Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 04/30/2026. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panthri (Pub. No.: 2025/0115272 A1) in view of Dobkin (Pub. No.: 2007/0122003 A1).
1) In regard to claim 11, Panthri discloses the claimed apparatus (fig. 3) comprising:
an image sensor (fig. 3: 320 and ¶0031); and
a processor (fig. 3: 210) executing a machine-learning model (¶0083) to:
detect a vehicle located within an area (¶0070);
detect a person approaching the vehicle (¶0034); and
in response to the person approaching the vehicle, execute, by a component associated with the image sensor and/or the processor, a deterrence action (¶0035-¶0036),
wherein the machine-learning model is trained by applying the machine-learning model on historical data including image data of vehicles (¶0049 and it is inherent a machine learning model would use historical data to determine when a suspicious activity occurs).
Panthri does not explicitly disclose the sensor is positioned to a building and detect the vehicle from within the area of the building.
However, Dobkin discloses it has been known for a monitoring system to have a sensor to be positioned on a building and detect the vehicle from within the area of the building (¶0009 and ¶0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Panthri to be located on a building, as taught by Dobkin.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Panthri as described above in order to monitor a public area, as taught by Dobkin (¶0009).
2) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein detecting the vehicle located within the area
includes tracking the vehicle entering the area (figs. 5-8).
3) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein detecting the vehicle located within the area includes determining that the vehicle is parked (figs. 5-8).
4) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein detecting the vehicle located within the area includes determining a location of the vehicle using multiple sensors (¶0027).
5) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein detecting the vehicle located within the area includes identifying the vehicle (¶0044).
6) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein detecting the vehicle located within the area includes determining a state of the vehicle (¶0049).
7) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein detecting the person approaching the vehicle includes determining one or more characteristics or actions of the person (¶0049).
8) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 17), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 17, wherein detecting the person approaching the vehicle includes determining that the one or more characteristics or actions of the person are indicative of theft (¶0049).
9) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein executing the deterrence action includes
emitting one or more audiovisual signals (¶0053).
10) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 11), Panthri and Dobkin further disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein executing the deterrence action includes generating, by the processor executing the machine-learning model, one or more audiovisual signals (¶0053).
11) In regard to claim 1, claim 1 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 11 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), claim 2 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 12 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), claim 3 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 13 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), claim 4 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 14 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), claim 5 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 15 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), claim 6 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 16 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), claim 7 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 17 and the references applied.
18) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), claim 8 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 18 and the references applied.
19) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), claim 9 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 19 and the references applied.
20) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), claim 10 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 20 and the references applied.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
