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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed February 12, 2026. Claims 1, 3, and 9 have been amended. Claims 2, and 6 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed February 12, 2026 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and rendered moot by the present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed February 12, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues the claimed invention is eligible subject matter because the claims recite a practical application, namely, an intelligent activation and de-activation of sending notices depending on the location of the user, wherein the location is recognized using facial imagery. Applicant supports this position by analogizing to Enfish and McRO. Lastly, Applicant argues the claimed invention eliminates superfluous notices which can inconvenience a user.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s asserted improvement of establishing an intelligent activation and de-activation of sending notices depending on the location of the user is an example of an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a practical application, because the claimed invention performs the mental process of determining when to transmit notifications but does so in an “intelligent way.” This in an example of an improvement to the abstract idea itself as contrasted against subject matter eligibility examples like Example 39 where the claimed invention identified a specific problem with performing facial detection to account for shifts, distortions, and variations in facial images, and an improvement tailored to address that problem.
Examiner notes intelligent activation and de-activation of sending notices depending on the location of the user is not analogous to the established technical fields discussed in Enfish or McRo (See at least Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. 837 F.3d 1299, 1314, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the claimed invention’s elimination of superfluous notices, Examiner notes this improvement is not directed to any specific technology like the functioning of a computer, but rather the improvement is again an improvement to the abstract idea itself, i.e., determining whether to send notices.
For at least the above reasons, the claimed invention is not eligible subject matter and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed February 12, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to claim 9 render the previous rejection moot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed February 12, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 are directed to the abstract idea of determining whether to transmit certain data on the basis of determining whether a user is inside a vehicle, which is an abstract idea under its broadest reasonable interpretation because the claimed invention is directed to an observation, evaluation and/or judgment as to whether to transmit data to a user. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are either directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, and transmitting results, or generic hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., imaging device, pressure sensor, sensors, antennas, processing circuitry, memory, etc., that provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a method for controlling notification of a status of a vehicle to a user, wherein the vehicle comprises a system for controlling notification of the status of the vehicle to the user, wherein the system comprises a processing circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions executable by said processing circuitry, wherein the system is arranged to communicate with at least one of a sensor, an antenna, or an imaging device in the vehicle to receive data, the method comprising:
determining whether the user is inside the vehicle; and
upon determination that the user is not inside the vehicle, determining whether the user is within a predetermined threshold distance from the vehicle; wherein
upon determination that the user is within the predetermined threshold distance of the vehicle, de-activating a notification of the status of the vehicle to the user; and
upon determination that the user is not within the predetermined threshold distance of the vehicle, activating the notification of the status of the vehicle to the user, wherein the notification of the vehicle status to the user comprises sending a signal to at least one mobile device associated with the vehicle;
upon determination that the user is not inside the vehicle, capturing at least one image of an environment surrounding the vehicle, wherein the at least one image is captured using at least one imaging device arranged in the vehicle;
determining a presence of the user in the at least one image wherein determining the presence of the user in the at least one image is performed using facial recognition;
wherein upon determination that the user is present in the at least one image, de- activating the notification of the status of the vehicle to the user; and
upon determination that the user is not present in the at least one image, activating the notification of the status of the vehicle to the user.
Under it its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process because determining whether to transmit certain data on the basis of determining whether a user is inside a vehicle is an example of an observation, evaluation and/or judgment, and observations, evaluations and/or judgments are examples of abstract ideas. The additional limitation of capturing an image and performing facial recognition is an example of data gathering which is an example of insignificant pre-solution activity. The additional element of issuing a notification is an example of insignificant post-solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 3-5, and 7-14 depend on claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention eligible because they are directed to insignificant additional elements including insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e., capturing an image, user detection, etc., additional mental steps directed to the above described observation, evaluation and/or judgment, i.e., determining whether to transmit or refrain from transmitting data on the basis of a time period and/or distance, etc., or generic hardware, imaging device, pressure sensor, sensors, antennas, processing circuitry, memory, etc.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-14 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 3, 4, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz et al., WO 2020126882 A1, in view of Harumoto et al., US 20050270152 A1, and in view of Okumura et al., US 20160096466 A1, hereinafter referred to as Pennewitz, Okumura, and Harumoto, respectively.
As to claim 1, Pennewitz discloses a method for controlling notification of a status of a vehicle to a user, wherein the vehicle comprises a system for controlling notification of the status of the vehicle to the user, wherein the system comprises a processing circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions executable by said processing circuitry, wherein the system is arranged to communicate with at least one of a sensor, an antenna, or an imaging device in the vehicle to receive data, the method comprising:
determining whether the user is inside the vehicle (Determine user position with respect to vehicle – See at least ¶53); and
upon determination that the user is not inside the vehicle, determining whether the user is within a predetermined threshold distance from the vehicle (Determine distance between user and vehicle – See at least ¶53); wherein
upon determination that the user is within the predetermined threshold distance of the vehicle, de-activating a notification of the status of the vehicle to the user (If user is within certain distance omit transmitting message – See at least ¶53); and
upon determination that the user is not within the predetermined threshold distance of the vehicle, activating the notification of the status of the vehicle to the user, wherein the notification of the vehicle status to the user comprises sending a signal to at least one mobile device associated with the vehicle (If user is beyond predetermined threshold, transmit message – See at least ¶54; Message sent to mobile device – See at least ¶54; Examiner notes sending a message to a mobile device meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “associated” as the mobile device is in communication with the vehicle which is a form of association.).
Pennewitz fails to explicitly disclose using image processing to determine user presence and thereafter activating and de-activating status notifications on that basis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pennewitz and include the feature of the using image processing to determine user presence and thereafter activating and de-activating status notifications on that basis, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Harumoto teaches it is well-known and routine to use image processing to facilitate communication between a vehicle and user positioned outside the vehicle, like the communication of Pennewitz (See at least ¶56 of Harumoto).oHoweve
The combination of Pennewitz and Harumoto fails to explicitly disclose using facial recognition to determine user presence. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pennewitz and Harumoto and include the feature of using facial recognition to determine user presence, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Okumura teaches it is well-known and routine to use image processing including performing facial recognition to facilitate identification of a user of a vehicle (See at least ¶40-41 of Okumura).
As to claim 3, Pennewitz fails to explicitly disclose:
upon determination that the user is present in the at least one image, determining whether the user faces towards the vehicle within a predetermined time period;
and upon determination that the user faces towards the vehicle within a predetermined time period, de-activating a notification of the status of the vehicle to the user; and
upon determination that the user does not face towards the vehicle within a predetermined time period, activating a notification of the status of the vehicle to the user.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pennewitz and include the feature of the above determination of in which direction a user is facing and performing notification accordingly, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Harumoto teaches it is well-known and routine to consider the direction user is facing with respect to a vehicle when determining which notifications to communicate between a vehicle and user positioned outside the vehicle, like the communication of Pennewitz (See at least ¶80 of Harumoto).
As to claim 4, Pennewitz fails to explicitly disclose determining the presence of the user in the at least one image and/or if the user faces towards the vehicle is performed using facial recognition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pennewitz and include the feature of determining the presence of the user in the at least one image, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Harumoto teaches it is well-known and routine to use image processing to facilitate communication between a vehicle and user positioned outside the vehicle, like the communication of Pennewitz (See at least ¶56 of Harumoto).
As to claim 7, Pennewitz discloses determining whether the user is inside the vehicle is performed by means of a pressure sensor arranged in at least one seat of the vehicle, at least one interior imaging device in the vehicle, and/or at least one sensor or antenna arranged in the vehicle and configured to detect presence of a key associated with the vehicle and/or whether a vehicle door has been opened (Determine whether user has left vehicle based on door sensor data – See at least).
As to claim 8, Pennewitz discloses determining whether the user is within a threshold distance from the vehicle comprises measuring a distance between the vehicle and a key associated with the vehicle based on sensors/antennas arranged in the vehicle, determining a presence of the user in at least one image of the surroundings of the vehicle, wireless signal communication between the vehicle and the key associated with the vehicle and/or geopositioning of the vehicle and the key associated with the vehicle (Distance determined based on radio transmitter, i.e., “key” – See at least ¶59).
As to claim 9, Pennewitz discloses geopositioning comprises using satellite signal positioning, mobile device tracking and/or local area network positioning (Conventional mobile device communication – See at least ¶56).
As to claim 10, Pennewitz discloses the status of the vehicle comprises a door lock status, a lighting system status, and/or a heating system status (Air conditioning notifications – See at least ¶36; Air conditioning device executes room temperature control and the like – See at least ¶35; Examiner notes air conditioning and the like is taken as analogous to “heating system status.”).
As to claim 11, Pennewitz discloses the notification of the vehicle status to the user comprises sending a signal to at least one mobile device associated with the vehicle (Mobile device – See at least ¶18).
As to claim 12, Pennewitz discloses a system for controlling notification of a status of a vehicle to a user, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory, wherein said memory contains instructions executable by said processing circuitry; wherein the system is arranged to communicate with at least one sensor, antenna and/or imaging device arranged in the vehicle to receive data; wherein the system is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Controller – See at least ¶4; Antenna – See at least ¶58-59).
As to claim 13, Pennewitz discloses a vehicle (Vehicle – See at least ¶12)
As to claim 14, Pennewitz discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions that, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Computer program – See at least ¶128).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz et al., WO 2020126882 A1, in view of Harumoto et al., US 20050270152 A1, and in view of Okumura et al., US 20160096466 A1, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shimotani et al., US 20240096189 A1, hereinafter referred to as Pennewitz, Harumoto, Okumura, and Shimotani, respectively.
As to claim 5, the combination of Pennewitz, Okumura, and Harumoto fails to explicitly disclose determining the presence of the user in the at least one image is performed by correlating a position of a person in the at least one image with a position of a key associated with the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pennewitz, Okumura, and Harumoto and include the feature of determining the presence of the user in the at least one image is performed by correlating a position of a person in the at least one image with a position of a key associated with the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shimotani teaches it is well-known and routine to use a combination of imagining and signals from a key fob to confirm presence of users outside a vehicle (See at least ¶49 and 51 of Shimotani).
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights