DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is drafted in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 11/12/2025. Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are pending. Claims 9-20 have been cancelled by the Applicant, and claims 1-8 and 21-32 are rejected as cited below.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “METHOD, VEHICLE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR DETERRING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY AROUND A VEHICLE BY USING A MINIMUM RISK MANEUVER.”
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (drawn to claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “ … the Restriction Requirement has not established that a serious search burden exists. Moreover, the Restriction Requirement merely recites claim language, and concludes, without any support, that restriction is proper because the subcombinations allegedly have separate utility. In particular, Applicant respectfully disagrees that the reference to autonomous driving systems for species A and B would provide an overwhelming search burden. In addition, the use of different rankings for selecting maneuvers for each of the species would not provide a significant search burden.” (Remarks, page 7). This is not found persuasive because the search strings required to properly examine the three distinct species would encompass different terms, search operators, and combinations thereof. As an example, claim 8 of claim set dated 03/15/2024 teaches randomly selecting minimum risk maneuvers, whereas claim 17 teaches selecting a first and second highest ranked. Neither of these limitations are found within Species A. Prior art found for claim 1 would not necessarily read on claims 8 and 17. This would increase the search load and widen the scope of the invention. Thus, the burden on search is established. Secondly, the restriction requirement cited language set forth in Applicant’s own specification which clearly differentiates the noted embodiments. Claims themselves are never species, but rather embodiments drawn to a specific set of claims as laid out by the applicant. Lastly, Examiner has not stated, on the record, that the claim sets are examples of “subcombinations.” The groups identified in the Restriction Requirement, dated 09/12/2025, are Species and not subcombinations, as alleged by Applicant. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Note Regarding 35 USC § 101
Examiner has reviewed the claims under the lens of 35 USC 101 and found that claim 1 contains at least one judicial exception (e.g. mental process of “determining whether the suspicious activity is still occurring …”). However, Examiner finds that the limitation of “performing the minimum risk maneuver” integrates the judicial exception in the practical application of minimizing the risk of potential damage to the vehicle while deterring or mitigating the suspicious activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 21, and 28 recite the limitation "the minimum risk maneuver" in lines 6-7 (claim 1), lines 9-10 (claim 21), and lines 8-9 (claim 28). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner will interpret “the minimum risk maneuver” as “the first minimum risk maneuver.”
Claims 2-8, 22-27, and 29-32 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 21, and 28, respectively, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8, and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2022/0203935 A1; hereafter Kim), in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 2023/0391368 A1; hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches:
A method comprising:
identifying suspicious activity occurring in proximity to a vehicle (At least ¶ [0160] “The vehicle 100 may identify whether there is the person with criminal intent in the vicinity of the vehicle 100 in response to the performance of the monitoring function of the surroundings of the vehicle 100 (309).”);
determining a first minimum risk maneuver for the vehicle to mitigate or deter the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0164] “The electronic device 170 may identify warning steps based on the reception of information on the possibility of occurrence of the security-related dangerous situation of the vehicle 100 transmitted from the vehicle 100 (313).”); and
determining whether the suspicious activity is still occurring (At least ¶ [0175] “The vehicle 100 may identify whether the person with criminal intent is not identified (319).”) and performing the minimum risk maneuver until the suspicious activity is no longer occurring (At least ¶ [0176] “If the person with criminal intent is not identified, the vehicle may end the operation of the embodiment of the present disclosure, otherwise operation 307 may be performed.” Operation 307 begins the monitoring cycle all over again. A person with criminal intent is identified, warning steps are identified, and the operations are performed until step 319 is yes, which ends the operation. This cycle is analogous to performing the minimum risk maneuver until the suspicious activity is no longer occurring.).
Kim does not teach performing the first minimum risk maneuver a plurality of times.
However, Park, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
performing the first minimum risk maneuver a plurality of times (At least ¶ [0066] “if the minimum risk condition is not met, the vehicle 100 may continue to perform the minimal risk maneuver … That is, when the minimal risk maneuver is initiated, the vehicle 100 continues to perform the minimal risk maneuver regardless of the control of the driver.” Continuing to perform a minimal risk maneuver is analogous to performing a first minimum risk maneuver a plurality of times.)
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 Kim with Park. This modification would have been obvious as both Kim and Park contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle control) and Kim ¶ [0008] notes that “…the vehicle automatically set the alert mode of the vehicle, identify the person approaching the vehicle with malicious intent thereafter, thereby storing a danger image, providing a danger alarm to the user of the vehicle and/or a warning to persons approaching the vehicle, a control method thereof...”. Introducing the repeated performance of the minimal risk maneuver, as taught by Park, may help Kim further warn a person(s) approaching the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that performing a minimum risk maneuver a plurality of times would help warn/deter a person approaching the vehicle to a greater extent than if the warning/alarm was only sounded once. This may lead to increased security of the vehicle and increased safety for those proximate to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 1, Kim further teaches:
wherein determining the first minimum risk maneuver comprises:
determining a plurality of minimum risk maneuvers associated with the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0165] “the warning steps may include a first step, a second step and/or a third step, and the like. For example, the first step may be a step capable of warning a voice automatically set, the second step may be a step capable of warning a voice received from the user, and the third step may be a step capable of warning a theft”); and
ranking each of the plurality of minimum risk maneuvers based on a type of the suspicious activity and a determined risk associated with the type of the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0085] “the first step may be predetermined to include a case in which the person touches at least a part of the vehicle 100. The second step may be predetermined to include in a case in which the person is trying to open the door of the vehicle 100 and/or throws a destructible object towards the vehicle 100. The third step may be predetermined to include in a case in which the person opens the door of the vehicle 100, the person enters the interior of the vehicle 100, and/or the person damages to the vehicle 100, and the like.” A “first”, “second”, and “third” step designation is a form of ranking based on the type of suspicious activity.).
Park further teaches:
selecting a highest ranked minimum risk maneuver (At least ¶ [0075] “The vehicle 100 may select a type of the minimal risk maneuver (S130). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may select the type of the minimal risk maneuver suitable for a current failure state based on the determination result of the failure state.” The MRM suitable for the current failure state is analogous to the highest ranked MRM as this MRM has the highest chance of solving the problem.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 2, Kim further teaches wherein the first minimum risk maneuver is selected based on a location of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0017] “The vehicle may further include a memory, wherein the controller is configured to identify whether the parked location of the vehicle is included in a hazardous area based on at least one of hazardous area information received through the communicator and hazardous area information stored in the memory, and in response to the identifying whether the parked location of the vehicle is included in the hazardous area, turn on or turn off the at least one second camera at the predetermined time interval.” Turning on or off a camera based on the vehicle location is analogous to selecting a MRM (e.g. turning on a camera) based on location.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein determining the first minimum risk maneuver comprises retrieving a plurality of past maneuvers performed and selecting the first minimum risk maneuver from the plurality of past maneuvers (At least ¶ [0054] “In the minimum risk maneuver state S2, the vehicle 100 may perform an operation for reducing the risk of the vehicle 100. According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may determine whether or not the minimal risk maneuver is required according to various methods, and generate a request for the minimal risk maneuver when the minimal risk maneuver is required. For example, the vehicle 100 may perform the minimal risk maneuver by performing at least one of steering, deceleration, acceleration, lane change, and emergency braking.” Steering, deceleration, acceleration, lane change, and emergency braking are all forms of past vehicular maneuvers. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the memory of the vehicle is able to store the different types of historical MRMs.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein the first minimum risk maneuver is performed using the vehicle's autonomous driving systems (At least ¶ [0138] “In the MRM performing step S920, the ADS can control the subject vehicle. Specifically, in the MRM performing step S920, the ADS can monitor the state of the ADS, determine the MRM type, control the subject vehicle …” ADS is an acronym for automated driving system. See ¶ [0003].).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 1, Kim further teaches further comprising tracking a location of the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0061] “The UWB wireless communication module 112 (also referred to as an UWB wireless communicator or an UWB wireless communication circuit) may receive a signal (also referred to as a UWB signal) reflected from an object. The UWB signal may be used by the controller 118 to identify whether the object (and/or the person) is in a direction of the reflected signal, and to identify whether the object (and/or the person) is moving.” Identifying whether an object is in a direction of a reflected UWB signal is analogous to tracking a location of a suspicious person/object.) and selecting the first minimum risk maneuver based on the location of the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0085] “the first step may be predetermined to include a case in which the person touches at least a part of the vehicle 100. The second step may be predetermined to include in a case in which the person is trying to open the door of the vehicle 100 and/or throws a destructible object towards the vehicle 100. The third step may be predetermined to include in a case in which the person opens the door of the vehicle 100, the person enters the interior of the vehicle 100, and/or the person damages to the vehicle 100, and the like.” The steps listed are indicative of the criminal’s proximity to the subject vehicle (i.e. location of the suspicious activity). Additionally, see at least ¶ [0079] which describes the different levels of proximity based security-related situations which are instrumental in selecting the warning operations at step 313 in FIG. 3, “In another exemplary embodiments, the probability of occurrence of the security-related dangerous situation may be determined by identifying a motion of the person with criminal intent through image analysis. For example, the possibility of occurrence of the security-related dangerous situation may include in response to the person with criminal intent being located in the vicinity of the vehicle 100 for more than a preset time, in response to the person with criminal intent being located within a preset distance from the vehicle 100, in response to the person touching at least a part of the vehicle 100, in response to the person trying to open a door of the vehicle 100, in response to the person throwing a destructible object towards the vehicle 100, in response to the person opening the door of the vehicle 100, in response to the person entering the interior of the vehicle 100, and/or in response to the person damaging to the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein determining the first minimum risk maneuver is based on one or more safety metrics associated with the vehicle and the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0164] “The electronic device 170 may identify warning steps based on the reception of information on the possibility of occurrence of the security-related dangerous situation of the vehicle 100 transmitted from the vehicle 100 (313).” and ¶ [0079] “In another exemplary embodiments, the probability of occurrence of the security-related dangerous situation may be determined by identifying a motion of the person with criminal intent through image analysis. For example, the possibility of occurrence of the security-related dangerous situation may include in response to the person with criminal intent being located in the vicinity of the vehicle 100 for more than a preset time, in response to the person with criminal intent being located within a preset distance from the vehicle 100, in response to the person touching at least a part of the vehicle 100, in response to the person trying to open a door of the vehicle 100, in response to the person throwing a destructible object towards the vehicle 100, in response to the person opening the door of the vehicle 100, in response to the person entering the interior of the vehicle 100, and/or in response to the person damaging to the vehicle.” The probability of occurrence of a dangerous situation is taken into account when selecting the appropriate warning step at 313 of FIG. 3. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a safety metric of a person being located within a preset distance of a vehicle vs the metric of a person entering the vehicle is vastly different. These metrics are taken into account when selecting the appropriate warning step at 313 of FIG. 3.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Park teaches the method of claim 1, Kim further teaches:
wherein identifying the suspicious activity comprises:
collecting image data of a person associated with the suspicious activity (At least ¶ [0183] “when the person with criminal intent appears around the vehicle 100 as shown in FIG. 4B, the vehicle 100 may acquire an image including the person with criminal intent through the turned on cameras 402 and 404 turned on…”); and
determining that the person is not an authorized user of the vehicle based on the image data (At least ¶ [0067] “identify the person with criminal intent (or might be referred to as a suspicious person) in a vicinity of the vehicle 100 based on an analysis of the acquired images.” Identifying a person with criminal intent based on image analysis is analogous to determining that a person is not an authorized user of the vehicle.).
Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 detail a vehicle which executes the method detailed in claims 3, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis. Additionally, Kim teaches a vehicle (vehicle 100), one or more processors (At least ¶ [0064] “a processor”), and a memory coupled to the processor (storage 116).
Claims 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 detail a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which cause a processor to execute the method detailed in claims 5, 2, 4, 6, and 8 respectively, thus are rejected on the same basis. Additionally, Kim teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium (At least ¶ [0228] “computer-readable recording medium”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights