DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-8 of application 18/897,294, filed on 26-September-2024, are presented for examination. The IDSs received on 26-September-2024 and 7-July-2025 have been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
2.1 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2.2 Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ewert, USP Publication 2022/0126832.
2.3 Ewert discloses:
Claims 1 and 8: A vehicle control system [¶0007; 0064] comprising:
a plurality of external sensors configured to detect an object near a vehicle [0064 (Vehicle 4 includes a control device 10 that is connected to surround sensors that may allow control device 10 to receive and evaluate measurement data used for monitoring and for sampling surroundings of the vehicle.); 0066]; and
a control device connected to the plurality of external sensors [0007; 0064], wherein the control device includes:
a state detection part configured to detect a state of the vehicle [0072 (By evaluating the measurement data, a traffic situation, in which vehicle finds itself or will find itself, is ascertained 22 by control device 10.)]; and
a plurality of processing parts, each of the plurality of processing parts performs information processing using output of some or all of the plurality of external sensors [0008 (a control device is provided; the control device being configured to execute the method.); 0009 (In addition, according to one aspect of the present invention, a computer program is provided, which includes commands that, in response to the execution of the computer program by a computer or a control device, cause it to carry out the method of the present invention.); 0073 (as shown in FIG. 1, vehicle 4 is located in front of a traffic light 6 lying ahead. This may be determined, using data which position sensor 18 receives, or by evaluating the measurement data of camera sensor 12.)], and
on the basis of the detection result of the state detection part, a combination of the plurality of external sensors and the plurality of processing parts in an ON state and a combination of the plurality of external sensors and the plurality of processing parts in the OFF state are switched [0015 (it is preferable for the sensors and/or components of a vehicle operated in an automated manner and/or operated electrically to be able to be switched on or off as a function of need); 0020 (an intelligent algorithm for switching on and/or switching off surround sensors or control devices may be implemented in the control device); 0021 (the intelligent algorithm may determine the state of surround sensors as output variables, including the various scenarios presented in 0022-0056 for activating or deactivating the sensors)].
Claim 4: wherein the plurality of processing parts include a third processing part selectively operable between a first mode of autonomously moving the vehicle in a state in which surrounding monitoring by an occupant is required and a second mode of autonomously moving the vehicle in a state in which the surrounding monitoring by the occupant is not required [0002; 0010 (the vehicle may be operable in an assisted, semiautomated, highly automated, and/or fully automated or driverless manner.); 0015 (different examples of non-limiting application cases and/or traffic situations may be taken into account for the operating modes of the vehicle
(see 0016-0019))], and
when a state of the vehicle detected by the state detection part is a third state in which the second mode is not executable and the first mode is executable, a number of external sensors set to the ON state is smaller than in a fourth state in which the second mode is executable [0020-0021 (Based on a current driving scenario, such as the switching of a traffic light or a parking operation, this algorithm is able to deactivate or activate particular surround sensors or control devices or set them to a standby mode or to awaken the at least one sensor from the standby mode.)].
Claim 5: wherein the plurality of processing parts includes a fourth processing part operated in a first mode of autonomously moving the vehicle in a state in which surrounding monitoring by an occupant is required, and a fifth processing part operated in a second mode of autonomously moving the vehicle in a state in which the surrounding monitoring by the occupant is not required [0002; 0010; 0015-0019], and
when a state of the vehicle detected by the state detection part is a third state in which the second mode is not executable and the first mode is executable, a number of external sensors set to the ON state is smaller than in a fourth state in which the second mode is executable, and the fifth processing part in the third state is set to the OFF state [0020-0021].
Claim 6: further comprising: a notification part configured to notify information to an occupant;
and a driving state controller configured to causes the notification part to notify that information processing by a processing part in the ON state is not started until turning ON of some of the plurality of external sensors and the plurality of processing parts have finished, when a part of some of the plurality of external sensors and the plurality of processing parts that are in the OFF state becomes to the ON state turned ON from a state in which some of the plurality of external sensors and the plurality of processing parts are in the OFF state [0044 (If there is a Car-to-X communications link between the vehicle and/or the control device and a further road user, then the vehicle may exchange highly accurate positional data with the further road user, then the vehicle may exchange highly accurate positional data with the further road user and carry out its trajectory planning on the basis of these positional changes. Not all of the surround sensors of the vehicle are necessary for planning this trajectory, which means that certain surround sensors may be switched off or set to a sleep mode. For example, redundant surround sensors belong to such surround sensors. In addition, the switching-on or switching-off of surround sensors may be allowed directly by an infrastructure device, in that the infrastructure device transmits certain commands to vehicles of an area that are operated in an automated manner.)].
Claim 7: further comprising a driving state controller configured to suppress departure of the vehicle until some of the plurality of external sensors and the plurality of processing parts that are in the OFF state have finished to become the ON state, when a state of the vehicle detected by the state detection part changes as the vehicle leaves the stopped state [0032 (When the traffic in front of the vehicle continues driving, the surround sensors of the vehicle are switched on gradually or completely as a function of the vehicle speed, so that the vehicle may continue driving in a highly automated manner.)].
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
3.1 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 the objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
3.2 Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ewert, USP Publication 2022/0126832, in view of Katayama et al, JP2023100304 (as cited on the 7-July-2025 IDS).
3.3 Ewert discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claim 2. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Katayama describes these features, including:
Claim 2: wherein the plurality of processing parts include a first processing part configured to perform warnings related to moving objects approaching the vehicle when there is a possibility of an occupant getting off the vehicle [0005; 0012], and
when the state of the vehicle detected by the state detection part is a first state which satisfies a condition including a vehicle stopped state and a door lock is released [0010 (the vehicle control device controls the on/off of door locks)], the first processing part and an external sensor which the first processing part uses for the information processing are set to the ON state, and the other processing parts and external sensors are set to the OFF state [0012; 0018; 0025; 0027].
3.4 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the situation dependent control of vehicle sensors as described by Ewert, with the vehicle warning system as disclosed by Katayama, because doing so would provide a vehicle warning system that would not only enhance the safety of an occupant exiting the vehicle, but also reduce power consumption of the entire vehicle, with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
Claim Objections
4. In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 rejections noted above, claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Prior Art
5. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-G on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Documents A-C define documents of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Documents D-G define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
6. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
7.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
7.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661