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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 23-37 recites the limitation "An apparatus" in line 1, respectively. It is unclear whether the apparatus recited in claims 23-37 is the same or different than the apparatus recited in claim 22. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner will interpret the apparatus in claims 23-37 as the same apparatus in claim 22. Applicant may overcome the rejection by deleting “An” before apparatus in claims 23-37 and replacing with --The--. Appropriate correction or further explanation is required.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the mobile communication device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 22-25, 33, 35, 36, and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mclean (Pat. No.: 10,071,654 B2) in view of Lin (Pub. No.: 2024/0294182 A1).
1) In regard to claim 22, Mclean discloses the claimed apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 1: control circuit); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (its inherent the electronic device of fig. 1 has a memory which stores instructions), cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain movement type data from one or more of a set of one or more users (col. 4, lines 37-38 discloses the sensor detects a person entering into the vehicle),
wherein the movement type data includes an indication of an object being put into a vehicle by one of said users (col. 4, lines 41-42 discloses detecting the motion of the baby being placed within the vehicle) and an indication of the object being removed from the vehicle by one of said users (col. 4, lines 53-56 discloses detecting the baby exiting the vehicle); and
identify a condition in which the object is in the vehicle after a predetermined time when the ignition is turned off (col. 3, lines 28-41 discloses providing alerts once the ignition is turned off after a predetermined time).
Mclean does not explicitly disclose identify a condition when none of the set of one or more users is within the vehicle.
However, Lin discloses it is known for a monitoring apparatus to identify a condition in which the object is in the vehicle and one or more users are not within the vehicle (¶0053-¶0054 discloses determining when someone exits the vehicle and comparing second sensing data to first sensing data to determine if there is an object in the car after the door is closed).
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 Mclean to detect whether an object is in the vehicle after when one of the users is not within the vehicle, as taught by Lin.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Mclean as described above in order to use a known alternative technique for determining if an object is left in the vehicle.
2) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: determine whether the object is within the vehicle based, at least in part, on the movement type data (Mclean col. 4, lines 50-56).
3) In regard to claim 24 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: raise an alert regarding said condition (Mclean col. 3, lines 28-42).
4) In regard to claim 25 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: inform one or more of said set of one or more users of said condition (Lin ¶0072).
5) In regard to claim 33 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein said set of users comprises users travelling in the vehicle (Mclean col. 3, lines 27-30).
6) In regard to claim 35 (dependent on claim 34), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 34, wherein movement type data is obtained when said vehicle is not in motion (Mclean col. 4, lines 37-45).
7) In regard to claim 36 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein said object is a child (Mclean col. 4, lines 37-38).
8) In regard to claim 38, claim 38 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 22 and the references applied.
9) In regard to claim 39 (dependent on claim 38), claim 39 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 24 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 40 (dependent on claim 38), claim 40 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 25 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 41, claim 41 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 22 and the references applied.
Claims 26-32, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mclean (Pat. No.: 10,071,654 B2) in view of Lin (Pub. No.: 2024/0294182 A1) and further in view of Schoenberg (Pub. No.: 2014/0253313 A1).
1) In regard to claim 26 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22.
Mclean and Lin do not explicitly disclose the apparatus obtains sensor data, wherein said sensor data includes data obtained from a mobile communication device of a first user of said one or more users; and determine, using one or more models, movement type data relating to said first user based, at least in part, on the obtained sensor data.
However, Schoenberg discloses it is known for a monitoring apparatus to obtain sensor data, and the sensor data includes data obtained from a mobile communication device of a first user of said one or more users; and determine, using one or more models, movement type data relating to said first user based, at least in part, on the obtained sensor data (¶0130).
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 Mclean to obtain sensor data from a mobile communication device, as taught by Schoenberg.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Mclean as described above in order to alert a user within the vicinity, as taught by Schoenberg (¶0130).
2) In regard to claim 27 (dependent on claim 26), Mclean, Lin and Schoenberg further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein at least one of said models is for estimating a location of the first user's mobile communication device on said first user's body (Schoenberg ¶0130).
3) In regard to claim 28 (dependent on claim 27), Mclean, Lin and Schoenberg further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, wherein said one or more models for determining movement type data relating to the first user identifies movement type based, in part, on the estimated location of the first user's mobile communication device on said user's body (Schoenberg ¶0130).
4) In regard to claim 29 (dependent on claim 26), Mclean, Lin and Schoenberg further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein said sensor data includes at least one of: audio data; accelerometer data or gyroscope data (Schoenberg ¶0130 discloses a phone).
5) In regard to claim 30 (dependent on claim 26), Mclean, Lin and Schoenberg further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: communicate the determined movement type data relating to said first user to some or all of said set of one or more users (Lin ¶0072).
6) In regard to claim 31 (dependent on claim 30), Mclean, Lin and Schoenberg further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 30, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: receive identified movement type data relating to some or all of said set of one or more users (Mclean col. 4, lines 45-56).
7) In regard to claim 32 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22.
Mclean and Lin do not explicitly disclose the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: obtain information relating to any user of the set of one or more users that is moving away from the vehicle.
However, Schoenberg discloses it is known for an apparatus to obtain information relating to any user of the set of one or more users that is moving away from the vehicle (¶0130).
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 Mclean to detect a user is moving away from the vehicle, as taught by Schoenberg.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Mclean as described above in order to use a known technique for determining an object is being left in a vehicle.
8) In regard to claim 34 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22.
Mclean and Lin do not explicitly disclose the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: use location data of the mobile communication device of the first user to determine whether the vehicle is in motion.
However, Schoenberg discloses it is known for a monitoring apparatus to use location data of the mobile communication device of the first user to determine whether the vehicle is in motion (¶0130).
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 Mclean to determine whether a vehicle is in motion, as taught by Schoenberg.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Mclean as described above in order to use a known technique for determining an object is in a moving vehicle.
9) In regard to claim 37 (dependent on claim 22), Mclean and Lin further disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 22.
Mclean and Lin do not explicitly disclose the apparatus is mobile communication device of one of the set of one or more users.
However, Schoenberg discloses it is known for an apparatus used by a use to be a mobile communication device (¶0130).
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 Mclean to be a mobile communication device, as taught by Schoenberg.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Mclean as described above in order to use a known device in a monitoring system to alert a user of an emergency situation.
Conclusion
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