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 1-4 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubayashi (US PG Pub #2018/0361991) in view of Takagi (US Patent #5,291,365).
As to claim 1, Mitsubayashi teaches an alarm control device that controls an alarm device (Paragraph [0028] teaches a vehicle control system includes an apparatus) that activates an alarm when a door of a vehicle is unlocked (Paragraph [0092] teaches generating an alarm when a door is opened without the use of a smart key), the alarm control device controlling the alarm device so as to shift to an activated state when the door is locked using an authenticated key (Paragraph [0011] teaches confirming existence of a second key in a vehicle in order to disable the second key in response to locking of the vehicle by the first key; Paragraph [0092] teaches entering a caution mode in response to the key performing a lock operation), and so as to shift to an inactivated state when the door is unlocked using the authenticated key (Paragraph [0077] teaches releasing disablement of a disabled key in the vehicle interior when the smart key is used for unlocking the vehicle), wherein the alarm device is caused to stop issuing an alarm when the door is unlocked from an inside of a cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key in a state in which the alarm device is in the activated state and the authenticated key is in the inside of the cabin of the vehicle (Paragraph [0093] teaches using the smart key in the vehicle interior to unlock the door and stop the alarm). However, Mitsubayashi does not explicitly teach the device not caused to issue an alarm when the conditions are met.
In the field of automotive antitheft systems (Column 4, Lines 63-64), Takagi teaches the device not caused to issue an alarm when the conditions are met (Column 5, Lines 9-12 teach the automotive antitheft system performs warning inhibition to prevent the generation of a warning when a vehicle driver is present in a vehicle interior). 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 Mitsubayashi with the teaching of Takagi such that an alarm is not issued when the door is unlocked from an inside of a cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key in a state in which the alarm device is in the activated state and the authenticated key is in the inside of the cabin of the vehicle because this yields the predictable result of reducing the annoyance or disturbance of an alarm when a person and key are both inside the vehicle.
As to claim 2, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 1, Mitsubayashi teaches wherein the alarm device is caused to issue an alarm when the door is unlocked from an outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the alarm device is in the activated state (Paragraph [0092] teaches generating an alarm to guard the vehicle against theft when a vehicle door is opened without using the key when in a caution mode).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubayashi (US PG Pub #2018/0361991) in view of Takagi (US Patent #5,291,365) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dublirer (US Patent #4,262,279).
As to claim 3, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 2, Mitsubayashi does not explicitly teach wherein it is determined that the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the door is unlocked in a state in which a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more.
In the field of vehicle alarm systems, Dublirer teaches wherein it is determined that the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the door is unlocked in a state in which a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more (Column 9, Lin 67 – Column 10, Line 11 teaches that if a thief reaches through a car’s opened window and moves a switch to disable in an effort to circumvent the system, the input is treated as though the thief had opened an entry way). 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 Mitsubayashi with the teaching of Dublirer such that it is determined that the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the door is unlocked in a state in which a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more because this provides an uncomplicated, economical and reliable alarm system for us in a vehicle to provide protection without the owner performing any acts outside of normal vehicle operation (Column 1, Line 64 – Column 2, Line 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubayashi (US PG Pub #2018/0361991) in view of Takagi (US Patent #5,291,365) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morosawa et al. (Morosawa; US PG Pub #2021/0370867).
As to claim 4, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 2, Mitsubayashi does not explicitly teach wherein:
an image that captures surroundings of the vehicle is acquired when the door is unlocked; and
it is determined based on the image whether the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key.
In the field of vehicle systems, Morosawa teaches wherein:
an image that captures surroundings of the vehicle is acquired when the door is unlocked (Paragraph [0025] teaches cameras for capturing images of the vehicle’s surroundings; Paragraph [0080] teaches recognizing a person outside the vehicle performing unlocking motions); and
it is determined based on the image whether the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key (Paragraphs [0080]-[0081] and [0093]-[0094] teach detecting a person performing unlocking motions in order to open the door of 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 Mitsubayashi with the image detection of Morosawa because this ensures security of the vehicle while allowing people other than registered vehicle users to smoothly board the vehicle (Paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US PG Pub #2023/0242074) teach determining if a latch assembly is in the unlock state and a state where the key is left inside the vehicle in the unlock state (Paragraph [0038]).
Stefanovski et al. (US PG Pub #2013/0154819) teach suppressing an audio or visual indicator may reduce or prevent driver annoyance where the mobile electronic device is usually kept within the interior cabin after key-off (Paragraph [0028]).
Chang (US PG Pub #2006/0087411) teaches monitoring for a forcible opening of a door and photographing outside the car when the opening is detected (Paragraph [0012]).
Lutter et al. (US PG Pub #2003/0212480) teach unlocking vehicle doors when a facial image of a person outside the vehicle matches a profile stored in memory (Paragraph [0070] and claim 32).
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