DETAILED ACTION
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 1-13 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.
The claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, in that the scope of invention has not been sufficiently defined, making the boundaries of the scope of claim language unclear. See MPEP 2173. The claims lack sufficient structural and/or functional language required to clearly define the scope of a distinct operable invention. Some examples of this lack of structural and/or functional language are directed to the following:
In claim 1, line 1, a “method” is set forth, yet the type of method or what the method is for in the context of the claim is undefined, making the scope of claim language unclear.
In claim 1, line 1 a “signal” is set forth, yet the type and/or cause of such a signal is not sufficiently defined in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, it is unclear how, in what way, and by what means the part of the method of “indicative of an intention of a person… outside a vehicle” is intended to be achieved in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, it is unclear how, in what way, and by what means the step of “providing indication of input means inside the vehicle…” is intended to be achieved in the context of the claimed invention and for what particular purpose.
In claim 1, it is unclear and not fully understood what is meant by “the input means is configured to be a passenger inside the vehicle” in the context of the claim language.
The same or similar 112 issues are found throughout several of the remaining claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallack et al., US Patent Application Publication 2018/0345791 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hallack discloses essentially all of the claimed invention, clearly suggesting the use of a vehicle interior display indicating the attempted operation of an exterior passenger side door handle. See [0041]. Although not explicitly detailed in the disclosure of Hallack, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that such means could function essentially to alert a driver that someone is attempting to open the passenger side door and allowing to driver to unlock the car door for the interior of the vehicle allowing the person on the outside to enter, as desired. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have elected to use such a method of functional with the device of Hallack, for the purpose of providing means for alerting a driver that someone is attempting to open the passenger side door and allowing to driver to unlock the car door for the interior of the vehicle allowing the person on the outside to enter, as desired.
Regarding claims 2-13, for each of these claims, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675