Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 11-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 20180086264) in view of Cremona et al. (US 20240190383).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 12, Pedersen discloses a method and a vehicle (Paragraph 67) and a system comprising: memory hardware configured to store instructions (Paragraph 95); and processor hardware (processor, item 301, Fig. 3, Paragraph 91) configured to receive, from a sensor, data associated with a driver of a vehicle (occupant sensor includes cameras, Paragraph 66) and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions include: identifying the driver of the vehicle based on the data (Paragraph 119); in response to identifying the driver, determining if the driver is an authorized driver or an unauthorized driver (Paragraph 119); in response to determining that the driver is the unauthorized driver (Paragraph 119), sending an authorization request to a user device of an owner of the vehicle (Paragraph 119); and in response to the owner failing to respond to the authorization request within a determined time period disabling the vehicle (Paragraph 119), automatically activating an alert (authorities notified, Paragraph 119) however Pedersen fails to disclose the subsequent action after an alarm situation has been activated includes activating a parking brake of the vehicle to restrict the vehicle from moving.
In an analogous art, Cremona et al. discloses an unauthorized use activating a parking brake of the vehicle to restrict the vehicle from moving (affirmatively sends signal to the parking brake controller not to release the parking brake, Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a vehicle function to activate a parking brake to prevent unauthorized use without explicit authorization thereby increasing safety and security (Cremona et al., Paragraph 1 and 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Pedersen further discloses the sensor (Paragraph 66), wherein the sensor is disposed proximate a steering wheel of the vehicle (Figure 1 shows Control unit 102 near the steering wheel and a camera item 1006 in Figure 10, Paragraph 118).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Pedersen further discloses the authorized driver includes the owner of the vehicle or a driver who is approved by the owner to operate the vehicle (owner, Paragraph 119); and the unauthorized driver includes a driver that is not the authorized driver (unknown driver, Paragraph 119).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Pedersen further discloses wherein the processor hardware is configured to receive, from the user device, authorization for the driver to operate the vehicle (verify driver is authorized, Paragraph 119), however Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions include, in response to receiving the authorization, automatically deactivating the parking brake.
In an analogous art, Cremona et al. discloses deactivating the parking brake upon received authorization (Driver must be recognized before proceeding to step 335 and eventually step 365 which allows for vehicle unparking thus deactivating parking brake, fig. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system deactivate the parking brake when authorized to allow for the system to operate normally and for safety and security (Cremona et al., Paragraph 1 and 14).
Claims 4, 5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 20180086264) in view of Cremona et al. (US 20240190383) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hampiholi (US 20130311001).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Pedersen further discloses wherein identifying the driver of the vehicle (image analysis for facial recognition using camera, Paragraph 79) however Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose the identifying includes: determining a set of features of the driver based on the data, the set of features includes at least one of: eye shape, eye color, eye position, nose shape, nose size, mouth shape, mouth size, chin shape, or chin size of the driver ; and querying a database to determine if the set of features corresponds to a known driver.
In an analogous art, Hampiholi discloses identifying includes: determining a set of features of the driver based on the data, the set of features includes at least one of: eye shape, eye color, eye position, nose shape, nose size, mouth shape, mouth size, chin shape, or chin size of the driver (eye shape, Paragraph 2); and querying a database to determine if the set of features corresponds to a known driver(determining authorization using database thus queries, Paragraphs 48, 51, 53, Claim 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have identified the driver based on a facial feature include the eyes and querying a database in order to use unique features to compare and query a database for increased security and standard data processing within a computer environment.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Pedersen further discloses wherein the instructions include, determining that the driver is the authorized driver (comparison to stored images, Paragraph 119), however Pedersen fails to explicitly disclose permitting the vehicle to operate without interruption.
In an analogous art, Hampiholi discloses in response to the driver being authorized, permitting the vehicle to operate without interruption (driver authorized in item 316 then proceed to continue operation item 318, Figure 3, Paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have permitted the vehicle to operate without interruption when the driver is authorized to employ standard security logic and to ensure the system operates normally when no issue or problem is apparent.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 20180086264) in view of Cremona et al. (US 20240190383) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alberga et al. (US 20230406265).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Pedersen further discloses wherein the instructions include, in response to the owner rejecting the authorization request or failing to respond to the authorization request within a determined time period, automatically sending an alert (no confirmation received then send alert, Paragraph 119), however Pedersen fails to disclose the alert including activating the horn or the speaker of the vehicle, wherein activating the horn or the speaker includes continuously outputting an audible sound via the horn or the speaker.
In an analogous art, Alberga et al. discloses an alert including activating the horn or the speaker of the vehicle, wherein activating the horn or the speaker includes continuously outputting an audible sound via the horn or the speaker (alarm actives horn according to setting which would include any time including continuously as claimed and interpreted, Paragraphs 28 and 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alert include activating a horn continuously to audibly alert those within a nearby distance to the security issue.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 20180086264) in view of Cremona et al. (US 20240190383) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roberts et al. (US 20230382350).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Pedersen further discloses wherein the instructions include, in response to the owner rejecting the authorization request or failing to respond to the authorization request within a determined time period, automatically sending an alert (no confirmation received then send alert, Paragraph 119), however Pedersen fails to disclose the alert including activating the steering lock of the vehicle to restrict the vehicle from steering.
In an analogous art, Roberts et al. discloses an alarm automatically activating the steering lock of the vehicle to restrict the vehicle from steering (high priority lock steering, Paragraph 71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have automatically activate the steering lock after an alarm trigger in order to prevent the vehicle from being stolen by navigating roads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 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. In addition, although applicant amended claim 1 and 12 to include the previous limitations of claim 7 and 17 respectively, applicant also cancelled language previously included in claim 1 and 12 broadening the scope of claims 1 and 12 which caused the necessitation of the new grounds of rejection as presented. Furthermore the interpretation of a parking brake is a separate device from the brake of the vehicle as previously claimed and now cancelled in claims 1, 9, and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 and 20 are 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.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Lim whose telephone number is (571)270-1210. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 9am-5pm, Tuesday-Friday 8:30am-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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights