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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 12, 2026 amends claims 1, 5, 9, 14, and 16-20. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 12, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The newly presented independent claims, which necessitate a new ground of rejection, are taught by newly cited reference, Buttolo et al., in combination with previously cited reference, Beck et al., as shown in the rejections that follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “features” should be changed to “feature”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (DE-102022124924-A1) (English translation attached) in view of Buttolo et al. (US 2017/0103592).
Regarding claim 1, Beck teaches a method comprising: determining, by the vehicle at a first time, that a rear seat of the vehicle is unoccupied; (see Beck at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts 4 seats in vehicle including 2 rear seats; see Beck at the Abstract in conjunction with Fig. 1 which discloses determining whether the vehicle seat (4) is occupied by a user (11); see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection and that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object. Examiner notes that Beck at Fig. 1, illustratively depicts vehicle seats (4) that includes rear seats. Beck at page 4 further discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function and that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa, and that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled, and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently. See Beck at page 6 which discloses that in one embodiment the control command is determined continuously and that when operating the locking function, the current control command is always taken into account. Beck at page 6 further discloses that the door and/or the window can be locked or not in real time depending on the user's current activity and thus what they are doing. Beck at page 6 further discloses that it can also be provided that the control command is only redetermined at predetermined time intervals, for example every 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 30 seconds, every minute, every 3 minutes, 5 minutes or in particular 10 minutes. Examiner notes that any instant of real time, such as when a person starts operation of a vehicle, or at a first predetermined time interval, may be considered a first time.)
applying, by the vehicle, based on the rear seat being unoccupied, the first configuration to the locking feature of the rear door of the vehicle; (see Beck at page 1 which discloses that a motor vehicle can have a locking function by means of which a door and/or a window of the motor vehicle can be locked or unlocked and that when the locking function is activated, for example, a lock assigned to the door is locked, so that the door is in a locked state in that it cannot be opened manually. See Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function, that the control command is determined by applying a control command determination criterion to the determined occupancy information and the age group membership information and/or the activity information that the control command provides for activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window. In other words, the control command relates to activating or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window or describes activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window, that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that, for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa. Moreover, Beck at page 4 discloses that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently, and in which not. Examiner maps a first control command associated with a first determination criterion to the first configuration.)
determining, by the vehicle, at a second time after the first time, that the rear seat is occupied; (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection and that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object. Beck at page 4 further discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function and that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa, and that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled, and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently. Also, see Beck at page 6 which discloses that the door and/or the window can be locked or not in real time depending on the user's current activity and thus what they are doing. Beck at page 6 further discloses that it can also be provided that the control command is only redetermined at predetermined time intervals, for example every 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 30 seconds, every minute, every 3 minutes, 5 minutes or in particular 10 minutes. Examiner notes that the occupancy sensor may provide occupancy information continuously in real time or at predetermined time intervals based on the algorithm and/or rule used. Examiner notes that a second predetermined time interval may be considered a second time.)
determining, by the vehicle, occupant details of an entity occupying the rear seat; (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that if the user occupies the vehicle seat according to the determined occupancy information, age group membership information is determined by evaluating the recorded sensor data and that camera data can be used as sensor data, which captures at least one static and/or moving image of the user and evaluates it and that this allows the user's age to be determined, for example by estimating. Beck at page 3 discloses that a distinction is preferably made at least between a small child, a child, a young person, an adult and an older adult who is, for example, at least 60 years old and that alternative or additional age groups can be differentiated, and that to determine the age group information, for example, machine learning methods can be used, in particular an artificial neural network, which was trained using image data from people with assigned age information.)
determining, by the vehicle, a state of the vehicle; (see Beck at page 5 which discloses that in addition, one embodiment provides that driving information is determined and that the driving information describes whether the motor vehicle is currently driving or is at a standstill. Examiner notes that determining whether a vehicle is driving or at a standstill corresponds to a state of the vehicle.)
determining, by the vehicle, based on the occupant details and the state of the vehicle, a second configuration for the locking feature of the rear door of the vehicle; (see Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function and that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa, and that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled, and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently. Further see Beck at pages 9-10 which describe various control commands for the locking function based on various scenarios and criterion captured by sensor data. For example, see Beck at page 10 which discloses that in a method step S15, actuation data 37 can be provided which describe a manual actuation of the actuating element 10. The actuating element 10 is designed here at least to open the door 2 and that furthermore, the actuation data 37 can relate to the actuating element 10 which is designed to open and/or close the window 3 and to lock the door 2, and that in a method step S16, it is checked whether the recorded actuation data 37 indicate that the actuating element 10 was manually actuated for a period of time that is greater than a minimum period of time 38 and/or with a frequency per time that is greater than a minimum frequency 39 per time. Beck at page 10 further discloses that when this is the case, the locking function 6 is deactivated at least for the door 2, for which a method step S7 with a corresponding deactivated locking function 6 in the form of a new control command 29 is outlined here and that the new control command 29 includes the deactivation of the locking function 6. Examiner maps a second control command associated with a second or another determination criterion to the second configuration. In other words, Examiner may map a second control command based on another scenario and criterion captured by sensor data to the second configuration.)
and applying, by the vehicle, the second configuration to the locking feature of the rear door of the vehicle (see Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method provides that the locking function is operated in accordance with the determined control command and that in other words, the control device can, for example, activate or deactivate the locking device of the door and/or window after determining the control command, depending on what the determined control command provides. see Beck at page 10 which discloses that the locking function 6 is deactivated at least for the door 2, for which a method step S7` with a corresponding deactivated locking function 6 in the form of a new control command 29` is outlined here and that the new control command 29 includes the deactivation of the locking function 6. Examiner notes that the application of the control command provides for the application of the second configuration, such as either an activation or deactivation of the locking function for the door.)
Beck does not expressly disclose obtaining, by a vehicle, pre-set vehicle settings associated with a driver of the vehicle, the pre-set vehicle settings comprising a first configuration for a locking feature of a rear door of the vehicle, which, in a related art, Buttolo teaches (see Buttolo at [0027] which discloses that when the personal device of a user is detected by the in-vehicle components as attempting to re-enter the vehicle, the access component may grant the personal device vehicle access in accordance with the permissions of the stored access token. Examiner notes that permissions provided by the stored access token correspond to pre-set vehicle settings associated with a driver of the vehicle. Examiner maps user of the personal device who is entering the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle. Also, see Buttolo at [0062] which discloses settings may be entered in the vehicle component interface application 118, and that as shown in the diagram 400-A of FIG. 4A, a front seat user having the personal device 104-A may use the access token 120 of the personal device 104-A to unlock a front door of the vehicle 102, a rear door of the vehicle 102, or the lift-gate door of the vehicle 102. Examiner notes that use of an access token to unlock a rear door of a vehicle corresponds to the recited first configuration for a locking feature of a rear door of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck to obtain, by a vehicle, pre-set vehicle settings associated with a driver of the vehicle, the pre-set vehicle settings comprising a first configuration for a locking feature of a rear door of the vehicle, as taught by Buttolo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to unlock a rear door of a vehicle by way of entering settings in a vehicle component interface application, as suggested by Buttolo at [0062].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first configuration includes activating the locking feature of the rear door or deactivating a window open/close feature of the rear door (see Beck at page 1 which discloses that a motor vehicle can have a locking function by means of which a door and/or a window of the motor vehicle can be locked or unlocked and that when the locking function is activated, for example, a lock assigned to the door is locked, so that the door is in a locked state in that it cannot be opened manually. Examiner maps the door being in a locked state to activating the locking feature of the rear door.)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the occupant details further comprises: determining, by the vehicle and using a weight sensor, that the rear seat is occupied by the entity; (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection.)
determining, by the vehicle and using an image sensor, a type of the entity; and determining, by the vehicle and using a position sensor, a position of the entity within the vehicle (see Beck at page 3 which discloses an interior camera and/or a radar device, such as an ultra-wideband sensor, that the sensor data describe a portion of an interior of the motor vehicle that is assigned to a vehicle seat of the motor vehicle, that by means of the interior sensor device, the vehicle seat and at least one spatial area arranged in a vertical direction above the vehicle seat, in which, for example, a person, an animal and/or an object is located, if this person is sitting or positioned on the vehicle seat. Examiner maps interior camera to image sensor. Examiner maps another of the interior sensor, such as radar device to a position sensor.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the type of the entity comprises one or more of an adult, a child, or an animal (see Beck at page 3 which discloses an interior camera and/or a radar device, such as an ultra-wideband sensor, that the sensor data describe a portion of an interior of the motor vehicle that is assigned to a vehicle seat of the motor vehicle, that by means of the interior sensor device, the vehicle seat and at least one spatial area arranged in a vertical direction above the vehicle seat, in which, for example, a person, an animal and/or an object is located, if this person is sitting or positioned on the vehicle seat. Also, see Beck at page 3 which discloses that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object, that the user can alternatively be referred to as a human or a person, that the user is, for example, a child or an adult, and that the animal can be, for example, a pet that travels in the motor vehicle, such as a dog or a cat. The object is, for example, a suitcase, a bag and/or another type of object that is positioned on the vehicle seat while it is being transported in the motor vehicle.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the position sensor comprises a radar sensor, a camera, or a Lidar sensor (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that the interior sensor device is, for example, an interior camera and/or a radar device, such as an ultra-wideband sensor; see Beck at page 7 which discloses that an advantageous exemplary embodiment of the motor vehicle provides that it has at least one camera and/or at least one radar device as an interior sensor device.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the state of the vehicle comprises one of: the vehicle being stationary or the vehicle being in motion (see Beck at page 5 which discloses that in addition, one embodiment provides that driving information is determined and that the driving information describes whether the motor vehicle is currently driving or is at a standstill.)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the entity is a first human, the rear door is a first rear door, and the vehicle further comprising a second rear door, (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object and that the user can alternatively be referred to as a human or a person; see Beck at page 8 which discloses locking function 6 is activated for a respective door 2; see Beck at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts four doors including 2 rear doors. Examiner notes that the two rear doors correspond to a first rear door and a second rear door.)
the method further comprising: determining, by the vehicle at a third time, presence of a second human in the rear seat; determining, by the vehicle, a first position of the first human in the rear seat; determining, by the vehicle, a second position of the second human in the rear seat; deactivating the locking feature for the first rear door that is closest to the first human; and activating the locking feature for the second rear door that is closest to the second human (see Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method results in the locking function being operated depending on a current situation, which is defined by who or what is sitting on the vehicle seat and, in the case of the user, depending on their age group and/or activity, and that for example, this can result in the door and window being automatically locked for a child, but the window for an adult reading is locked, for example to prevent the window from opening unintentionally, but the door remains unlocked. Examiner notes that Beck teaches a respective door of a seat occupied by a child as being locked while a respective door for a seat occupied by an adult as being unlocked.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Beck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second configuration includes deactivating the locking feature of the rear door or activating a window open/close feature of the rear door (see Beck at page 10 which discloses that the locking function 6 is deactivated at least for the door 2, for which a method step S7 with a corresponding deactivated locking function 6 in the form of a new control command 29 is outlined here and that the new control command 29 includes the deactivation of the locking function 6. Examiner notes that the deactivation of the locking function for the door corresponds to the second configuration.)
Independent claim 9 is directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the method of claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Beck teaches a vehicle comprising: one or more rear seats; at least a first rear door; (see Beck at Fig. 1 which illustratively depict vehicle seats (4); see Beck at page 2 which discloses that the motor vehicle is, for example, a passenger car which has, for example, at least one row of vehicle seats, with outer vehicle seats each being arranged adjacent to a door and/or a window arranged in the door in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle. In one example, the motor vehicle has two doors and respective windows on both sides in a front area and in a rear area, that is to say a total of four doors and four windows.)
one or more processors; one or more sensors coupled to the one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (see Beck at page 7 which discloses that the invention also includes the control device for the motor vehicle and that the control device can have a data processing device or a processor device that is set up to carry out an embodiment of the method according to the invention. See Beck at the Abstract which discloses an interior sensor device (7) in conjunction with Fig. 1 at element 7.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Beck teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the one or more sensors include a weight sensor or a pressure sensor and wherein to determine that the rear seat is occupied, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine, based on the weight sensor or the pressure sensor, that the rear seat is occupied by the entity (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection.)
Regarding claim 11, the modified Beck teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein to determine the identification information, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: capture, using the one or more sensors, an image of the entity; determine, based on the image, whether the entity is an adult, a child, or an animal (see Beck at page 3 which discloses an interior camera and/or a radar device, such as an ultra-wideband sensor, that the sensor data describe a portion of an interior of the motor vehicle that is assigned to a vehicle seat of the motor vehicle, that by means of the interior sensor device, the vehicle seat and at least one spatial area arranged in a vertical direction above the vehicle seat, in which, for example, a person, an animal and/or an object is located, if this person is sitting or positioned on the vehicle seat. See Beck at page 3 which discloses that, for example, camera data can be used as sensor data, which captures at least one static and/or moving image of the user and evaluates it and that this allows the user's age to be determined, for example by estimating. Also, see Beck at page 3 which discloses that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object, that the user can alternatively be referred to as a human or a person and that the user is, for example, a child or an adult and that the animal can be, for example, a pet that travels in the motor vehicle, such as a dog or a cat.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Beck teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine a position of the entity in the rear seat; and determine the second configuration further based on the position of the entity (see Beck at page 3 which discloses an interior camera and/or a radar device, such as an ultra-wideband sensor, that the sensor data describe a portion of an interior of the motor vehicle that is assigned to a vehicle seat of the motor vehicle, that by means of the interior sensor device, the vehicle seat and at least one spatial area arranged in a vertical direction above the vehicle seat, in which, for example, a person, an animal and/or an object is located, if this person is sitting or positioned on the vehicle seat. Beck at page 3 further discloses that it is always provided that the sensor data that are assigned to a specific vehicle seat are only intended for operating the locking function, which, for example, relates to the door adjacent to this vehicle seat or the window adjacent to the vehicle seat and that the method can be carried out for at least one, in particular each, individually controllable door and/or window. Beck at page 4 further discloses that method includes determining a control command for the locking function and that the control command is determined by applying a control command determination criterion to the determined occupancy information and the age group membership information and/or the activity information, that the control command provides for activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window, that in other words, the control command relates to activating or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window or describes activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window, that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa. Beck at page 4 further discloses that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently, and in which not. Examiner notes that the occupancy information provided by the sensors is used as determination criterion such as an algorithm or rule to determine the configuration or locking function of the doors and/or windows.)
Regarding claim 13, the modified Beck teaches the vehicle of claim 9, further comprising a second rear door, and wherein the entity is an adult and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: (see Beck at page 8 which discloses locking function 6 is activated for a respective door 2; see Beck at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts four doors including 2 rear doors; see Beck at page 3 which discloses that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object, that the user can alternatively be referred to as a human or a person and that the user is, for example, a child or an adult. Beck at page 3 further discloses that a distinction is preferably made at least between a small child, a child, a young person, an adult and an older adult who is, for example, at least 60 years old. Examiner notes that the two rear doors correspond to a first rear door and a second rear door.)
determine, at a third time, a presence of a second entity in the rear seat, the second entity being a child; determine that the adult is positioned closer to the first rear door; determine that the child is positioned closer to the second rear door; and determine a third configuration for the first rear door and a fourth configuration for the second rear door (see Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method results in the locking function being operated depending on a current situation, which is defined by who or what is sitting on the vehicle seat and, in the case of the user, depending on their age group and/or activity, and that for example, this can result in the door and window being automatically locked for a child, but the window for an adult reading is locked, for example to prevent the window from opening unintentionally, but the door remains unlocked. Examiner notes that Beck teaches a respective door of a seat occupied by a child as being locked while a respective door for a seat occupied by an adult as being unlocked. Examiner maps the door remaining unlocked for the adult to a third configuration. Examiner maps the door being locked for a child to a fourth configuration.)
Regarding claim 14, the modified Beck teaches the vehicle of claim 13, wherein: the third configuration comprises deactivating the locking feature of the first rear door; and the fourth configuration comprises activating a locking feature of the second rear door (see Beck at page 4. Examiner directs the Applicant to the rationale provided in claim 13 above. Examiner mapped the door remaining unlocked for the adult to a third configuration which corresponds to deactivating a locking feature of the first rear door. Examiner mapped the door being locked for a child to a fourth configuration which corresponds to activating a locking feature of the second rear door.)
Claim 15 is directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the method of claim 6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 6 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding independent claim 17, Beck teaches a method comprising:
determining that a rear seat of the vehicle is unoccupied; (see Beck at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts 4 seats in vehicle including 2 rear seats; see Beck at the Abstract in conjunction with Fig. 1 which discloses determining whether the vehicle seat (4) is occupied by a user (11); see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection and that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object. Examiner notes that Beck at Fig. 1, illustratively depicts vehicle seats (4) that includes rear seats. Beck at page 4 further discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function and that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa, and that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled, and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently. See Beck at page 6 which discloses that in one embodiment the control command is determined continuously and that when operating the locking function, the current control command is always taken into account. Beck at page 6 further discloses that the door and/or the window can be locked or not in real time depending on the user's current activity and thus what they are doing. Beck at page 6 further discloses that it can also be provided that the control command is only redetermined at predetermined time intervals, for example every 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 30 seconds, every minute, every 3 minutes, 5 minutes or in particular 10 minutes. Examiner notes that any instant of real time, such as when a person starts operation of a vehicle, or at a first predetermined time interval, may be considered a first time.)
applying, by the vehicle, based on the rear seat being unoccupied, the first setting to the locking feature of the rear door of the vehicle; (see Beck at page 1 which discloses that a motor vehicle can have a locking function by means of which a door and/or a window of the motor vehicle can be locked or unlocked and that when the locking function is activated, for example, a lock assigned to the door is locked, so that the door is in a locked state in that it cannot be opened manually. See Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function, that the control command is determined by applying a control command determination criterion to the determined occupancy information and the age group membership information and/or the activity information that the control command provides for activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window. In other words, the control command relates to activating or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window or describes activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window, that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that, for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa. Moreover, Beck at page 4 discloses that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently, and in which not. Examiner maps a first control command associated with a first determination criterion to the first setting.)
determining that the rear seat of the vehicle is occupied; (see Beck at Fig. 1 which illustratively depicts 4 seats in vehicle including 2 rear seats; see Beck at the Abstract in conjunction with Fig. 1 which discloses determining whether the vehicle seat (4) is occupied by a user (11); see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection and that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object. Examiner notes that Beck at Fig. 1, illustratively depicts vehicle seats (4) that includes rear seats.)
determining an identity of an entity occupying the rear seat; (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that if the user occupies the vehicle seat according to the determined occupancy information, age group membership information is determined by evaluating the recorded sensor data and that camera data can be used as sensor data, which captures at least one static and/or moving image of the user and evaluates it and that this allows the user's age to be determined, for example by estimating. Beck at page 3 discloses that a distinction is preferably made at least between a small child, a child, a young person, an adult and an older adult who is, for example, at least 60 years old and that alternative or additional age groups can be differentiated, and that to determine the age group information, for example, machine learning methods can be used, in particular an artificial neural network, which was trained using image data from people with assigned age information.)
determining, based on the identity of the entity, a second setting for the rear door; and applying the second setting to the rear door; (see Beck at page 1 which discloses that a motor vehicle can have a locking function by means of which a door and/or a window of the motor vehicle can be locked or unlocked and that when the locking function is activated, for example, a lock assigned to the door is locked, so that the door is in a locked state in that it cannot be opened manually. See Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function, that the control command is determined by applying a control command determination criterion to the determined occupancy information and the age group membership information and/or the activity information that the control command provides for activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window. In other words, the control command relates to activating or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window or describes activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window, that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that, for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa. Moreover, Beck at page 4 discloses that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently, and in which not. Examiner maps a second control command associated with a second determination criterion to the second setting for a rear door. Examiner notes that the control command applies the setting.)
wherein: if the entity is an adult, applying the second setting includes deactivating the locking feature of the rear door; or if the entity is a child or an animal, applying the second setting includes activating the locking feature of the rear door (see Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method results in the locking function being operated depending on a current situation, which is defined by who or what is sitting on the vehicle seat and, in the case of the user, depending on their age group and/or activity and that, for example, this can result in the door and window being automatically locked for a child, but the window for an adult reading is locked, for example to prevent the window from opening unintentionally, but the door remains unlocked. Beck at page 4 further discloses that with an adult looking out the window, the window locking function can be disabled so that the user can open and close the window at any time.)
Beck does not expressly disclose obtaining pre-set vehicle settings associated with a driver of the vehicle, the pre-set vehicle settings comprising a first setting for a locking feature of a rear door of the vehicle, which, in a related art, Buttolo teaches (see Buttolo at [0027] which discloses that when the personal device of a user is detected by the in-vehicle components as attempting to re-enter the vehicle, the access component may grant the personal device vehicle access in accordance with the permissions of the stored access token. Examiner notes that permissions provided by the stored access token correspond to pre-set vehicle settings associated with a driver of the vehicle. Examiner maps user of the personal device who is entering the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle. Also, see Buttolo at [0062] which discloses settings may be entered in the vehicle component interface application 118, and that as shown in the diagram 400-A of FIG. 4A, a front seat user having the personal device 104-A may use the access token 120 of the personal device 104-A to unlock a front door of the vehicle 102, a rear door of the vehicle 102, or the lift-gate door of the vehicle 102. Examiner notes that use of an access token to unlock a rear door of a vehicle corresponds to the recited first setting for a locking feature of a rear door of the vehicle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck to obtain pre-set vehicle settings associated with a driver of the vehicle, the pre-set vehicle settings comprising a first configuration for a locking feature of a rear door of the vehicle, as taught by Buttolo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to unlock a rear door of a vehicle by way of entering settings in a vehicle component interface application, as suggested by Buttolo at [0062].
Regarding claim 18, Beck teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: determining a current state of the vehicle, wherein the current state comprises the vehicle being stationary or in motion, and wherein determining the second setting is further based on the current state of the vehicle (see Beck at page 5 which discloses that in addition, one embodiment provides that driving information is determined and that the driving information describes whether the motor vehicle is currently driving or is at a standstill. Beck at page 5 further discloses that to determine the control command, the control command determination criterion is applied to the determined driving information and that if the motor vehicle is currently stationary and not driving, different regulations can be provided for activating the locking function than when the motor vehicle is driving.)
Regarding claim 19, Beck teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the entity is a first entity, and the rear door is a first rear door, the method further comprising: determining that the first entity is an adult human; determining a presence of a second entity on the rear seat, the second entity being a human child; (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that if the user occupies the vehicle seat according to the determined occupancy information, age group membership information is determined by evaluating the recorded sensor data and that camera data can be used as sensor data, which captures at least one static and/or moving image of the user and evaluates it and that this allows the user's age to be determined, for example by estimating. Beck at page 3 discloses that a distinction is preferably made at least between a small child, a child, a young person, an adult and an older adult who is, for example, at least 60 years old and that alternative or additional age groups can be differentiated, and that to determine the age group information, for example, machine learning methods can be used, in particular an artificial neural network, which was trained using image data from people with assigned age information. Examiner maps the adult to the first entity and the child to the second entity.)
determining that the adult human is positioned closer to the first rear door; determining that the human child is positioned closer to a second rear door; applying a third setting to the first rear door; and applying a fourth setting to the second rear door (see Beck at page 3 which discloses that an occupancy sensor can also be provided as an interior sensor device, which determines occupancy of the vehicle seat based on mass detection and that by evaluating the recorded sensor data, occupancy information is determined that describes whether the vehicle seat is occupied by a user, an animal and/or an object. Examiner notes that the occupancy sensor may provide information related to which entity is seated or positioned closer to each rear door. Also, see Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function and that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa, and that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled, and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently. Further see Beck at pages 9-10 which describe various control commands for the locking function based on various scenarios and criterion captured by sensor data. Examiner notes that appropriate control commands or settings may be applied to provide a third setting and a fourth setting based on the scenario and criterion captured by the sensor data.)
Regarding claim 20, Beck teaches the method of claim 19, wherein: the third setting comprises deactivating the locking feature of the first rear door; and the fourth setting comprises activating a locking feature of the second rear door (see Beck at page 1 which discloses that a motor vehicle can have a locking function by means of which a door and/or a window of the motor vehicle can be locked or unlocked and that when the locking function is activated, for example, a lock assigned to the door is locked, so that the door is in a locked state in that it cannot be opened manually. See Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method includes determining a control command for the locking function, that the control command is determined by applying a control command determination criterion to the determined occupancy information and the age group membership information and/or the activity information that the control command provides for activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window. Beck at page 4 further discloses that in other words, the control command relates to activating or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window or describes activating and/or deactivating the locking function for the door and/or the window, that the control command can be different for the door and/or the window, that, for example, the door can be activated and the window deactivated or vice versa. Moreover, Beck at page 4 discloses that the control command determination criterion is an algorithm and/or a rule which, when applied to the information mentioned, determines how the locking function for the door and/or the window should be controlled and that ultimately, the control command determination criterion determines in which situation the door and/or window should be locked, at least temporarily or permanently, and in which not. See Beck at page 4 which discloses that the method results in the locking function being operated depending on a current situation, which is defined by who or what is sitting on the vehicle seat and, in the case of the user, depending on their age group and/or activity, and that for example, this can result in the door and window being automatically locked for a child, but the window for an adult reading is locked, for example to prevent the window from opening unintentionally, but the door remains unlocked. Examiner notes that Beck teaches a respective door of a seat occupied by a child as being locked while a respective door for a seat occupied by an adult as being unlocked.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (DE-102022124924-A1) in view of Buttolo et al. (US 2017/0103592) and further in view of Yamasaki et al. (US 2022/0157148).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Beck teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the first configuration comprises deactivating the locking feature for the first rear door, (see Beck at page 10 which discloses that when this is the case, the locking function 6 is deactivated at least for the door 2, for which a method step S7` with a corresponding deactivated locking function 6 in the form of a new control command 29` is outlined here and that the new control command 29 includes the deactivation of the locking function 6.)
and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine that the current state of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is stationary at a first location; and keep the locking feature deactivated based on the vehicle being stationary at the first location (see Beck at page 5 which discloses that in addition, one embodiment provides that driving information is determined and that the driving information describes whether the motor vehicle is currently driving or is at a standstill and that when the vehicle is at a standstill, the locking function for the door could always be activated, for example if an adjacent vehicle seat is occupied. Beck at page 5 further discloses that to determine the control command, the control command determination criterion is applied to the determined driving information and that if the motor vehicle is currently stationary and not driving, different regulations can be provided for activating the locking function than when the motor vehicle is driving. Examiner notes that the standstill location corresponds to first location.)
Beck does not expressly disclose determine that the first location is one of a plurality of known locations; which, in a related art, Yamasaki teaches (see Yamasaki at [0035] which discloses that in another example, the passenger egress determination module 300 may determine that a vehicle occupant is preparing to exit the vehicle 102 when the vehicle stops at a particular location (e.g., a known location of the home or office of the owner of the vehicle 102).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck to determine that the first location is one of a plurality of known locations, as taught by Yamasaki.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to determine whether a vehicle occupant is preparing to exit the vehicle, as suggested by Yamasaki at [0035].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights