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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on July 23, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the rejection of claims 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues:
“The Office Action errs by taking the vehicle presence detection of Gumaer's first operating protocol (1st assertion) and improperly combining it with the ambient gas sensing of the second operating protocol (2nd and 3rd assertions) to allege Gumaer teaches the claimed system. Gumaer provides no teaching or motivation to combine these elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art, when implementing the first operating protocol, would not be motivated to modify the primary trigger (vehicle status + location) with the trigger from the separate, emergency system (ambient gas level). To do so would defeat the entire purpose of Gumaer's primary invention, which is to avoid unnecessary system operation by intelligently targeting specific, running vehicles.” (Remarks at page 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument improperly characterizes the disclosures of Gumaer as two distinct and independent operating protocols that must be combined by the skilled artisan. Gumaer’s instead describes a single facility exhaust ventilation system having a common control system that receives multiple inputs, including vehicle identity/location information, vehicle status, air quality/gas information, and gate position information, and uses those inputs to control the same gates 31.
In particular, Gumaer does not limit vehicle status/location information to one mutually exclusive operating protocol. Gumaer expressly states that vehicle location information permits the control system to control gates associated with particular hoses and that the supervisory microprocessor maintains the current real-time status of the vehicles and uses that information to make gate 31 open or closed decisions. Gumaer separately discloses that the same control system receives gas sensor information and, when a gas level exceeds a set threshold, may open gates 31. Thus, the disclosures concern different inputs and control conditions of the same control architecture, rather than two incompatible systems that must be physically combined.
Moreover, the argument that there must be a “teaching or motivation” in Gumaer to combine these features is not deemed persuasive. Motivation to combine is generally an obviousness concept, not an anticipation requirement. For anticipation, the relevant question is whether the single reference, viewed as a whole and from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill, discloses the claimed arrangement, expressly or inherently. The reference need not provide an additional motivation to combine its own disclosures.
Similarly, using the gas-level condition does not necessarily “defeat the entire purpose” of Gumaer. Gumaer discloses that gas levels exceeding a threshold cause the system to open gates, including gates associated with vehicles in a not running status (see Gumaer at para. [0106]). This directly demonstrates that Gumaer intentionally permits the gas level condition to override or supplement ordinary vehicle status-based operation when necessary to reduce hazard gas concentrations. The gas triggered operation expressly acts upon the same gates 31 that are otherwise selectively controlled based on vehicle presence, location, and status. Thus, the alleged “combination” is found in Gumaer itself rather than being supplied by hindsight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gumaer (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0219350).
As per claim 1, Gumaer discloses a system for affecting a state change of a movable barrier operator based on a concentration of one or more gases (e.g., Fig. 7; para. [0070]: facility exhaust ventilation system 10), the system comprising:
a movable barrier operator associated with a structure (e.g., para. [0070] & [0085]: “The facility exhaust ventilation system 10…include an exhaust fan or blower 30 at the facility 2 operationally coupled to a vehicle exhaust system through various ducts 32 and hoses 34…The facility exhaust ventilation system 10 also includes a control system 40 which activates the blower 30 and may also provide overcurrent protection to the motor 38 of the blower 30, as illustrated in FIG. 7. The blower 30 also may include a fan unit 36 coupled to the motor 38 to move the air. The blower 30 may exhaust the air out of the building”; Examiner note: the claimed “movable barrier operator” encompasses a motorized fan, as described in the specification (para. [00118]: “the movable barrier operator can include a motorized fan that, when activated, causes the vent to open, allowing venting of the environment”; Gumaer discloses a blower 30 including a motorized fan that satisfies the claimed movable barrier operator), the movable barrier operator configured to move a movable barrier (e.g., a vent) between a plurality of positions (e.g., para. [0070]-[0071] & [0106]: gates 31 control airflow through ducts; these gates open/close and regulate passage of air; Examiner note: the claimed “movable barrier” encompasses a vent, as described in the specification (para. [00118]: “the movable barrier can include a vent”; Gumaer discloses duct gates 31 (vents) that control airflow through ducts that meets the claimed movable barrier);
a computing system (Fig. 7: control system 40 including control logic 45) comprising:
a processor communicatively connected to the movable barrier operator and a sensor (see e.g., Fig. 7; para. [0078]-[0080] & [0096]: supervisory microprocessor); and
a non-transitory computer-readable media that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the computing system to perform operations (e.g., para. [0065] & [0077]), the operations comprising:
detecting a presence of an object within the structure (e.g., para. [0013]: ID scanner (camera, RFID, etc.) determines presence of a vehicle in a specified parking space; para. [0016]: induction loops detect presence/absence of a vehicle in a parking space; also see para. [0101] & [0107]: proximity sensors that may sense the proximity of a vehicle);
receiving, at the processor, sensor data from the gas sensor identifying a concentration of a gas within an ambient environment of the structure (para. [0014], [0021]: air quality sensors, including gas sensors, measure air conditions and gas levels in the facility; para. [0106]: gas sensors measuring carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, etc.);
comparing, by the processor, the identified concentration of the gas with a concentration threshold (para. [0014]: storage memory includes thresholds and ranges; para. [0021]: system provide alarm or takes action when gas levels exceed a set threshold; para. [0106]: “input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system”);
determining a current state of the movable barrier operator (para. [0080]: sensors confirm whether gate 31 is in proper operational position; para. [0085]: variable frequency drive controls motor speed (state of blower));
determining a control instruction to change the state of the movable barrier operator in response to the comparing, the detected presence of the object, and the determined current state of the movable barrier operator (see e.g., para. [0070]-[0071], [0080], [0101] & [0106]: expressly describes a gas threshold condition that causes gate opening; vehicle presence/location detection that controls specific gates; current real-time status used for gate open/closed decisions; and a supervisory microprocessor/software control system performing those decisions; Gumaer thus discloses a single supervisory control system that receives gas sensor and vehicle presence/location information, maintains real-time status information, and uses that information to make gate open/closed decisions. Gumaer further expressly discloses that when gas concentration exceeds a set threshold, the same control system opens the gates); and
causing communication of the control instruction to the movable barrier operator to change the state of the movable barrier operator (e.g., para. [0071], [0101] & [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status. The system may then operate the blower as need, typically at or near maximum operational capacity until the gas level sensed is reduced below the set threshold. In addition, the control system may output an alarm status such that the cause of the exceeding gas levels may be investigated and eliminated.”).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Gumaer discloses: wherein detecting the presence of the object within the structure comprises detecting the presence of a vehicle within the structure, and wherein detecting the presence of the vehicle comprises: receiving image data from an image capture device; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle (e.g., para. [0013]: ID scanner (camera, RFID, etc.) determines presence of a vehicle in a specified parking space; para. [0099]: “camera-based machine vision device to optically confirm the identity of a given vehicle in the parking place, by reading the visible identification tag 52 or even in some instances may visually identify the vehicle, without using any identification tags”).
As per claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and Gumaer discloses: wherein: detecting the presence of the vehicle further comprises detecting a state of the vehicle based on the image data; and determining the control instruction comprises determining the control instruction based on the state of the vehicle (see e.g., para. [0013], [0103] & [0107]: “the ID system may sense when a particular vehicle is in a specified parking space and activate the exhaust ventilation system for the parking spot in response to an operational status input from the vehicle”; and para. [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status.”).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Gumaer discloses: wherein: detecting the presence of the object further comprises determining a state of a vehicle, wherein determining the state of the vehicle comprises: receiving data associated with the vehicle; and determining the state of the vehicle based on the data associated with the vehicle; and determining the control instruction comprises determining the control instruction based on the state of the vehicle (see e.g., para. [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status,” and para. [0107]: “For example, proximity sensors or any sensors that may sense the proximity of a vehicle and then be used by the control system to determine the present of a vehicle or absences thereof may be used to turn off and on other types of equipment used in connection with vehicles. In addition, the control system may integrate additional features, such as detection of vehicle connection status. Example of a connection status would be when the vehicle is parked in a desired location with the proximity sensor or control system 40 determining it is parked in that location, shore power could be connected to the vehicle, and the power connection verified by the control system as properly operational.”).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Gumaer discloses: wherein the operations further comprise: generating a notification based on the changed state of the movable barrier operator and the comparing (e.g., para. [0071] & [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status. The system may then operate the blower as need, typically at or near maximum operational capacity until the gas level sensed is reduced below the set threshold. In addition, the control system may output an alarm status such that the cause of the exceeding gas levels may be investigated and eliminated.”); and
transmitting the notification to a user device (e.g., para. [0076] & [0106]: “The interactive display screen 22 is configured to allow an operator to view operational parameters and if necessary adjust them.”; para. [0102]: “Real-time updates of system status, alarms, and other data are also accessible through the serial communications link. The data is also possible to make available through network interface 46 to external users, such as the computer aided dispatch system 41 or display 22.”).
Method claims 8, 9, and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as corresponding system claims 1, 3, and 7 above for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
As per claim 12, claim 8 is incorporated and Gumaer discloses: wherein the received sensor data comprises a concentration of carbon monoxide in a monitored area of the structure, and wherein comparing comprises comparing the concentration of carbon monoxide to a carbon monoxide concentration threshold (see e.g., para. [0106]: “The air quality sensor 42 if a gas sensor may measure carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and other components normally found in vehicle exhaust…For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status. The system may then operate the blower as need, typically at or near maximum operational capacity until the gas level sensed is reduced below the set threshold.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumaer in view of Gronau (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0114817).
As per claim 4, claim 2 is incorporated and Gumaer does not explicitly disclose: wherein: detecting the presence of the vehicle further comprises identifying an occupancy status of the vehicle based on the image data; and determining the control instruction comprises determining the control instruction based on the occupancy status of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gronau teaches: wherein detecting the presence of the vehicle further comprises identifying an occupancy status of the vehicle based on the image data (e.g., Fig. 1B; para. [0132]: “a monitoring system 110 configured to monitor areas and objects inside the vehicle 100 to detect the presence of one or more objects (e.g. occupants) such as driver 101 or passenger 102 and optionally determine the type of object and/or the location of the object and/or orientation of the object and/or the posture of the object and/or determine another property or characteristic of the object”); and
determining the control instruction comprises determining the control instruction based on the occupancy status of the vehicle (e.g., para. [0136]: “the systems and methods are configured to generate an output, such as an output signal, to control one or more devices or systems of the vehicle based on the measured and determined data, such as occupancy state”; “control the vehicle's HVAC (Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning) systems”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gumaer to incorporate the teachings of Gronau to provide identifying an occupancy status of the vehicle based on the image data, and determining the control instruction based on the occupancy status of the vehicle. Doing so allows to adjust the control instructions based on the determined occupancy state.
Method claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as corresponding system claim 4 above for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 5, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumaer in view of Khadloya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0303684; hereinafter “Khadloya”).
As per claim 5, claim 2 is incorporated and Gumaer does not explicitly disclose: wherein processing the image data further comprises: training an image processing model using training data; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle using the trained image processing model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khadloya teaches: wherein processing the image data further comprises: training an image processing model using training data; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle using the trained image processing model (see e.g., para. [0074] & [0112]: “the training database can include images of vehicles or images of parcels, such as can have different sizes, shapes, types, or other characteristics”; para. [0130]: “information from the target areas identified at step 802 can be provided to a classifier that is trained to recognize one or more designated objects, such as human bodies, vehicles, parcels, or parts thereof, and the classifier can provide a first indication about whether a designated object is present in the target area of the environment.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gumaer to incorporate the teachings of Khadloya to provide training an image processing model using training data; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle using the trained image processing model. Doing so allows to utilize one or more machine learning models to classify and successfully identify objects.
As per claim 14, Gumaer discloses a computing system for affecting a state change of a movable barrier operator based on a concentration of one or more gases (e.g., Fig. 7; para. [0070]: facility exhaust ventilation system 10), the system comprising:
a movable barrier operator associated with a structure (e.g., para. [0070] & [0085]: “The facility exhaust ventilation system 10…include an exhaust fan or blower 30 at the facility 2 operationally coupled to a vehicle exhaust system through various ducts 32 and hoses 34…The facility exhaust ventilation system 10 also includes a control system 40 which activates the blower 30 and may also provide overcurrent protection to the motor 38 of the blower 30, as illustrated in FIG. 7. The blower 30 also may include a fan unit 36 coupled to the motor 38 to move the air. The blower 30 may exhaust the air out of the building”; Examiner note: the claimed “movable barrier operator” encompasses a motorized fan, as described in the specification (para. [00118]: “the movable barrier operator can include a motorized fan that, when activated, causes the vent to open, allowing venting of the environment”; Gumaer discloses a blower 30 including a motorized fan to move the air that satisfies the claimed movable barrier operator);
a processor communicatively connected to the movable barrier operator and a sensor (see e.g., Fig. 7; para. [0078]-[0080] & [0096]: supervisory microprocessor); and
a non-transitory computer-readable media that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the computing system to perform operations (e.g., para. [0065] & [0077]), the operations comprising:
receiving, at the processor, image data from an image capture device; processing the image data to determine a presence of a vehicle within the structure (e.g., para. [0013]: ID scanner (camera, RFID, etc.) determines presence of a vehicle in a specified parking space; para. [0099]: “camera-based machine vision device to optically confirm the identity of a given vehicle in the parking place, by reading the visible identification tag 52 or even in some instances may visually identify the vehicle, without using any identification tags”; also see para. [0101] & [0107]: proximity sensors that may sense the proximity of a vehicle), wherein determining the presence of the vehicle further comprises determining a state of the vehicle (see e.g., para. [0013], [0103] & [0107]: “the ID system may sense when a particular vehicle is in a specified parking space and activate the exhaust ventilation system for the parking spot in response to an operational status input from the vehicle”; para. [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status.”), wherein processing the image data comprises:
receiving, at the processor, sensor data identifying a concentration of a gas within the structure (para. [0014], [0021]: air quality sensors, including gas sensors, measure air conditions and gas levels in the facility; para. [0106]: gas sensors measuring carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc.);
comparing, by the processor, the identified concentration of the gas with a concentration threshold (para. [0014]: storage memory includes thresholds and ranges; para. [0021]: system provide alarm or takes action when gas levels exceed a set threshold; para. [0106]: “input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system”);
determining a current state of the movable barrier operator (para. [0080]: sensors confirm whether gate 31 is in proper operational position; para. [0085]: variable frequency drive controls motor speed (state of blower));
determining a control instruction to change the state of the movable barrier operator in response to the comparing, the detected presence of the vehicle, and the current state of the movable barrier operator (see e.g., para. [0070]-[0071], [0080], [0101] & [0106]: expressly describes a gas threshold condition that causes gate opening; vehicle presence/location detection that controls specific gates; current real-time status used for gate open/closed decisions; and a supervisory microprocessor/software control system performing those decisions; Gumaer thus discloses a single supervisory control system that receives gas sensor and vehicle presence/location information, maintains real-time status information, and uses that information to make gate open/closed decisions. Gumaer further expressly discloses that when gas concentration exceeds a set threshold, the same control system opens the gates); and
causing communication of the control instruction to the movable barrier operator to change the state of the movable barrier operator (e.g., para. [0071], [0101] & [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status. The system may then operate the blower as need, typically at or near maximum operational capacity until the gas level sensed is reduced below the set threshold. In addition, the control system may output an alarm status such that the cause of the exceeding gas levels may be investigated and eliminated.”).
Gumaer does not explicitly disclose: training an image processing model using training data; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle using the trained image processing model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khadloya teaches: training an image processing model using training data; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle using the trained image processing model (see e.g., para. [0074] & [0112]: “the training database can include images of vehicles or images of parcels, such as can have different sizes, shapes, types, or other characteristics”; para. [0130]: “information from the target areas identified at step 802 can be provided to a classifier that is trained to recognize one or more designated objects, such as human bodies, vehicles, parcels, or parts thereof, and the classifier can provide a first indication about whether a designated object is present in the target area of the environment.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gumaer to incorporate the teachings of Khadloya to provide training an image processing model using training data; and processing the image data to detect the presence of the vehicle using the trained image processing model. Doing so allows to utilize one or more machine learning models to classify and successfully identify objects.
As per claim 15, claim 14 is incorporated and Gumaer discloses: wherein the operations further comprise: generating a notification based on the changed state of the movable barrier operator and the comparing (e.g., para. [0071] & [0106]: “For example, an input from the gas sensor that a set threshold of gas levels is exceed is received by the control system, which may in response open the gates 31, including gates 31 associated with vehicles in a not running status. The system may then operate the blower as need, typically at or near maximum operational capacity until the gas level sensed is reduced below the set threshold. In addition, the control system may output an alarm status such that the cause of the exceeding gas levels may be investigated and eliminated.”); and
transmitting the notification to a user device (e.g., para. [0076] & [0106]: “The interactive display screen 22 is configured to allow an operator to view operational parameters and if necessary adjust them.”; para. [0102]: “Real-time updates of system status, alarms, and other data are also accessible through the serial communications link. The data is also possible to make available through network interface 46 to external users, such as the computer aided dispatch system 41 or display 22.”).
As per claim 19, claim 14 is incorporated and Gumaer in view of Khadloya discloses: wherein the image processing model comprises a machine learning model (see Khadloya, e.g., para. [0074], [0112] & [0130]).
As per claim 20, claim 14 is incorporated and Gumaer further discloses: wherein determining the control instruction comprises: receiving a vehicle identifier associated with the vehicle; comparing the vehicle identifier to a reference database that comprises information associated with the vehicle; and determining a dimension associated with the vehicle based on the comparing; and modifying the control instruction based on the dimension (see e.g., para. [0013], [0084], [0099]: “For example, the ID scanner may be a camera system similar to a traffic light camera system that determines the presence of a vehicle in a specified spot, which in this instance is the parking spot. The ID scanner may read a number from the vehicle, a bar code or similar id tag, or may even recognize the vehicle solely based on the shape of the vehicle as compared to a stored shape. As such, the ID system may sense when a particular vehicle is in a specified parking space and activate the exhaust ventilation system for the parking spot in response to an operational status input from the vehicle”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumaer in view of Schliep et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0243358; hereinafter “Schliep”).
As per claim 10, claim 9 is incorporated and Gumaer does not explicitly disclose: wherein: receiving the data comprises receiving thermal image data from an image capture device; and processing the data comprises processing the thermal image data to determine the state of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schliep teaches: wherein: receiving the data comprises receiving thermal image data from an image capture device; and processing the data comprises processing the thermal image data to determine the state of the vehicle (see e.g., para. [0020]: “the linking of the results from simultaneous video and thermal imaging analysis in order to determine the vehicle geometry, particle emissions and heat sources together with an analysis of the airborne sound and structure-borne sound which is carried out at the same time make it possible to synchronously localize the exhaust gas opening of a vehicle and, by means of concentration analysis, to identify, for example, vehicles with high exhaust gas concentrations (so-called “exhaust gas infringers”)”; Fig. 6; para. [0049]: “The monitoring camera 90 also has a thermal imaging camera. The vehicle 72 is thus recorded by means of the external monitoring camera 90 even before it reaches the optical detection area of the apparatus 1. Depending on the nature and configuration of the monitoring camera 90, the emission of hazardous substances caused by the vehicle 72 is detected on the basis of the smoke plume, and is transmitted to the evaluation unit 4 by means of the communication module 30”; para. [0052]: “the technical conditions of the vehicle 72 is checked by means of the apparatus 1 on the basis of a video, thermal imaging, noise and immission analysis, for example relating to the temperature of the brakes, the condition of the tires, the condition of the shock absorbers, and the noise and exhaust gas emissions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gumaer to incorporate the teachings of Schliep to provide processing the thermal image data to determine the state of the vehicle. Doing so allows to utilize thermal imaging to ascertain the state of the vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumaer in view of Khadloya, and further in view of Schliep.
As per claim 16, claim 14 is incorporated and Gumaer in view of Khadloya does not explicitly disclose: wherein: receiving the image data comprises receiving thermal image data from the image capture device; and processing the image data comprises processing the thermal image data to determine the state of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schliep teaches: wherein: receiving the image data comprises receiving thermal image data from the image capture device; and processing the image data comprises processing the thermal image data to determine the state of the vehicle (see e.g., para. [0020]: “the linking of the results from simultaneous video and thermal imaging analysis in order to determine the vehicle geometry, particle emissions and heat sources together with an analysis of the airborne sound and structure-borne sound which is carried out at the same time make it possible to synchronously localize the exhaust gas opening of a vehicle and, by means of concentration analysis, to identify, for example, vehicles with high exhaust gas concentrations (so-called “exhaust gas infringers”)”; Fig. 6; para. [0049]: “The monitoring camera 90 also has a thermal imaging camera. The vehicle 72 is thus recorded by means of the external monitoring camera 90 even before it reaches the optical detection area of the apparatus 1. Depending on the nature and configuration of the monitoring camera 90, the emission of hazardous substances caused by the vehicle 72 is detected on the basis of the smoke plume, and is transmitted to the evaluation unit 4 by means of the communication module 30”; para. [0052]: “the technical conditions of the vehicle 72 is checked by means of the apparatus 1 on the basis of a video, thermal imaging, noise and immission analysis, for example relating to the temperature of the brakes, the condition of the tires, the condition of the shock absorbers, and the noise and exhaust gas emissions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gumaer in view of Khadloya to incorporate the teachings of Schliep to provide processing the thermal image data to determine the state of the vehicle. Doing so allows to utilize thermal imaging to ascertain the state of the vehicle.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumaer in view of Khadloya, and further in view of Gronau.
As per claim 17, claim 14 is incorporated and Gumaer in view of Khadloya does not explicitly disclose: wherein: detecting the presence of the vehicle further comprises identifying an occupancy status of the vehicle based on the image data; and determining the control instruction comprises determining the control instruction based on the occupancy status of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gronau teaches: wherein: detecting the presence of the vehicle further comprises identifying an occupancy status of the vehicle based on the image data (e.g., Fig. 1B; para. [0132]: “a monitoring system 110 configured to monitor areas and objects inside the vehicle 100 to detect the presence of one or more objects (e.g. occupants) such as driver 101 or passenger 102 and optionally determine the type of object and/or the location of the object and/or orientation of the object and/or the posture of the object and/or determine another property or characteristic of the object”); and
determining the control instruction comprises determining the control instruction based on the occupancy status of the vehicle (e.g., para. [0136]: “the systems and methods are configured to generate an output, such as an output signal, to control one or more devices or systems of the vehicle based on the measured and determined data, such as occupancy state”; “control the vehicle's HVAC (Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning) systems”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gumaer in view of Khadloya to incorporate the teachings of Gronau to provide identifying an occupancy status of the vehicle based on the image data, and determining the control instruction based on the occupancy status of the vehicle. Doing so allows to adjust the control instructions based on the determined occupancy state.
As per claim 18, claim 17 is incorporated and Gumaer in view of Khadloya and Gronau discloses: wherein identifying the occupancy status of the vehicle further comprises identifying an operation history of at least one door associated with the vehicle (see Gronau, e.g., para. [0142]: the vehicle's sensors may include door sensors; the monitoring system 110 may receive one or more signals from the vehicle's Controller Area Network (CAN bus) to identify which door was opened/closed; para. [0169] & [0210]: “the inputs may include whether the vehicle doors and windows are open/closed and/or when they were opened and/or closed and/or the number of times they were closed or opened and which door or window is or was closed or opened”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
