and/or emit an alarm when the key fob is located outside the predetermined zone surrounding the monitoring platform.”. The key fob stores the digital key to the unlock the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 6, Clemmons teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the location of the user device includes determining distance data and identifying a change in the distance data corresponding to the user device (para [0035], “The portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500 or key fob 600) is operatively coupled to monitoring platform 200 and has at least one sensor that may be used to detect whether the portable alert device is moved a predetermined distance from monitoring platform 210. For example, the portable alert device may include a sensor that, upon detection that the portable alert device has been moved outside a predetermined zone from monitoring platform 210, generates an output, which may be transmitted to monitoring platform 210. The output may be communicated to monitoring platform 210 via network 150. For example, the sensor may generate the output when the portable alert device is farther than, e.g., 5, 10, or 20 feet away from monitoring platform 210. The mobile device application may be used to modify when the alarms are triggered. For example, the mobile device application may expand the predetermined zone surrounding monitoring platform 210, such that mobile device 500, held by the driver of the vehicle, is permitted to move farther away from vehicle 101 without triggering the portable alert device alarm.”. The portable alert device includes a sensor and instructions to determine the distance between the portable alert device and the vehicle and determines whether the portable alert device has changed from the inside of the predetermined zone to the outside of the predetermined zone based on the measured distance).
Regarding claim 7, Clemmons teaches the method of Claim 6, further including determining a range corresponding to the distance data of the user device (para [0035], portable alert device has an application to allow the user to define the range of the predetermined zone to 5, 10, 20 or more feet).
Regarding claim 8, Clemmons teaches the method of Claim 7, wherein determining the alert level includes comparing the change in the distance data with the determined range (para [0035], the portable alert device generates an alarm if the distance between the vehicle and the portable alert device has changed to a distance that is farther than the distance of the predetermined zone.).
Regarding claim 9, recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, recites a system that performs the method of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, recites a system that performs the method of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, recites a system that performs the method of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, recites a system that performs the method of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, recites a system that performs the method of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, Clemmons teaches an alert system for a vehicle (Abstract, system and method for determining and alerting a user about an unattended child in the vehicle), the alert system comprising:
data processing hardware (Fig. 2, processor 211); and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (Fig. 2, memory 220) comprising:
receiving, from a user device, location data;
determining, based on the location data, a position of the user device relative to the vehicle (Fig. 3 step 705, para [0047], “Optionally, at step 705, monitoring platform 210 receives, from a third sensor disposed within a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500 or key fob 600), a third output indicating that the portable alert device is disposed outside of a predetermined zone surrounding monitoring platform 210.”. Determine if the portable alert device is located at a predetermined distance away from the vehicle.);
configuring an electronic control unit (ECU) with a range (Fig. 2, portable alert device detection module 225 of the monitoring platform 210 and para [0044], “Portable alert device detection module 225 may be executed by processor 21 for receiving and processing data from a sensor disposed within a portable alert device, e.g., mobile device 500 or key fob 600. As described above, the sensor detects whether the portable alert device is located outside a predetermined zone surrounding monitoring platform 210. The sensor is configured to generate an output, which is received by portable alert device detection module 225, when the predetermined thresholds are met, indicating that the driver of vehicle 101 has moved away from vehicle 101.”);
comparing the position of the user device with the configured range and issuing an alert in response to the comparison of the position of the user device with the configured range (Fig. 3, steps 705-706, compare the distance of the portable alert device with the predetermined zone to generate an alert.):
issuing, based on the position of the user device and the range, a vibration request (Fig. 3 step 707);
executing, based on the issued vibration request, a user alert application of the ECU (Fig. 3, step 707, para [0028], “Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600).”, para [0034], “Mobile device 500 may be an iPhone™ or Android™ device having a user interface, and further may include a mobile device application. The mobile device application may be used to modify the alarms for the first and second mode and, additionally, may be used to create custom alarms” and para [0051], “alternatively, the emitted alarm may include flashing lights, vibrations, or spoken words or sounds.”. The application of the portable alert device executes the command 707 from the monitoring platform 210 to output a vibration alarm via the portable alert device (e.g., mobile phone 500) in response the child has been left unattended inside of the vehicle. The application of the portable alert device is considered as “a user alert application of the ECU” because the application of the portable alert device is configured to communicate with the vehicle to receive a trigger event and to act as an extension of the vehicle to output the alert to the user of the vehicle. In other words, the application of the portable alert device is at least part of the alert system of the vehicle/ECU.);
receiving, at the ECU, a vibration protocol (para [0028], “For example, the second alarm may be programmed to include a dog barking and/or a pre-recorded message, e.g., “You forgot about me!” Additionally or alternatively, the alarms may include flashing lights, vibrations, or spoken words or sounds. Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600). As described further below, mobile device 500 may have a mobile device application, which may be used to modify the alarms or to create custom alarms.” and para [0040], “Alarm switch detection module 221 may be executed by processor 211 for receiving and processing data from alarm switch 202 disposed on monitoring platform 210. For example, when the driver of vehicle 101 switches alarm switch 202 to the first mode (e.g., “child mode”), the driver indicates that they prefer to detect the presence of a child within vehicle 101. This information is then communicated to monitoring platform 210 so that the first alarm, rather than the second alarm, is emitted when the alarm is triggered.”. The cited paragraphs disclose the monitoring platform 200, 210 receives vibration protocol from two different sources. The first source is from the position of the switch 202 and the second source is from the portable alert device. The cited paragraph [0028] discloses the alarms emitted from the alert device 201 and the portable alert device 500 may be modified or created by the portable alert device.);
determining, via the user alert application of the ECU, an alert level based on the vibration protocol (para [0013] and para [0028], “Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600). As described further below, mobile device 500 may have a mobile device application, which may be used to modify the alarms or to create custom alarms.”. The application of the portable alert device determines the frequency and the intensity of the vibration signal according to the custom alarms designed by the user.); and
executing, based on the alert level, an alert on the user device (para [0013], [0028], the portable alert device outputs the vibration according to the custom alarm associated with first mode or second mode).
Regarding claim 18, Clemmons teaches the alert system of Claim 17, further including identifying, via the user alert application, a trigger event and issuing an alert, via the user alert application, in response to the trigger event (Fig. 3, step 707, the portable alert device identifies the command from the vehicle to generate an alarm in response to the command).
Regarding claim 20, Clemmons teaches a vehicle incorporating the alert system of Claim 17 (Fig. 1, vehicle 101).
Regarding claim 21, Clemmons teaches the alert system of Claim 17, further including determining, via the user alert application of the ECU, which vibration of the vibration protocol to execute based on the alert level (para [0028], “For example, the first alarm may be programmed to include the sound of a crying baby and/or a pre-recorded message, e.g., “You forgot about me!” The second mode may be a “pet mode” and may be switched on when, e.g., the driver prefers to detect the presence of a pet within the vehicle. The second alarm associated with the second mode may be a unique alarm that indicates that the pet has been left unattended in the vehicle. For example, the second alarm may be programmed to include a dog barking and/or a pre-recorded message, e.g., “You forgot about me!” Additionally or alternatively, the alarms may include flashing lights, vibrations, or spoken words or sounds. Such alarms may be emitted from alert device 201 or a portable alert device (e.g., mobile device 500, or key fob 600). As described further below, mobile device 500 may have a mobile device application, which may be used to modify the alarms or to create custom alarms.”. The portable alert device outputs a vibration based on the first mode or second mode in response to the command 707 from the monitoring platform.).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemmons (Pub. No.: US 2021/0366263 A1) in view of Arun (Pub. No.: US 2009/0143057 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Clemmons teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the user is allowed to modify or to create custom alarms but fails to expressly teach wherein the alert level includes a low level, an intermediate level, and a high level, and the vibration protocol includes a single vibration, a multi-vibration, and an extended vibration.
However, in the same field of vibration setting, Arun teaches the user could customize the intensity and the pulsating sequence of the vibration. Para [0030], “According to one embodiment, alert activator 201 in conjunction with the controller 211, designates and controls the appropriate distinctive features (e.g., aural, visual, and vibratory indicia) on mobile device 200 for a given set of circumstances, as dictated by a received control signal that may specify certain parameters governing alerts. These parameters may include sound settings (e.g., ringtone style, volume, duration, etc.), visual settings (e.g., color, intensity, lighting sequence, etc.), and vibratory settings (e.g., intensity, pulsating sequence, etc.), as well as any other suitable parameter governing the operation of mobile station 200. Hence, alert activator 201 utilizes the above parameters (stored in memory 213) to control the distinctive alert settings of mobile device 200.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clemmons’s custom alarms to include includes a low level, an intermediate level, and a high level, and the vibration protocol includes a single vibration, a multi-vibration, and an extended vibration to provide distinctive alarms.
Regarding claim 3, Arun in the combination teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the single vibration corresponds to the low level, the multi-vibration corresponds to the intermediate level, and the extended vibration corresponds to the high level (para [0030], the vibration setting allows the user to set the vibration intensity and the pulsating sequence. It would have been obvious to set the vibration intensity to low level with a single pulse or a vibration intensity to medium level with a few pulses or a vibration intensity to high level with a long pulsating sequence. Given the teachings and suggestions, the user has the option to set the vibration intensity and sequence to any combination).
Regarding claim 10, recites a system that performs the method of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, recites a system that performs the method of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights