DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 are pending. Claims 2 and 14 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13, 15-16, and 20 are amended. Claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see section “Specification Objections”, filed 6 August 2026, overcome the specification objections of paragraphs [0010] and [0018].
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112”, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to “a detection unit” in claims 1 and 12, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of “a detection unit” has been withdrawn from claims 1 and 12, but the 112(f) interpretation for “a telematics control unit” for claim 12 remains, with the structure interpreted from the Specification. It is noted that Applicant claims to have amended claim 12 to recite that the vehicle further comprises a telematics control unit configured to communicate with a tracking device worn by the animal, but claim 12 has not been amended and states “…wherein the detection unit further comprises a telematics control unit (TCU) configured to communicate with a tracking device worn by the animal.” See section “Claim Interpretation” below.
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112”, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to “a detection unit” in claims 13 and 20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 13 lines 3-4 and claim 20 line 4 have been amended to include “, wherein the first inputs comprise one or more images”. Therefore, with the lack of structure for “detection unit” in the claims, the 112(f) interpretation for “detection unit” remains, with the structure interpreted from the Specification. See section “Claim Interpretation” below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly found prior art, Kindred (U.S. Publication No. US 20150078626 A1), was necessitated by the amended limitations of “obtain second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlate the first inputs and the second inputs; determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation and perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest” (emphasis added). See section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “a telematics control unit (TCU) configured to…” [Lines 1-2].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “a detection unit configured to…” [Line 2].
Claim 20; recites the limitation, “a detection unit configured to…” [Line 3].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 12, “a telematics control unit” is described as a wireless transceiver that may be configurable for wireless communication between the vehicle and other systems ([0034]; Fig. 2, element 226).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, “a detection unit” is described as vehicle sensors configured for detection using vehicle cameras to capture images ([0032] and [0041]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 7-9, 13, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard").
Regarding claim 1, Amadi teaches a vehicle comprising: a detection unit configured to capture first inputs associated with an animal (Paragraph 0047, wherein the imaging devices (i.e. detection unit) captures images (i.e. first inputs) that include pets) in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”), wherein the detection unit comprises a vehicle camera (Paragraph 0045, wherein the imaging devices (i.e. detection unit) are cameras on the vehicle), and wherein the first inputs comprise one or more animal images (Paragraph 0045, wherein images of pets are acquired by the cameras for processing);
a processor communicatively coupled to the detection unit, wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the first inputs from the detection unit (Paragraph 0047, wherein the captured images (i.e. first inputs) are processed by a processor);
determine an animal presence in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”) based on the first inputs (Paragraph 0047, wherein the presence of a pet is detected when captured images (i.e. first inputs) are processed);
However, Amadi fails to teach obtain second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlate the first inputs and the second inputs; determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation; and perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest. Kinard, on the other hand, teaches obtaining an image of the lost pet’s nose print and obtaining nose prints of other pets from the local storage unit, comparing the nose print with the database of nose prints from the local storage unit, and determining if the lost pet matches one of the pets in the database storage. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Kinard discloses obtain second inputs from a local storage (Fig. 1 element 110) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest (Fig. 1 and 7; [0036], [0040], [0049], and [0052-0053], wherein a database of pet name, address, owner contact information, pet photos, nose prints/templates, and other information about other pets (i.e. second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest) stored in the local storage unit is obtained);
correlate the first inputs and the second inputs (Fig. 7; [0037], [0040], and [0052], wherein the lost pet’s nose print captured by a camera (element 712) (i.e. first input) is compared to the nose prints/information about other pets stored in the local storage unit (i.e. second inputs) for potential matches);
determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation (Fig. 7; [0052], wherein a match is determined based on the comparison); and
perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest (Fig. 7 element 724; [0052-0053], wherein the owner of the pet is contacted (i.e. action) to notify the owner that the pet has been found based on the match).
Kinard is combinable with Amadi because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately and efficiently identify the lost pet and reunite the pet with the owner (Kinard, [0033] and [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate obtain second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlate the first inputs and the second inputs; determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation; and perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest, as taught by Kinard, into the system, as taught by Amadi, to obtain the vehicle as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 1. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a predefined condition associated with the animal based on the first inputs ([0048], wherein the captured images are processed to determine a state of the pet).
Regarding claim 8, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 7. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the predefined condition is a medical condition ([0048], wherein excessive temperature or heat/overheating fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “medical” condition).
Regarding claim 9, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 7. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform a predetermined action when the predefined condition is met ([0048] and [0053], wherein the controller will perform actions depending on the state (i.e. condition) of the pet).
Regarding claim 13, Amadi teaches a method comprising: obtaining, by a processor ([0047], wherein the captured images are processed by a processor); first inputs from a detection unit configured to capture first inputs associated with an animal (Paragraph 0047, wherein the imaging devices (i.e. detection unit) captures images (i.e. first inputs) that include pets) in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”), wherein the first inputs comprise one or more animal images (Paragraph 0045, wherein images of pets are acquired by the cameras for processing);
Determining, by the processor, an animal presence in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”) based on the first inputs (Paragraph 0047, wherein the presence of a pet is detected when captured images (i.e. first inputs) are processed);
However, Amadi fails to teach obtaining second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlating the first inputs and the second inputs; determining that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation; and performing an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest. Kinard, on the other hand, teaches obtaining an image of the lost pet’s nose print and obtaining nose prints of other pets from the local storage unit, comparing the nose print with the database of nose prints from the local storage unit, and determining if the lost pet matches one of the pets in the database storage. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Kinard discloses obtaining second inputs from a local storage (Fig. 1 element 110) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest (Fig. 1 and 7; [0036], [0040], [0049], and [0052-0053], wherein a database of pet name, address, owner contact information, pet photos, nose prints/templates, and other information about other pets (i.e. second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest) stored in the local storage unit is obtained);
correlating the first inputs and the second inputs (Fig. 7; [0037], [0040], and [0052], wherein the lost pet’s nose print captured by a camera (element 712) (i.e. first input) is compared to the nose prints/information about other pets stored in the local storage unit (i.e. second inputs) for potential matches);
determining that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation (Fig. 7; [0052], wherein a match is determined based on the comparison); and
performing an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest (Fig. 7 element 724; [0052-0053], wherein the owner of the pet is contacted (i.e. action) to notify the owner that the pet has been found based on the match).
Kinard is combinable with Amadi because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately and efficiently identify the lost pet and reunite the pet with the owner (Kinard, [0033] and [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate obtaining second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlating the first inputs and the second inputs; determining that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation; and performing an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest, as taught by Kinard, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Amadi and Kinard disclose the method of claim 13. Amadi additionally discloses determining a predefined condition associated with the animal based on the first inputs (Paragraph 0048, wherein the captured images are processed to determine a state of the pet);
and performing a predetermined action when the predefined condition is met ([0048] and [0053], wherein the controller will open windows or doors depending on the state (i.e. condition) of the pet).
Regarding claim 20, Amadi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
obtain first inputs from a detection unit configured to capture first inputs associated with an animal (Paragraph 0047, wherein the imaging devices (i.e. detection unit) captures images (i.e. first inputs) that include pets) in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”), wherein the first inputs comprise one or more animal images (Paragraph 0045, wherein images of pets are acquired by the cameras for processing);
determine an animal presence in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”) based on the first inputs (Paragraph 0047, wherein the presence of a pet is detected when captured images (i.e. first inputs) are processed);
However, Amadi fails to teach obtain second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlate the first inputs and the second inputs; determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation; and perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest. Kinard, on the other hand, teaches obtaining an image of the lost pet’s nose print and obtaining nose prints of other pets from the local storage unit, comparing the nose print with the database of nose prints from the local storage unit, and determining if the lost pet matches one of the pets in the database storage. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Kinard discloses obtain second inputs from a local storage (Fig. 1 element 110) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest (Fig. 1 and 7; [0036], [0040], [0049], and [0052-0053], wherein a database of pet name, address, owner contact information, pet photos, nose prints/templates, and other information about other pets (i.e. second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest) stored in the local storage unit is obtained);
correlate the first inputs and the second inputs (Fig. 7; [0037], [0040], and [0052], wherein the lost pet’s nose print captured by a camera (element 712) (i.e. first input) is compared to the nose prints/information about other pets stored in the local storage unit (i.e. second inputs) for potential matches);
determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation (Fig. 7; [0052], wherein a match is determined based on the comparison); and
perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest (Fig. 7 element 724; [0052-0053], wherein the owner of the pet is contacted (i.e. action) to notify the owner that the pet has been found based on the match).
Kinard is combinable with Amadi because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately and efficiently identify the lost pet and reunite the pet with the owner (Kinard, [0033] and [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate obtain second inputs from a local storage responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest; correlate the first inputs and the second inputs; determine that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation; and perform an action responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest, as taught by Kinard, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 1.
Although Amadi teaches processing images to recognize a pet via the pose/gait/bone structure of the pet ([0052]), Amadi fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: perform image analysis on the one or more animal images to identify animal characteristics; match the animal characteristics with the information associated with the pet of interest; and determine that the animal is the pet of interest when a matching percentage is greater than a predefined threshold. Kinard, on the other hand, teaches detecting the edges of the irregular shapes in the images of the lost pet’s nose print and matching the lost pet’s nose print to a nose print of another pet in the database when an accuracy percentage is met. More specifically and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Kinard discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform image analysis on the one or more animal images to identify animal characteristics (Fig. 9-10; [0056-0057], wherein the captured nose print images (i.e. animal images) are obtained and the edges of each irregular shape in the nose print are detected to convert the edges into irregular polygons (i.e. image analysis to identify animal characteristics));
match the animal characteristics with the information associated with the pet of interest (Fig. 7, 9, and 10; [0040] and [0061], wherein the matching unit compares the nose print of the lost pet (i.e. animal characteristics) with a database of nose prints of other pets (i.e. information associated with the pet of interest)); and
determine that the animal is the pet of interest when a matching percentage is greater than a predefined threshold (Fig. 7, 9, and 10; [0040] and [0061], wherein a match is determined based on the desired degree of accuracy, such as 95, 99, or even 100 percent centers matching (i.e. matching percentage greater than a predefined threshold, where the predefined threshold is the chosen desired degree of accuracy) between the nose print of the lost pet and the nose print obtained from the database).
Kinard is combinable with Amadi because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately identify the lost pet based on their unique nose print (Kinard, [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the processor is further configured to: perform image analysis on the one or more animal images to identify animal characteristics; match the animal characteristics with the information associated with the pet of interest; and determine that the animal is the pet of interest when a matching percentage is greater than a predefined threshold, as taught by Kinard, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Kinard, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard") and further in view of Dumas (U.S. Publication No. US 2019/0244498 A1) ("Dumas").
Regarding claim 3, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 1.
However, Amadi and Kinard fail to teach wherein the action comprises: transmitting the first inputs to a server responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest. Dumas, on the other hand, teaches uploading the captured image of a person to the server. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Dumas discloses wherein the action comprises: transmitting the first inputs to a server ([0151] and [0164], wherein the server obtains the captured images of a person (i.e. first inputs)) responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest.
Dumas is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they all are from the same art of image processing.
The use of a server architecture to upload information is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the action comprises: transmitting the first inputs to a server responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest, as taught by Dumas, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Kinard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that the server allows the information to be utilized by multiple vehicles or people at the same time, store more information, is remotely accessible, and information can be updated remotely as new missing pet profiles arise.
Amadi and Kinard additionally fail to teach wherein the server is configured to transmit the first inputs and a vehicle location to an owner device associated with the pet of interest. Dumas, however, teaches sending a message including the captured image and location to security devices. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Dumas discloses wherein the server is configured to transmit the first inputs and a vehicle location ([0118], wherein a message is sent (i.e. transmitted) including an image of the person (i.e. first input) matched with the location of the mobile device (i.e. vehicle location, wherein the mobile device correlates to vehicle) to an owner device associated with the pet of interest ([0099], [0118] and [0150], wherein a message is sent to security computer and displayed to security personnel (i.e. owner device associated with the pet of interest, wherein security personnel correlate to owner associated with the pet of interest) regarding a suspicious person (i.e. pet of interest, wherein the person correlates to pet).
Dumas is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they all are from the same art of image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the server is configured to transmit the first inputs and a vehicle location to an owner device associated with the pet of interest, as taught by Dumas, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Kinard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the identity and location of the person of interest in real-time (Dumas, [0032] and [0132])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumas with Amadi and Kinard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 15 has limitations that are substantially similar to claim 3. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 3, please see above, also applies equally to claim 15.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard") and further in view of Child et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0245125 A1) ("Child").
Regarding claim 4, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 1.
Amadi and Kinard fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to obtain additional inputs from the server, and wherein the additional inputs comprise a pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner. Child, on the other hand, teaches a pre-recorded message by the pet owner that is stored in the cloud. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Child discloses wherein the processor is further configured to obtain additional inputs from the server ([0126] and [0157], wherein the message may be transmitted from the remote server), and wherein the additional inputs comprise a pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner ([0146], wherein a pet owner pre-records a message (i.e. pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner) that is stored in the cloud (i.e. server)).
Child is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they are from the same art of detecting the presence of an entity within an environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the process of obtaining additional inputs from the server, and wherein the additional inputs comprise a pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner, as taught by Child, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Kinard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to comfort the pet with the sound of its owner’s voice (Child, [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Child with Amadi and Kinard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 13.
Amadi and Kinard fail to teach further comprising obtaining additional inputs from a server, wherein the additional inputs comprise a pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner. Child, on the other hand, teaches a pre-recorded message by the pet owner that is stored in the cloud. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Child discloses further comprising obtaining additional inputs from a server ([0126] and [0157], wherein the message may be transmitted from the remote server), wherein the additional inputs comprise a pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner ([0146], wherein a pet owner pre-records a message (i.e. pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner) that is stored in the cloud (i.e. server)).
Child is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they are from the same art of detecting the presence of an entity within an environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate further comprising obtaining additional inputs from a server, wherein the additional inputs comprise a pre-stored message in a voice of a pet owner, as taught by Child, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Kinard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to comfort the pet with the sound of its owner’s voice (Child, [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Child with Amadi and Kinard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard") and Child et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0245125 A1) ("Child") and further in view of Kaur et al. (International Publication No. WO 2016/140669 A1) ("Kaur").
Regarding claim 5, Amadi, Kinard and Child disclose the vehicle of claim 4.
Amadi, Kinard, and Child fail to teach a vehicle exterior speaker or a sound exciter, wherein the processor is configured to cause the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the pre-stored message responsive to determining that the animal is the pet of interest. While Child teaches a speaker on a camera for playing back messages for a pet, Child does not explicitly disclose a vehicle exterior speaker or a sound exciter, wherein the processor is configured to cause the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the pre-stored message responsive to determining that the animal is the pet of interest. Kaur, on the other hand, teaches playing a prerecorded message through a speaker along the exterior of the vehicle. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Kaur discloses a vehicle exterior speaker or a sound exciter ([0018]), wherein the processor is configured to cause the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the pre-stored message responsive to determining that the animal is the pet of interest ([0018], wherein a prerecorded message is played through an exterior speaker of a vehicle regarding the pet of interest).
Kaur is combinable with Amadi, Kinard, and Child because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a vehicle exterior speaker or a sound exciter, wherein the processor is configured to cause the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the pre-stored message responsive to determining that the animal is the pet of interest, as taught by Kaur, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi, Kinard, and Child.
In view of Child teaching playing a recorded message for calming a pet, it would have been obvious to disclose a speaker externally on the vehicle to play the message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kaur with Amadi, Kinard, and Child to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Amadi, Kinard, Child, and Kaur disclose the vehicle of claim 5.
Amadi and Kinard fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain real-time voice messages from the pet owner device via the server. Child, on the other hand, also teaches recording an audio message that is immediately broadcasted. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Child additionally discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain real-time voice messages ([0082], wherein the reception and immediate playback of a message from the server correlates to a “real-time voice message”) from the pet owner device ([0066], wherein computing devices such as a smart phone (i.e. pet owner device) is the two-way communication camera; Paragraph 0082, wherein a two-way communication camera is used to record the message) via the server ([0066] and [0110]);
Child is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they are from the same art of detecting the presence of an entity within an environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the process of obtaining real-time voice messages from the pet owner device via the server, as taught by Child, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi, Kinard, Child, and Kaur.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to comfort the pet with the sound of its owner’s voice (Child, [0146]).
Amadi, Kinard, and Child fail to teach a vehicle exterior speaker or a sound exciter, wherein the processor is configured to cause the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the pre-stored message responsive to determining that the animal is the pet of interest. While Child teaches a speaker on a camera for playing back real-time messages for a pet, Child does not explicitly disclose causing the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the real-time voices messages. Kaur, on the other hand, teaches playing a message through a speaker along the exterior of the vehicle. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Kaur discloses causing the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter ([0018]) to output voice messages.
Kaur is combinable with Amadi, Kinard, and Child because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate causing the vehicle exterior speaker or the sound exciter to output the real-time voices messages, as taught by Kaur, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi, Kinard, Child, and Kaur.
In view of Child teaching playing a real-time message for calming a pet, it would have been obvious to disclose a speaker externally on the vehicle to play the message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kaur with Amadi, Kinard, and Child to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 17 and 18 have limitations that are substantially similar to claims 5 and 6, respectively. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 5 and 6, please see above, also applies equally to claims 17 and 18, respectively.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard") and further in view of Kaur et al. (International Publication No. WO 2016/140669 A1) ("Kaur").
Regarding claim 10, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 9. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the predetermined action comprises outputting a notification ([0048], wherein the condition of the pet is reported on the vehicle touchscreen display).
Amadi and Kinard fail to teach outputting a notification to a “third party device”. Kaur, however, discloses sending an alert to a third party device. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Kaur discloses outputting a notification to a third party device ([0019-0020], wherein a text message or call (i.e. notification) is sent to the owner’s device or to emergency services (i.e. third party device) in response to a condition of the pet).
Kaur is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate outputting a notification to a third party device, as taught by Kaur, into the process of outputting a notification as a predetermined action disclosed by Amadi and Kinard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to directly alert the animal owner and emergency services rather than the vehicle (Kaur, [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kaur with Amadi and Kinard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard") and further in view of Takamasa (Japan Publication No. 2009/204570 A) ("Takamasa").
Regarding claim 11, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 1. However, Amadi and Kinard fail to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an animal type based on the first inputs; and output a notification to a server, wherein the notification comprises the animal type. Takamasa, on the other hand, teaches detecting the type of wild animals and transmitting the information to a server. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Takamasa discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an animal type based on the first inputs ([0007], please see attached translation, wherein the type of animal is determined from the captured image);
and output a notification to a server, wherein the notification comprises the animal type ([0007], please see attached translation, wherein the information of the detected animal type is transmitted (i.e. notification) to a server)
Takamasa is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they all are from the same art of detecting animal presence within an environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determine an animal type based on the first inputs and outputting a notification to a server, wherein the notification comprises the animal type, as taught by Takamasa, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi and Kinard.
Takamasa teaches that this feature allows for the driver of a vehicle to be informed of various wild animals that they may encounter (see [0007]) when operating the vehicle; and that the ability to update a server based on captured image data allows for the ability to update the wild animal distribution information to improve the database (Takamasa, [0007], please see attached translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takamasa with Amadi and Kinard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Kinard et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2015/0078626 A1) ("Kinard") and further in view of Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton").
Regarding claim 12, Amadi and Kinard disclose the vehicle of claim 1.
Amadi does not disclose wherein the detection unit further comprises a telematics control unit (TCU) configured to communicate with a tracking device worn by the animal. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches a vehicle detecting a wireless signal from a wearable device affixable to a pet collar. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Hatton discloses wherein the detection unit further comprises a telematics control unit (TCU) ([0028] and [0030], wherein a vehicle can detect a wireless signal) configured to communicate with a tracking device worn by the animal ([0028], and [0030], wherein the wireless signal is a BLUETOOTH signal from a device on a collar worn by a pet and the pet’s location can be triangulated/distance in proximity to the vehicle can be detected).
Hatton is combinable with Amadi and Kinard because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a telematics control unit (TCU) configured to communicate with a tracking device worn by the animal, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle as disclosed by Amadi and Kinard.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to track animal proximity to vehicles and location around vehicles for reporting (Hatton, [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hatton with Amadi and Kinard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the second inputs further comprise a recommended search radius based on an animal type and a top speed associated with the pet of interest, in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest prior art Shamsi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2021/0089763 A1) discloses the application prompting the user to select a dog breed, color, size, radius of search, or other information to be used when attempting to find the dog in the known animal database ([0082]), but fails to disclose wherein the second inputs further comprise a recommended search radius based on an animal type and a top speed associated with the pet of interest.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL Y DANG whose telephone number is (571)438-9519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8am - 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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Rachel Y Dang/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights