DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing dated December 10, 2024.
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 1-5 are currently pending.
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 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).
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); and
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).
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.
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]).
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.
Claims 2-3 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zang (US PG Pub #2006/0103516).
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 3, depending from the information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Golov teaches wherein the controller is configured to make a procedure for unlocking or opening the door simpler than normal upon determining that a person is trapped inside the vehicle (Paragraph [0044] teaches proactively operating one or more vehicle subsystems to assist the detected passenger), but does not explicitly teach 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Payant et al. (US PG Pub #2016/0379466) teach warning a driver that a passenger remains in a passenger seat of the vehicle when the fob was used to lock the doors of the vehicle (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Folino (US PG Pub #2018/0126872) teaches a sensor detecting the presence of a passenger within the cabin of a vehicle and wirelessly communicating with a mobile application (Paragraph [0028]).
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