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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, recited limitations regarding “the first information indicates that the control unit has not stopped providing the safety exit assist feature” and “the second information indicates that the power necessary for providing the safe exit assist feature has not been supplied to the control unit” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the control unit is capable of providing the feature, and yet without power necessary for providing the feature.
For examination purpose, the limitations are broadly interpreted as the first information indicates the feature is requested to be provided and the second information indicates insufficient power to provide the feature.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are indefinite at least in view of foregoing reasons set forth in rejection of claim 1 since claims 2-5 are either directly or indirectly depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “acquire first information…and second information…notify the occupant…”. The acquire of the first information and the second information could be performed by mental processes, and notify occupant is merely organizing human activity.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as “a control unit” and “a notification unit” to perform the abstract tasks; however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the “control unit” and “notification unit” are recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea. The recited “notify occupant” limitation constitutes an output/post-solution activity rather than a transformation of an article. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, recited limitations in the claims further define the tasks of acquiring the first/second information and notifying occupant as recited in claim 1. For the same reasons set forth in rejection of claim 1 above, these claims are abstract without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, beside abstract idea regarding acquiring the second information, the claim further recites a power source management unit configured to manage supply of power to the control unit. However, “manage supply of power” is also considered as abstract idea (human activity), and the “power source management unit” would be a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 9,754,430 B1) in view of Dente et al. (US 2017/0107747 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wolf discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 105 & col 5 lines 12-16) configured to provide a safe exit assist feature that supports an occupant in exiting the vehicle (broadly interpreted as electronic door opening); and
a notification unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 101, 104 & Fig. 4A-4B & col 4 line 59 to col 5 line 11 & col 5 lines 30-44), wherein the notification unit is configured to:
second information indicating whether power necessary for providing the safe exit assist feature has been supplied to the control unit (e.g. Abstract & col 4 lines 25-32: power supply 102 supplies power to electronic release 105; col 5 lines 30-44: provide notification to operate manual release when low power or battery condition is detected); and
when the second information indicates that the power necessary for providing the safe exit assist feature has not been supplied to the control unit, notify the occupant of information indicating that the safe exit assist feature has not been provided (e.g. Fig. 1: 101, 104 & Fig. 4A-4B & col 4 line 59 to col 5 line 11 & col 5 lines 30-44).
Wolf fails to disclose “the first information indicates that the control unit has not stopped providing the safe exit assist feature” although obvious that the electronic door opening of Wolf will only open door of vehicle when it detects door open intention from occupant.
Dente teaches acquiring the first information and the first information indicates that the control unit has not stopped providing the safe exit assist feature (e.g. [0038]: detect user intended to open door).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolf with the teachings of Dente to monitor door operation intention from the user so as to assist to open the door by actuating the lock of the door.
Regarding claim 2, Wolf discloses the notification unit is configured to notify the occupant of information indicating that provision of the safe exit assist feature is to be stopped when it is confirmed that the control unit is to stop the provision of the safe exit assist feature based on the first information (e.g. Fig. 1: 101, 104 & Fig. 4A-4B & col 4 line 59 to col 5 line 11 & col 5 lines 30-44: notify to use manual release implies the electronic release is not operaable).
Regarding claim 3, Wolf discloses a power source management unit configured to manage supply of power to the control unit, wherein the notification unit is configured to acquire the second information from the power source management unit (e.g. Abstract & col 4 lines 25-32: power supply 102 supplies power to electronic release 105; col 5 lines 30-44: provide notification to operate manual release when low power or battery condition is detected).
Regarding claim 4, Wolf discloses the notification unit is configured to acquire the second information by detecting power that has been supplied to the control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 101, 104 & Fig. 4A-4B & col 4 line 59 to col 5 line 11 & col 5 lines 30-44: no low power/battery faults means power supply is normal).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 9,754,430 B1) in view of Dente et al. (US 2017/0107747 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theodosiou (US 2018/0162413 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wolf and Dente in combination discloses the notification unit is configured to notify (e.g. Wolf: Fig. 1: 101, 104 & Fig. 4A-4B & col 4 line 59 to col 5 line 11 & col 5 lines 30-44) the occupant of the information indicating that the safe exit assist feature has not been provided even when the first information indicates that the control unit has not stopped providing the safe exit assist feature (e.g. [0038]: detect user intended to open door).
Wolf fails to disclose, but Theodosiou teaches the notification unit is configured to notify when the notification unit is unable to communicate with the control unit (e.g. [0026]: activate alert indicator when communication failure is detected).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolf with the teachings of Thodosiou to monitor communication between electronic components of a vehicle so as to provide alert to driver when failure occurs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688