DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment dated April 28, 2026.
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
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are as originally filed.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-5 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a controller configured to make a procedure for unlocking or opening the door simpler than normal upon determining that the person trapped inside the vehicle is a child. The claimed limitation of “simpler than normal” is a relative phrase. It is not clear how the applicant has possession of this limitation. Does the applicant possess every possible manner, known and not yet known, as to how operation may be “simpler than normal”? Rather, this limitation is an outcome of the previous limitation of presenting information indicating procedures for unlocking and opening the door since this alone makes the process “simpler” by reducing the need for the person to figure out how to survive or exit the vehicle in a state of potential panic.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as being met if the limitation of presenting information indicating procedures for unlocking and opening the door is met.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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 1-2 and 4-5 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.
The phrase “simpler than normal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “simpler than normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is the door a sliding door, a wing door, an externally rotating door, or other? Does the door automatically open at the touch of a button or does a person have to physically move the door?
What are considered the metes and bounds of “normal” in door lock operation? The claim and specification does not define the interpretation of normal as a baseline for the claim language of “simpler than normal”. Paragraph [0018] of the specification provides one example, but the language in the claim does not define this example. Instead, the claim language is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golov (US PG Pub #2021/0245771) in view of Konchan et al. (Konchan; US PG Pub #2016/0355128) and Zang (US PG Pub #2006/0103516).
As to claim 1, Golov teaches an information presentation apparatus (Paragraph [0010] teaches a device for detecting the presence of beings trapped in vehicles; Paragraph [0097] teaches an apparatus) comprising:
an output interface installed inside a vehicle (Paragraph [0091] teaches a display within a vehicle such as an in-dash screen); and
a controller (Paragraph [0090] teaches one or more processors) configured to:
determine whether a person is trapped inside the vehicle when a door of the vehicle is locked by a locking operation outside the vehicle (Paragraph [0010] teaches detecting the presence of beings trapped in vehicles; Paragraph [0016] teaches detecting a user has locked the doors via a remote key fob, mobile application, or other device; Paragraph [0035] teaches determining whether a passenger is detected or no passengers are detected);
upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle, procedures for unlocking and opening the door (Paragraphs [0041]-[0044] teach transmitting an alert and operating one or more vehicle subsystems to assist the detected passengers after detecting a being in the vehicle); and
make a procedure for unlocking or opening the door simpler than normal upon determining that the person is trapped inside the vehicle (Paragraph [0044] teaches proactively operating one or more vehicle subsystems to assist the detected passenger).
However, Golov does not explicitly teach presenting, upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle, information indicating procedures for unlocking and opening the door via the output interface and that the trapped person is a child.
In the field of vehicle door lock systems, Konchan teaches presenting, upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle, information indicating procedures for unlocking and opening the door via the output interface (Paragraphs [0005] and [0029] teach the vehicle providing an audio and/or visual message providing instructions on how to unlock and/or open the door when an occupant actuates an interior door handle when the door lock system is locked). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Golov with the audio/visual instructions of Konchan because this allows the occupant to exit the vehicle (Paragraph [0005]). Golov in view of Konchan does not render obvious that the trapped person is a child.
In the field of vehicle door lock systems, Zang teaches the trapped person is a child (Paragraph [0012] teaches an alarm system that is operational as long as an infant or child is detected). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Golov with the child detection of Zang because proactively assisting children yields the predictable result of reducing the need for them to take certain steps in order to stay alive.
As to claim 2, depending from the information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Golov teaches the apparatus further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with a mobile terminal of a driver of the vehicle (Paragraph [0042] teaches transmitting an alert to a driver of the vehicle; Paragraph [0050] teaches a communication subsystem), but does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to initiate a call with the driver via the communication interface upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle.
In the field of detecting presence of occupants in vehicles, Zang teaches wherein the controller is configured to initiate a call with the driver via the communication interface upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle (Paragraph [0024] teaches calling a cell phone of the driver to deliver a message alerting to a child being left behind in the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Golov with the call of Zang because Zang recognizes that calling or sending a text message are means by which a driver can be alerted (Paragraph [0024]) such that each is a simple substitution of the other that yields the predictable result of alerting the driver.
As to claim 4, depending from the information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Golov teaches wherein the controller is configured to output an alarm to outside of the vehicle upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle (Paragraph [0054] teaches operating the horn or lights of the vehicle to attempt to draw attention to the vehicle).
As to claim 5, Golov teaches a vehicle comprising the information presentation apparatus (Paragraphs [0086]-[0087] teach a vehicular computing system installed entirely within a vehicle), but does not explicitly teach the apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Golov in view of Konchan render obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as seen with respect to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, on pages 4-6, that Golov does not disclose, teach, or suggest simplifying the physical or procedural steps required by the trapped person in the car such as to unlock or open the door and that the instructions of Konchan is fundamentally different from actively simplifying the procedure itself, and that Zang does not cure these deficiencies.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, with respect to the argument that Golov does not disclose, teach, or suggest simplifying the physical or procedural steps required the trapped person in the car, the claim does not recite that simplifying “the physical or procedural steps” required by the trapped person, as argued. Instead, the claim recites “make a procedure for unlocking or opening the door simpler than normal”. The amended claim limitation recites “a procedure” and does not specifically refer to the procedure that was presented in the prior claim limitation. Therefore, any procedure that simplifies the process of exiting a vehicle reads on the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the actions of Golov to transmit and alert, open windows, and operate an HVAC system, as pointed out in the argument at the top of page 5, are all procedures that make it simpler for the trapped person to exit the vehicle by allowing the person to relax and not panic due to a more comfortable environment as they handle the situation.
With respect to the argument that the instructions of Konchan are fundamentally different from actively simplifying the procedure itself, again, the claim does not refer to the presented procedure, but instead recites making “a procedure” for unlocking or opening the door simpler. Therefore, by providing instructions as taught in Konchan, the procedure is simplified so that the person in the vehicle does not have to figure out how to exit the vehicle, but can instead be guided through that process.
Finally, with respect to the argument that Zang does not cure these deficiencies, this argument is moot in view of the responses above since the combination of Golov in view of Konchan and Zang is proper.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 remain properly rejected.
Conclusion
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 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 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights