DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0010, line 5 states: “receive information from the serve” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error and should be “server”.
Paragraph 0018, line 7 states: “vehicle 202” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error and should be “vehicle 102”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1; recites the limitation, “a detection unit configured to…” [Line 2].
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 claims 1, 13, and 20, “a detection unit” is described as vehicle sensors configured for detection using vehicle cameras to capture images (Paragraph 0032 and 0041).
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 (Paragraph 0034; Fig. 2, element 226).
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, 2, 7-9, 12-14, and 19-20 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 Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton").
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”);
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 transmitting the first inputs and a vehicle location. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches uploading animal identity and a vehicle location. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Hatton discloses transmitting the first inputs (Paragraph 0040, detected animal signature) and a vehicle location (Paragraph 0051, GPS location of vehicle).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable 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 the process of transmitting the first inputs and a vehicle location, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to identify missing animals and provide an approximation of the animal location to the owner (Hatton, paragraphs 0051-0053).
Amadi also fails to teach a server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches a server receiving information regarding an animal in proximity to the vehicle. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language Hatton also discloses a server (Paragraph 0040, wherein detected animal signature is uploaded to the cloud; paragraph 0051, wherein detected animal identification signature and vehicle location are uploaded via network; paragraph 0052, remote server) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0049, wherein the device signature (i.e. animal presence) is detected in proximity to the vehicle).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
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 a server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi.
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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Amadi with Hatton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Amadi and Hatton disclose the vehicle of claim 1. Amadi additionally discloses 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).
Regarding claim 7, Amadi and Hatton 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 (Paragraph 0048, wherein the captured images are processed to determine a state of the pet).
Regarding claim 8, Amadi and Hatton disclose the vehicle of claim 7. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the predefined condition is a medical condition (Paragraph 0048, wherein excessive temperature or heat/overheating fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “medical” condition).
Regarding claim 9, Amadi and Hatton 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 (Paragraphs 0048 and 0053, wherein the controller will perform actions depending on the state (i.e. condition) of the pet).
Regarding claim 12, Amadi and Hatton 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) (Paragraphs 0028 and 0030, wherein a vehicle can detect a wireless signal) configured to communicate with a tracking device worn by the animal (Paragraphs 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).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable 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 Hatton.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to track animal proximity to vehicles and location around vehicles for reporting (Hatton, paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Amadi with Hatton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Amadi teaches a method comprising: obtaining, by a processor (Paragraph 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 a vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”);
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 transmitting the first inputs and a vehicle location. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches uploading animal identity and a vehicle location. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Hatton discloses transmitting, by the processor, the first inputs (Paragraph 0040, detected animal signature) and a vehicle location (Paragraph 0051, GPS location of vehicle).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable 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 the process of transmitting the first inputs and a vehicle location, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to identify missing animals and provide an approximation of the animal location to the owner (Hatton, paragraphs 0051-0053).
Amadi also fails to teach a server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches a server receiving information regarding an animal in proximity to the vehicle. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language Hatton also discloses a server (Paragraph 0040, wherein detected animal signature is uploaded to the cloud; paragraph 0051, wherein detected animal identification signature and vehicle location are uploaded via network; paragraph 0052, remote server) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0049, wherein the device signature (i.e. animal presence) is detected in proximity to the vehicle).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
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 a server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi.
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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Amadi with Hatton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Amadi and Hatton disclose the method of claim 1. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the first inputs comprise one or more animal images (Paragraph 0045, wherein images of pets are acquired by the cameras for processing).
Regarding claim 19, Amadi and Hatton 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 (Paragraphs 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 discloses obtaining first inputs from a detection unit configured to capture first inputs (Paragraph 0047, wherein the imaging devices (i.e. detection unit) captures images (i.e. first inputs) that include pets) associated with an animal in proximity to a vehicle (Paragraph 0047, “pets are shown outside of the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle”);
determining 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 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches a non-transitory memory. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Hatton discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph 0014; Fig. 1, element 5) having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor (Paragraph 0014; Fig. 1, element 3).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
The use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions 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 the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, as taught by Hatton, into the processes disclosed by Amadi.
Amadi additionally fails to teach transmitting the first inputs and a vehicle location. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches uploading animal identity and a vehicle location. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language, Hatton discloses transmitting the first inputs (Paragraph 0040, detected animal signature) and a vehicle location (Paragraph 0051, GPS location of vehicle).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable 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 the process of transmitting the first inputs and a vehicle location, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to identify missing animals and provide an approximation of the animal location to the owner (Hatton, paragraphs 0051-0053).
Amadi also fails to teach a server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle. Hatton, on the other hand, teaches a server receiving information regarding an animal in proximity to the vehicle. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claim language Hatton also discloses a server (Paragraph 0040, wherein detected animal signature is uploaded to the cloud; paragraph 0051, wherein detected animal identification signature and vehicle location are uploaded via network; paragraph 0052, remote server) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle (Paragraph 0049, wherein the device signature (i.e. animal presence) is detected in proximity to the vehicle).
Amadi and Hatton are combinable because they are from the same art of detecting animal presence within a vehicle environment.
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 a server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, as taught by Hatton, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi.
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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Amadi with Hatton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton") and further in view of Dumas (U.S. Publication No. US 2019/0244498 A1) ("Dumas").
Regarding claim 3, Amadi and Hatton disclose the vehicle of claim 2.
Amadi and Hatton, however, fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: obtaining second inputs from the server 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 transmitting the first inputs to the server responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest. Dumas, on the other hand, teaches obtaining information of the person of interest stored in a server and uploading the captured image to the server. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Dumas discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain second inputs from the server (Paragraph 0136, wherein the facial recognition module uses images previously stored (i.e. second inputs) in the server to determine that a person has been identified before) responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information (Paragraphs 0136 and 0150, wherein the facial recognition module uses images previously stored (i.e. second inputs comprising information, wherein the images correlate to information) associated with a pet of interest Paragraph 0136, wherein the images (i.e. information) are used to determine that a person has been identified before (i.e. associated with a pet of interest, wherein the person correlates to pet); and
transmitting the first inputs to the server (Paragraphs 0151 and 0164, wherein the sever obtains the captured images (i.e. first inputs)) responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest,
Dumas is combinable with Amadi and Hatton because they all are from the same art of detecting the presence of an entity within an environment.
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 the process of obtaining second inputs from the server responsive to determining the animal presence in proximity to the vehicle, wherein the second inputs comprise information associated with a pet of interest and transmitting the first inputs to the server responsive to a determination that the animal is the pet of interest, as taught by Dumas, into the process of, as taught by Amadi, and into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Hatton.
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 Hatton additionally fail to teach wherein the correlating the first inputs and the second inputs, determining that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation, and wherein the server is configured to transmit the first inputs and the vehicle location to a pet owner device. Dumas, however, teaches comparing the captured images with information about the person of interest from the server, determining if the person in the captured image is the person of interest, and 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 correlating the first inputs and the second inputs (Paragraphs 0136 and 0150, wherein the captured image (i.e. first input) is compared with images of potential targets previously stored (i.e. second inputs);
determining that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation (Paragraphs 0136 and 0150, wherein the facial recognition module determines that a person appearing in an image obtained from the camera (i.e. first input) matches a facial profile of an image in the potential target list (i.e. second input)); and
wherein the server is configured to transmit the first inputs and the vehicle location (Paragraph 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 a pet owner device (Paragraphs 0099, 0118 and 0150, wherein a message is sent to security computer and displayed to security personnel (i.e. pet owner device, wherein security personnel correlate to pet owner) regarding a suspicious person (i.e. pet of interest, wherein the person correlates to pet).
Dumas is combinable with Amadi and Hatton because they all 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 correlating the first inputs and the second inputs, determining that the animal is the pet of interest based on the correlation, and wherein the server is configured to transmit the first inputs and the vehicle location to a pet owner device, as taught by Dumas, into the vehicle, as taught by Amadi and Hatton.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the identity and location of the entity of interest in real-time (Dumas, Paragraphs 0032 and 0132)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumas with Amadi and Hatton 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton") and Dumas (U.S. Publication No. US 2019/0244498 A1) ("Dumas") and further in view of Child et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0245125 A1) ("Child").
Regarding claim 4, Amadi, Hatton, and Dumas disclose the vehicle of claim 3.
Amadi, Hatton, and Dumas 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 (Paragraphs 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 (Paragraph 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, Hatton, and Dumas 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, Hatton, and Dumas.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to comfort the pet with the sound of its owner’s voice (Paragraph 0146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Child with Amadi, Hatton, and Dumas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 16 has a limitation that is substantially similar to claim 4. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 4, please see above, also applies equally to claim 16.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication Amadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2023/0219527 A1) ("Amadi") in view of Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton"), Dumas (U.S. Publication No. US 2019/0244498 A1) ("Dumas") 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, Hatton, Dumas, and Child disclose the vehicle of claim 4.
Amadi, Hatton, Dumas, 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 (Paragraph 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 (Paragraph 0018, wherein a prerecorded message is played through an exterior speaker of a vehicle regarding the pet of interest).
Kaur is combinable with Amadi, Hatton, Dumas, and Child 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 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, Hatton, Dumas, 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, Hatton, Dumas, and Child to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Amadi, Hatton, Dumas, Child, and Kaur disclose the vehicle of claim 5.
Amadi, Hatton, and Dumas 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 (Paragraph 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 (Paragraphs 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 (Paragraphs 0066, 0110);
Child is combinable with Amadi, Hatton, and Dumas 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, Hatton, Dumas, Child, and Kaur.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to comfort the pet with the sound of its owner’s voice (Paragraph 0146).
Amadi, Hatton, Dumas, 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 (Paragraph 0018) to output voice messages.
Kaur is combinable with Amadi, Hatton, Dumas, and Child 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 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, Hatton, Dumas, 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, Hatton, Dumas, 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 Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton") and further in view of Kaur et al. (International Publication No. WO 2016/140669 A1) ("Kaur").
Regarding claim 10, Amadi and Hatton disclose the vehicle of claim 9. Amadi additionally discloses wherein the predetermined action comprises outputting a notification (paragraph 0048, wherein the condition of the pet is reported on the vehicle touchscreen display).
Amadi and Hatton 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 (Paragraphs 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 Hatton 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 Hatton.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to directly alert the animal owner and emergency services rather than the vehicle (Kaur, paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kaur with Amadi and Hatton 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 Hatton et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20170334354 A1) ("Hatton") and further in view of Takamasa (Japan Publication No. 2009/204570 A) ("Takamasa").
Regarding claim 11, Amadi and Hatton disclose the vehicle of claim 1. However, Amadi and Hatton fail to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an animal type based on the first inputs; and output a notification to another 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 (Paragraph 0007, please see attached translation, wherein the type of animal is determined from the captured image);
and output a notification to another server, wherein the notification comprises the animal type (Paragraph 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 Hatton 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 another server, wherein the notification comprises the animal type, as taught by Takamasa, into the vehicle disclosed by Amadi and Hatton.
Takamasa teaches that this feature allows for the driver of a vehicle to be informed of various wild animals that they may encounter (see paragraph 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, paragraph 0007, please see attached translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takamasa with Amadi and Hatton to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Conclusion
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