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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,953,830 B1) in view of Oesterling et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0259227 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Christensen teaches a system (FIG. 1B), comprising:
a communication system coupled to a self-driving vehicle (102, FIG. 1A may be autonomous vehicle col. 6, lines 26-27), the communication system having at least one of an antenna, a transmitter, and a receiver (transceiver 112, FIG. 1A and col. 7, lines 48-65);
a smoke detection system comprising a smoke detector coupled to the self-driving vehicle and configured to detect smoke inside a portion of the self-driving vehicle (Similarly, smoke detection within the vehicle via sensors; col. 26, lines 6-9); and
a non-transitory computer-readable media executable by a processor selected from the
group consisting of the smoke detection system, the communication system, and combinations
thereof (Similarly, software applications stored in program memory of the emergency condition detection module 210; col. 11, lines 29-59), the non-transitory computer-readable media configured to cause the processor to carry out the steps of:
detecting, via the smoke detection system, smoke, and sending, via the communication system, a wireless communication to a database (interior data collection component is transmitted to remote database; col. 14, lines 24-27).
Christensen is silent to an ionization smoke detector. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Oesterling teaches a system for monitoring a vehicle during peer-to-peer reservation of the vehicle and may generate a report based on vehicle monitoring (See Abstract). More specifically a smoke detector may include a sensor that detects the presence of smoke. The smoke detector may be an ionization sensor that may be mounted in the interior of the vehicle cabin (¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify smoke detector taught by Christensen to be an ionization smoke detector as taught by Oesterling to enhance smoke detection (¶ 65).
Regarding claim 2, Christensen discloses the system, wherein the wireless communication comprises a notification of the smoke inside the portion of the self-driving vehicle (smoke detected and compared to threshold values prompting deployment of fire protection devices; col. 26, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 6, Christensen discloses the system, wherein sending, via the communication system, the wireless communication to the database occurs in response to the smoke detection system detecting the smoke inside the self-driving vehicle (interior data collection component is transmitted to remote database; col. 14, lines 24-27 and col. 26, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 8, Christensen discloses the system, further comprising a first button coupled to the self-driving vehicle, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media is configured to cause the processor to provide a GPS location (GPS units; col. 7, lines 52-55) of the self-driving vehicle in response to a rider pressing the first button (Inherent of user interface to select information about the vehicle and or environment of the vehicle; col. 11, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 9, Christensen discloses the system, wherein the smoke detection system comprises a first camera, and the non-transitory computer-readable media is executable by a processor of the first camera, and the non-transitory computer-readable media is configured to cause the first camera to take a picture inside the self-driving vehicle (camera; col. 7 line 19).
Claims 3 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,953,830 B1) in view of Oesterling et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0259227 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hariram (Pub. No.: US 2014/0233017 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Christensen is silent to the system, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media is configured to further cause the processor to carry out the steps of analyzing, via the smoke detection system, a particle size of the smoke. However, Hariram teaches a method for measuring particle content in a stream (e.g., solid, aerosol, vapor liquid, gases, etc. ¶ 19) within a vehicle (See Abstract and ¶¶ 1-2). More specifically, concentration of particle size may be measured (¶¶ 18, 19, 88).
It would have been obvious to modify the smoke detection system taught by Christensen and Oesterling to detect a particle size of the smoke taught by Hariram to enhance safety suppression systems minimizing risks that arise in transporting people and certain materials and articles (¶ 2).
Regarding claim 4, Hariram teaches the system, wherein sending, via the communication system, the wireless communication to the database occurs in response to the smoke detection system determining that the particle size is less than a predetermined threshold (¶ 32, 59).
It would have been obvious to modify the smoke detection system taught by Christensen and Oesterling to determine that the particle size is less than a predetermined threshold taught by Hariram to enhance safety suppression systems minimizing risks that arise in transporting people and certain materials and articles (¶ 2).
Regarding claim 5, Christensen discloses the system, wherein the wireless communication comprises a notification that the smoke is combustion smoke (fire within the vehicle; col. 12, lines 1-4).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,953,830 B1) in view of Oesterling et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0259227 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nemec (Pub. No.: US 2015/0338849 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nemec teaches the system, further comprising a first button coupled to the self-driving vehicle, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media is configured to cause the processor to summon an emergency responder in response to a rider pressing the first button (passenger indicates emergency button was activated and help has been called, either a concierge or an emergency response center ¶ 84).
It would have been obvious to modify Christensen and Oesterling to summon an emergency responder in response to a rider pressing the first button as taught by Nemec to flexibly enhance passenger safety for the vehicle.
Claim(s) 13 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,953,830 B1) in view of Hariram (Pub. No.: US 2014/0233017 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Christensen teaches a system, comprising:
a communication system coupled to a self-driving vehicle (102, FIG. 1A may be autonomous vehicle col. 6, lines 26-27), the communication system having at least one of an antenna, a transmitter, and a receiver (transceiver 112, FIG. 1A and col. 7, lines 48-65);
a smoke detection system comprising a smoke detector coupled to the self-driving vehicle and configured to detect smoke inside a portion of the self-driving vehicle (Similarly, smoke detection within the vehicle via sensors; col. 26, lines 6-9); and
a non-transitory computer-readable media executable by a processor selected from the
group consisting of the smoke detection system, the communication system, and combinations
thereof (Similarly, software applications stored in program memory of the emergency condition detection module 210; col. 11, lines 29-59), the non-transitory computer-readable media configured to cause the processor to carry out the steps of:
detecting, via the smoke detection system, the smoke, and sending, via the communication system, a wireless communication to a database (interior data collection component is transmitted to remote database; col. 14, lines 24-27).
Christensen is silent to the smoke detection system being a optical smoke detector to detect electronic cigarette aerosol. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hariram teaches a method for measuring particle content in a stream (e.g., solid, aerosol, vapor liquid, gases, etc. ¶ 19) within a vehicle (See Abstract and ¶¶ 1-2). More specifically, concentration of particle size and aerosol may be measured (¶¶ 18, 19, 88) via optical sensors (¶ 69). It is also well known that electronic cigarettes emits aerosol which meets the limitations of the claim.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoke detection system taught by Christensen to be an optical smoke detector to detect electronic cigarette aerosol taught by Hariram to enhance safety suppression systems minimizing risks that arise in transporting people and certain materials and articles (¶ 2).
Regarding claim 14, Hariram teaches the system, wherein the wireless communication comprises a notification of the electronic cigarette aerosol inside the portion of the self-driving vehicle (706, FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to modify Christensen to wherein the wireless communication comprises a notification of the electronic cigarette aerosol inside the portion of the self-driving vehicle as taught by Hariram to enhance safety suppression systems minimizing risks that arise in transporting people and certain materials and articles (¶ 2).
Regarding claim 15, Christensen disclose the system, wherein the wireless communication comprises an identification of a rider located in the self-driving vehicle (Collect data regarding the specific driver or passenger; col. 9, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 16, Christensen is silent to the system, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media is configured to cause the processor to carry out the step of detecting, via the smoke detection system, the electronic cigarette aerosol by analyzing a particle size of an aerosol and determining that the particle size is indicative of electronic cigarette use. However, Hariram teaches a method for measuring particle content in a stream (e.g., solid, aerosol, vapor liquid, gases, etc. ¶ 19) within a vehicle (See Abstract and ¶¶ 1-2). More specifically, concentration of particle size may be measured (¶¶ 18, 19, 88).
It would have been obvious to modify the smoke detection system taught by Christensen and Oesterling to detect a particle size of the smoke taught by Hariram to enhance safety suppression systems minimizing risks that arise in transporting people and certain materials and articles (¶ 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 – 12 and 17 – 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663