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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naserian et al. (Naserian; US 2019/0152387) in view of Weston et al. (Weston; US 2023/0017327).
As per claim 1, Naserian teaches a device comprising:
a tailgate body (a tailgate 110 located at back of a vehicle, see e.g. para. [0014-15], with body; see e.g. FIG. 1);
a camera system attached to the tailgate body (a sensor mounted on the tailgate, see e.g. para. [0021], wherein Naserian teaches that there can be a plurality of cameras; see e.g. para. [0016]), and
a control unit connected to the camera system (a processor connected the one or more cameras; see e.g. para. [0022]).
Naserian does not teach, in the same embodiment, that a sensor array, and the control unit is connected to the sensor array.
Weston, however, teaches a sensor array (ultrasonic and/or radar sensors 108; see e.g. para. [0019-20]) is attached to the tailgate body (the sensors 108 can be attached to the tailgate body; see e.g. FIG. 1) and the control unit is connected the sensor array (tailgate sensors and tailgate camera connected to a controller 110; see e.g. FIG. 2).
Naserian and Weston are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved detection reliability by using multiple sensors.
As per claim 8, The device as claimed in claim 1 as taught by Naserian and Weston, wherein the control unit is connected to a warning display (processor to generate visual warning [display], see e.g. para. [0026] and [0028] of Naserian).
Claims 2, 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naserian in view of Weston and further in view of Gunzel et al. (Gunzel; US 2017/0045611).
As per claim 2, the device as claimed in claim 1 as taught by Naserian and Weston, except the claimed wherein the tailgate body includes one or more recessed areas.
Gunzel, however, teaches a tailgate body includes one or more recessed areas (a rear bumper comprising one or more recessed area; see e.g. para. [0028]). Naserian, Weston and Gunzel are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teaching before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of improving visual aesthetics.
As per claim 3, the device as claimed in claim 2 as taught by Naserian, Weston and Gunzel, wherein the sensor array comprises radar and ultrasonic sensors (the disclosed system of Naserian teaches one or more sensors including radar sensor as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, wherein Gunzel teaches an ultrasonic sensor; see e.g. para. [0028]).
As per claim 5, the device as claimed in claim 2 as taught by Naserian, Weston and Gunzel, wherein the camera is connected to a display inside a vehicle (camera connected to a vehicle within the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0026] of Naserian).
As per claim 6, The device as claimed in claim 2 as taught by Naserian, Weston and Gunzel, wherein the control unit is connected to notification lights (processor to generate visual warning, see e.g. para. [0026] and [0028] of Naserian, wherein a display comprises one or more lights, either LEDs or a backlight in case of LCD displays).
As per claim 7, the device as claimed in claim 2 as taught by Naserian, Weston and Gunzel, wherein the control unit is connected to sound speakers (processor generating an audible warning, see e.g. para. [0028] of Naserian, which is done by one or more sound outputting devices [speakers for example]).
Claims 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naserian in view of Weston, Gunzel and further in view of DeSimone (DiSimone; US 2023/01311772).
As per claim 4, the device as claimed in claim 1 as taught by Naserian and Weston, except the claimed wherein the control unit includes movement detectors to detect the opening and closing of the tailgate body, and is configured such that, when the tailgate body is extended, the sensors are activated to emit radar waves.
DeSimone, however, teaches one or more movement detectors to detect the opening and closing of the tailgate body (position or opening/closing of tailgate is detected based on a signal from one or more switches; see e.g. para. [0043]), and is configured such that, when the tailgate body is extended, the sensors are activated (a camera 24 is activated when the tailgate body is extended; see e.g. para. [0045-46] and FIG. 2) to emit radar waves (even though DeSimone does not teach radar waves, Naserian teaches a radar sensor as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1. Similarly, it would be obvious to use a camera or a radar sensor to carry out one or more intended detections). Naserian, Weston and DeSimone are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teaching before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of gathering environment data even when a vehicle liftgate is open.
As per claim 9, the device as claimed in claim 4 as taught by Naserian, Weston and DeSimone, wherein Naserian as well as teaches outputting warning as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1. In addition, Weston teaches that a control unit is configured to interface with an automatic braking mechanism to halt the vehicle (automatically apply the brakes of the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0031-32] of Naserian) if the driver fails to respond promptly to warnings (the braking would be applied after the disclosed visual audible and/or tactile warning, otherwise the purpose of outputting an alert [for a driver to apply brakes or slow down] would be lost).
Claims 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSimone in view of Weston and further in view of Ghannam et al. (Ghannam; US 2024/0116578).
As per claim 10, DeSimone teaches a device comprising:
a tailgate body having a top side, a right side, a left side, and a bottom side (a vehicle tailgate body, see e.g. FIGS. 1, 2 and 4, comprising a top side, a right side, a left side, and a bottom side), wherein the top side is configured with one or more recessed areas (one or more recessed areas, not visible in FIG. 3, visible in FIGS. 2 and 4); a sensor array attached to the tailgate body within the one or more recessed areas (a sensor or camera within the one or more recessed area, see e.g. FIGS. 2 and 4; even though the disclosed camera is a single sensor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a multiplicity or array of the disclosed camera since it has been held by courts that having an array of the disclosed camera or sensors would not be patentably distinct unless a new or unexpected result is found), a camera system attached to the tailgate body (a camera 22 attached to the tailgate body, see e.g. FIG. 2 and para. [0043-44]). DeSimone does not explicitly teach a control unit connected to the sensor array and the camera system.
Weston, however, teaches a control unit connected to a sensor and a camera system (a tailgate camera and a tailgate sensor connected to a controller 110, see e.g. FIG. 2), wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill that the sensor can be a sensor array as discussed earlier.
DeSimone and Weston are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of receiving and processing one or more sensor inputs using a single sensor for the purpose of reducing cost associated with dedicated processors.
DeSimone and Weston do not explicitly teach that the one or more recess areas where sensors are located are equally spaced apart.
Ghannam, however, teaches that sensors are located equally spaced apart (a plurality of sensors that are located equally spaced apart from each other; see e.g. para. [0042]).
DeSimone teaches that a sensor positioned in a recess is known to be useful for a particular purpose (visual aesthetic, reduced wind resistance etc.). A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of improved methods – a plurality of recesses with a plurality of sensors. Ghannam teaches that having a plurality of sensors known to be useful for object detected, for example. Furthermore, Ghannam teaches a plurality of recesses with a plurality of sensors would reasonably have been expected to be applicable to a an object detection system. Ghannam also inherently discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining a known system with one of the disclosed teachings of DeSimone in order to make a detection system does not affect the properties of the detection system. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the sensors that are equally spaced apart to be positioned in spaced apart recessed in an attempt to provide an improved system, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the system as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system with one or more recess areas where sensors are located are equally spaced apart.
As per claim 11, the device as claimed in claim 10 as taught by DeSimone, Weston and Ghannam, wherein the sensor array comprises radar and ultrasonic sensors (Weston teaches that one or more sensors can be ultrasonic or radar sensors, see e.g. para. [0019-20], wherein it would have been obvious to use both of the disclosed sensors for improved reliability).
As per claim 12, the device as claimed in claim 11 as taught by DeSimone, Weston and Ghannam, wherein the control unit is configured such that, when the tailgate body is extended, the sensors are activated to emit radar waves (Simone teaches a camera 24 is activated when the tailgate body is extended; see e.g. para. [0045-46] and FIG. 2; even though DeSimone does not teach radar waves, Weston teaches a radar sensor, see e.g. para. [0019]. Similarly, it would be obvious to use a camera or a radar sensor to carry out one or more intended detections).
As per claim 13, the device as claimed in claim 11 as taught by DeSimone, Weston and Ghannam, wherein the camera is connected to a display inside a vehicle (a display to output camera inputs; see e.g. para. [0049], [0061] and [0066] of Ghannam).
Claims 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSimone in view of Weston, Ghannam and further in view of Naserian.
As per claim 14, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 10, furthermore a camera system attached to the tailgate body within the one or more recessed areas (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 10 that it would have been obvious to have a plurality of recesses with a plurality of sensors, similarly a plurality of cameras or any other sensor[s] can be disposed in a plurality of recesses without departing from the gist of the disclosed DeSimone or Weston references since their combination teaches one or more recessed and a plurality of sensors as discussed earlier).
DeSimone, Weston and Ghannam do not teach that the control unit is wirelessly connected to notification lights.
Naserian, however, teaches that control unit is wirelessly connected to a sensor (processor 124 may be coupled to the sensor(s) 124 via a wireless network; see e.g. para. [0017]), similarly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that any components in the disclosed system, i.e. processor and visual warning or display (see e.g. para. [0028]), can be designed to wirelessly communicate with other.
DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing cost and complications associated with physical wires.
As per claim 15, the device as claimed in claim 14 as taught by DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian, wherein the sensor array comprises radar and ultrasonic sensors (the disclosed system of Naserian teaches one or more sensors including radar sensor as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, wherein Gunzel teaches an ultrasonic sensor; see e.g. para. [0028]).
As per claim 16, the device as claimed in claim 15 as taught by DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian, wherein DeSimone teaches that the control unit includes movement detectors to detect the opening and closing of the tailgate body (position or opening/closing of tailgate is detected based on a signal from one or more switches; see e.g. para. [0043]), and is configured such that, when the tailgate body is extended (a camera 24 is activated when the tailgate body is extended; see e.g. para. [0045-46] and FIG. 2), the sensors are activated to emit radar waves (even though DeSimone does not teach radar waves, Naserian teaches a radar sensor as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1. Similarly, it would be obvious to use a camera or a radar sensor to carry out one or more intended detections).
As per claim 17, the device as claimed in claim 16 as taught by DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian, wherein the camera is connected to a display inside a vehicle (camera connected to a vehicle within the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0026] of Naserian).
As per claim 18, the device as claimed in claim 14 as taught by DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian, wherein the control unit is connected to sound speakers (processor generating an audible warning, see e.g. para. [0028] of Naserian, which is done by one or more sound outputting devices [speakers for example]).
As per claim 19, the device as claimed in claim 14 as taught by DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian, wherein the control unit is connected to a warning display (processor to generate visual warning [display], see e.g. para. [0026] and [0028] of Naserian, which means the processor is connected to the warning output display).
As per claim 20, the device as claimed in claim 14 as taught by DeSimone, Weston, Ghannam and Naserian, wherein the control unit is configured to interface with an automatic braking mechanism to halt the vehicle (automatically apply the brakes of the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0031-32] of Naserian) if the driver fails to respond promptly to warnings (the braking would be applied after the disclosed visual audible and/or tactile warning, otherwise the purpose of outputting an alert [for a driver to apply brakes or slow down] would be lost).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688