DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that HÖFELSAUER (US 20240270206 A1) in view of OYAMA (US 20220204040 A1) and Bateman (US 6219618 B1) doesn’t teach the claimed limitations, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Bateman discloses controlling a warning device to output a warning signal corresponding to a level of an approach of an object. It is obvious to add this feature in order to achieve an enhanced level of vehicle safety.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HÖFELSAUER (US 20240270206 A1) in view of OYAMA (US 20220204040 A1) and Bateman (US 6219618 B1).
Regarding claim 1. HÖFELSAUER discloses An impact prevention system (abstract, At least one detector (2) for visible and/or IR radiation on board of a vehicle (100) is used to determine if an entity (200) is approaching the vehicle (100)) comprising:
an ultrasonic sensor configured to detect an object around a parked vehicle ([0016] The at least one sensor may also further include at least one ultrasonic sensor. This may be used to track an entity to provide further information; to this end, the ultrasonic sensor may emit ultrasonic waves and receive ultrasonic waves reflected from surrounding surfaces, including surfaces of the entity; [0008] The system also includes at least one sensor; [0023] The vehicle may in particular be configured such that the system is activated if the vehicle is in a parked state; [0045] The vehicle 100 may in particular be configured such that the system according to the invention is activated if the vehicle 100 is in a parking position);
a camera configured to take one or more images of surroundings of the vehicle ([0012] the at least one detector includes at least one camera operating in the visible range and/or the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Both the visible range and the infrared range allow to detect an approaching entity; abstract, The at least one detector (2) may include a camera (21). At least one camera (5, 21) on board of the vehicle may be used to record image data pertaining to a time-interval about the contact);
a warning device configured to output a warning signal ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely); and
a processor ([0009] a control and evaluation unit is provided which is connected to the at least one detector and at least one sensor) configured to:
control the camera to take an image of the surroundings of the vehicle in response to an event of the ultrasonic sensor detecting an approach of the object with respect to the vehicle ([0013] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to activate this at least one camera, if the control and evaluation unit determines that an entity is approaching the vehicle. This at least one camera may specifically serve to record images which assist in identifying an entity which may cause damage to the vehicle);
control the warning device to output the warning signal corresponding to a level of the approach of the object ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal).
However, HÖFELSAUER doesn’t explicitly disclose
a communicator configured to communicate with a user terminal of the vehicle; and
a processor configured to:
determine the event as being one among a plurality of predetermined levels;
control the warning device to output the warning signal corresponding to a level of the approach of the object among the plurality of predetermined levels; and
control the communicator to transmit an indication that the event, corresponding to the output of the warning signal by the warning device, to the user terminal, in response to each occurrence of the event.
OYAMA discloses A vehicle driving control system (abstract) comprising:
a communicator configured to communicate with a user terminal of a vehicle (figure 1, [0053] The alerting ECU 26 may have an output terminal coupled to an alarm 30. The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver; [0032] The driving control apparatus 10 may also include an alerting control unit (hereinafter referred to as an “alerting ECU”) 26. These control units 21 to 26 may be coupled to each other via an in-vehicle communication line, such as a controller area network (CAN)); and
a processor configured to:
control the communicator to transmit an indication that an event, corresponding to an output of a warning signal by a warning device, to the user terminal, in response to each occurrence of the event ([0053] The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER and OYAMA, to communicate with a user terminal of the vehicle and to transmit an indication that an event, corresponding to an activation of the warning device, to the user terminal, in response to each occurrence of the event, in order to reduce the burden of a driver's driving operation and to improve safety (OYAMA [0003]).
Bateman discloses a processor configured to:
determine an event as being one among a plurality of predetermined levels (column 3 lines 31-42, A warning condition can be one of several severity levels. The warning levels can be assigned by distance from the aircraft to the terrain feature, or by the length of time calculated before the aircraft will approach the terrain feature);
control a warning device to output a warning signal corresponding to a level of an approach of an object among the plurality of predetermined levels (column 3 lines 42-45, Different terrain features will activate different warning levels, with the severity of the warning indicating the degree of hazard to the aircraft in terms of time and distance to correct the path of the aircraft to avoid the feature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER, OYAMA and Bateman, to output a warning signal corresponding to a level of an approach of an object among the plurality of predetermined levels, in order to achieve an enhanced level of vehicle safety (Bateman column 1 lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 2. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention system of claim 1, wherein the warning device includes a speaker configured to output a warning sound corresponding to a level of approach of the object ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely. The warning signal, if triggered, may be generated by devices present in the vehicle primarily for other purposes, e.g. by a horn of the vehicle; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal).
Regarding claim 3. HÖFELSAUER in view of OYAMA discloses The impact prevention system of claim 1, wherein the warning device includes a display displaying a visual warning corresponding to a level of approach of the object on an outer surface of the vehicle (HÖFELSAUER [0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely; OYAMA figure 1, [0053] The alerting ECU 26 may have an output terminal coupled to an alarm 30. The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26).
Regarding claim 5. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention system of claim 1, wherein the warning device includes a lamp and a puddle lamp configured to emit light to issue a warning corresponding to the level of approach of the object ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely. The warning signal, if triggered, may be generated by devices present in the vehicle primarily for other purposes, e.g. lights of the vehicle; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal).
Regarding claim 6. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention system of claim 1, further comprising:
a memory,
wherein, in response to the occurrence of the event, the processor is further configured to store an image captured by the camera in the memory ([0021] the system is configured to store image data from the camera captured within a time-interval stretching from a predefined temporal distance before to a predefined temporal distance after a contact between the vehicle and the entity. In this way image data can be stored which show the contact, e.g. a damage event, occurring).
Regarding claim 7. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention system of claim 1, wherein, in response to the event being caused by the object, the processor is further configured to control the camera to take an image of the object ([0021] the system is configured to store image data from the camera captured within a time-interval stretching from a predefined temporal distance before to a predefined temporal distance after a contact between the vehicle and the entity. In this way image data can be stored which show the contact, e.g. a damage event, occurring).
Regarding claim 9. HÖFELSAUER in view of OYAMA discloses The impact prevention system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to control the communicator to transmit information related to the object to the user terminal (HÖFELSAUER [0021] the system is configured to store image data from the camera captured within a time-interval stretching from a predefined temporal distance before to a predefined temporal distance after a contact between the vehicle and the entity. In this way image data can be stored which show the contact, e.g. a damage event, occurring; OYAMA figure 1, [0053] The alerting ECU 26 may have an output terminal coupled to an alarm 30. The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26).
Regarding claim 10. HÖFELSAUER discloses An impact prevention method (abstract, At least one detector (2) for visible and/or IR radiation on board of a vehicle (100) is used to determine if an entity (200) is approaching the vehicle (100)) comprising:
detecting an object around a parked vehicle ([0008] The system for a vehicle comprises at least one detector. The system also includes at least one sensor; [0009] the control and evaluation unit determines from the signals received from the at least one detector that an entity is approaching the vehicle; [0023] The vehicle may in particular be configured such that the system is activated if the vehicle is in a parked state; [0045] The vehicle 100 may in particular be configured such that the system according to the invention is activated if the vehicle 100 is in a parking position);
imaging surroundings of the vehicle and outputting a warning signal, in response to an event of an approach of the object being detected with respect to the vehicle ([0013] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to activate this at least one camera, if the control and evaluation unit determines that an entity is approaching the vehicle. This at least one camera may specifically serve to record images which assist in identifying an entity which may cause damage to the vehicle; [0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely).
However, HÖFELSAUER doesn’t explicitly disclose
determining the event as being one among a plurality of predetermined levels;
outputting the warning signal corresponding to a level of the approach of the object among the plurality of predetermined levels; and
transmitting, in response to each occurrence of the event, an indication that the event has occurred to a terminal of the vehicle.
OYAMA discloses A vehicle driving control system (abstract) comprising:
transmitting, in response to each occurrence of an event, an indication that the event has occurred to a terminal of the vehicle (figure 1, [0053] The alerting ECU 26 may have an output terminal coupled to an alarm 30. The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER and OYAMA, to transmit, in response to an event, corresponding to the outputting of the warning signal, has occurred, to the vehicle, an indication that the event has occurred to a terminal of the vehicle, in order to reduce the burden of a driver's driving operation and to improve safety (OYAMA [0003]).
Bateman discloses
determining an event as being one among a plurality of predetermined levels (column 3 lines 31-42, A warning condition can be one of several severity levels. The warning levels can be assigned by distance from the aircraft to the terrain feature, or by the length of time calculated before the aircraft will approach the terrain feature);
outputting a warning signal corresponding to a level of an approach of an object among the plurality of predetermined levels (column 3 lines 42-45, Different terrain features will activate different warning levels, with the severity of the warning indicating the degree of hazard to the aircraft in terms of time and distance to correct the path of the aircraft to avoid the feature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER, OYAMA and Bateman, to output the warning signal corresponding to a level of the approach of the object among the plurality of predetermined levels, in order to achieve an enhanced level of vehicle safety (Bateman column 1 lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 12. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention method of claim 10, wherein the outputting of the warning signal includes emitting light using a lamp and a puddle lamp ([0020] The warning signal, if triggered, may be generated by devices present in the vehicle primarily for other purposes, e.g. lights of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention method of claim 10, wherein the outputting of the warning signal includes outputting a warning signal corresponding to a level of approach of the object ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal).
Regarding claim 14. HÖFELSAUER discloses An impact prevention system for a parked vehicle (abstract, At least one detector (2) for visible and/or IR radiation on board of a vehicle (100) is used to determine if an entity (200) is approaching the vehicle (100); [0023] The vehicle may in particular be configured such that the system is activated if the vehicle is in a parked state; [0045] The vehicle 100 may in particular be configured such that the system according to the invention is activated if the vehicle 100 is in a parking position), the system comprising:
a sensor to detect one or more objects approaching the vehicle ([0008] The system for a vehicle comprises at least one detector. The system also includes at least one sensor; [0009] the control and evaluation unit determines from the signals received from the at least one detector that an entity is approaching the vehicle);
one or more cameras positioned on the vehicle to take one or more images of surroundings of the vehicle ([0012] the at least one detector includes at least one camera operating in the visible range and/or the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Both the visible range and the infrared range allow to detect an approaching entity; abstract, The at least one detector (2) may include a camera (21). At least one camera (5, 21) on board of the vehicle may be used to record image data pertaining to a time-interval about the contact);
an alarm configured to output a warning signal ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely); and
a processor configured to:
receive an indication from the sensor of the detection of the one or more objects approaching the vehicle ([0013] the control and evaluation unit determines that an entity is approaching the vehicle; [0009] a control and evaluation unit is provided which is connected to the at least one detector and at least one sensor. The control and evaluation unit is configured to receive and evaluate signals from the at least one detector, and is further configured to activate the at least one sensor if the control and evaluation unit determines from the signals received from the at least one detector that an entity is approaching the vehicle);
control the camera to take one or more images of the surroundings of the vehicle, in response to an event of the sensor detecting the approach of the one or more objects with respect to the vehicle ([0013] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to activate this at least one camera, if the control and evaluation unit determines that an entity is approaching the vehicle. This at least one camera may specifically serve to record images which assist in identifying an entity which may cause damage to the vehicle);
control the alarm to output the warning signal corresponding to a predetermined level corresponding to the approach of the one or more objects ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal).
However, HÖFELSAUER doesn’t explicitly disclose
a user terminal for displaying visual information;
a transceiver configured to communicate with the user terminal of the vehicle; and
a processor configured to:
determine the event as being one among a plurality of predetermined levels;
control the alarm to output the warning signal corresponding to the level of approach of the one or more objects among the plurality of predetermined levels; and
control the transceiver to transmit an indication that an event, corresponding to an activation of the alarm, to the user terminal.
OYAMA discloses A vehicle driving control system (abstract) comprising:
a user terminal for displaying visual information (figure 1, [0053] The alerting ECU 26 may have an output terminal coupled to an alarm 30. The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel);
a transceiver configured to communicate with the user terminal of a vehicle ([0032] The driving control apparatus 10 may also include an alerting control unit (hereinafter referred to as an “alerting ECU”) 26. These control units 21 to 26 may be coupled to each other via an in-vehicle communication line, such as a controller area network (CAN)); and
a processor configured to:
control the transceiver to transmit an indication that an event, corresponding to an activation of an alarm, to the user terminal ([0053] The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER and OYAMA, to display visual information using a user terminal, to communicate with the user terminal of the vehicle and to transmit an indication that an event, corresponding to an activation of the alarm, to the user terminal, in order to reduce the burden of a driver's driving operation and to improve safety (OYAMA [0003]).
Bateman discloses a processor configured to:
determine an event as being one among a plurality of predetermined levels (column 3 lines 31-42, A warning condition can be one of several severity levels. The warning levels can be assigned by distance from the aircraft to the terrain feature, or by the length of time calculated before the aircraft will approach the terrain feature);
control an alarm to output a warning signal corresponding to the level of approach of one or more objects among the plurality of predetermined levels (column 3 lines 42-45, Different terrain features will activate different warning levels, with the severity of the warning indicating the degree of hazard to the aircraft in terms of time and distance to correct the path of the aircraft to avoid the feature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER, OYAMA and Bateman, to control the alarm to output the warning signal corresponding to the level of approach of the one or more objects among the plurality of predetermined levels, in order to achieve an enhanced level of vehicle safety (Bateman column 1 lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 15. HÖFELSAUER discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the alarm includes at least one of:
a speaker configured to output a warning sound corresponding to a level of the approach of the one or more objects ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely. The warning signal, if triggered, may be generated by devices present in the vehicle primarily for other purposes, e.g. by a horn of the vehicle; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal);
a display integrated with a window of the vehicle for displaying a visual warning corresponding to the level of the approach of the one or more objects toward an outer surface of the vehicle;
a lamp to emit light to issue a warning corresponding to the level of the approach of the one or more objects ([0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely. The warning signal, if triggered, may be generated by devices present in the vehicle primarily for other purposes, e.g. lights of the vehicle; figure 12, [0053] Curve 615 shows the intensity of a warning signal); or
any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 16. HÖFELSAUER discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of an ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor, a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor, an image sensor, or any combination thereof ([0016] The at least one sensor may also further include at least one ultrasonic sensor. This may be used to track an entity to provide further information; to this end, the ultrasonic sensor may emit ultrasonic waves and receive ultrasonic waves reflected from surrounding surfaces, including surfaces of the entity; [0008] The system also includes at least one sensor).
Regarding claim 17. HÖFELSAUER discloses The system of claim 14, wherein, in response to the event being caused by the one or more objects, the processor is further configured to control the one or more cameras to capture one or more images of the one or more objects ([0013] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to activate this at least one camera, if the control and evaluation unit determines that an entity is approaching the vehicle. This at least one camera may specifically serve to record images which assist in identifying an entity which may cause damage to the vehicle; [0021] the system is configured to store image data from the camera captured within a time-interval stretching from a predefined temporal distance before to a predefined temporal distance after a contact between the vehicle and the entity. In this way image data can be stored which show the contact, e.g. a damage event, occurring).
Regarding claim 19. HÖFELSAUER in view of OYAMA discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to control the transceiver to transmit information related to the one or more objects to the user terminal (HÖFELSAUER [0021] the system is configured to store image data from the camera captured within a time-interval stretching from a predefined temporal distance before to a predefined temporal distance after a contact between the vehicle and the entity. In this way image data can be stored which show the contact, e.g. a damage event, occurring; OYAMA figure 1, [0053] The alerting ECU 26 may have an output terminal coupled to an alarm 30. The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HÖFELSAUER (US 20240270206 A1) in view of OYAMA (US 20220204040 A1) and Bateman (US 6219618 B1) as applied above in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19, and further in view of Maleki et al. (US 20190154835 A1).
Regarding claim 4. Maleki discloses a display is integrated with a window of a vehicle ([0170] notify the vehicle operator (i.e., the driver) of the presence and/or proximity of other vehicles or road obstacles. Such a notification can be an audible and/or tactile alarm or warning that, for example, is transmitted through a speaker of the vehicle's audio system and/or to an earpiece worn by the vehicle operator. The notification can also be provided by a visual display that can be seen by the vehicle operator. Such a visual display can include a “heads up” display reflected from the interior of a vehicle window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER, OYAMA and Bateman with the invention of Maleki, to integrate the display with a window of the vehicle, in order to better notify the vehicle operator (i.e., the driver) (Maleki [0170]).
Regarding claim 11. HÖFELSAUER in view of OYAMA and Maleki discloses the outputting of the warning signal includes outputting a warning sound and displaying a visual warning on a window of the vehicle (HÖFELSAUER [0020] the control and evaluation unit is further configured to trigger a warning signal if the control and evaluation unit determines that a contact between the entity and the vehicle is likely. The warning signal, if triggered, may be generated by devices present in the vehicle primarily for other purposes, e.g. by a horn of the vehicle; OYAMA [0053] The alarm 30 may output a predetermined alert to the driver. The alarm 30 may include, for example, a multi-information display and a speaker provided on an instrument panel. The alarm 30 may present a predetermined warning display or output an alert sound to the driver, in response to a driving signal from the alerting ECU 26; Maleki [0170] notify the vehicle operator (i.e., the driver) of the presence and/or proximity of other vehicles or road obstacles. Such a notification can be an audible and/or tactile alarm or warning that, for example, is transmitted through a speaker of the vehicle's audio system and/or to an earpiece worn by the vehicle operator. The notification can also be provided by a visual display that can be seen by the vehicle operator. Such a visual display can include a “heads up” display reflected from the interior of a vehicle window).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HÖFELSAUER (US 20240270206 A1) in view of OYAMA (US 20220204040 A1) and Bateman (US 6219618 B1) as applied above in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19, and further in view of Simon (US 20110084855 A1).
Regarding claim 8. HÖFELSAUER discloses The impact prevention system of claim 7, wherein, in response to another vehicle causing the event, the processor is further configured to control the camera to take an image of the other vehicle ([0018] distinguish damage events according to severity, e.g. an impact of a pebble on a door of the vehicle or an impact of another vehicle, possibly travelling at high speed; [0021] the system is configured to store image data from the camera captured within a time-interval stretching from a predefined temporal distance before to a predefined temporal distance after a contact between the vehicle and the entity. In this way image data can be stored which show the contact, e.g. a damage event, occurring).
Simon discloses controlling a camera to take an image of a license plate number of another vehicle (abstract, A system in a moving surveillance vehicle operates in background mode to capture images of license plates of neighboring moving vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of HÖFELSAUER, OYAMA and Bateman with the invention of Simon, to take an image of a license plate number of the other vehicle, in response to another vehicle causing the event, in order to record important image data of the other vehicle.
Regarding claim 18. The same analysis has been stated in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights