DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 27 July 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-20; Applicant did not cancel or add any new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 11-19 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 11 defines the ruleset as “extraneous to the LLM” and “applying the ruleset as guardrails to the LLM”. The term “extraneous” is not used in the specification; the term is defined as “irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with”. However, as best can be determined, the specification teaches that the ruleset “is not necessarily limited to direct correlations between the audio, text and sensor data 70, 71, 72 and the type of emergency/situation 73 and outcome 74, but may also include various associations and sequence orders among the bits of data, as well as frequency weightings, probability weightings and the like” (see para. 0053). The term as defined is not consistent with the specification regarding the limiting of the ruleset is to be “extraneous” or “not necessarily limited to direct correlations”. The ruleset cannot be both simultaneously.
To expedite prosecution, examiner will interpret the LLM to be “not necessarily limited to direct correlations”.
Additionally, the specification does not elaborate on the ruleset acting as “guardrails”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to completely understand the function of guardrails in the context of the ruleset.
Claims 12-19 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkle, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0397858) in view of Valeri, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0221583).
For claim 1, Buerkle discloses a method of emergent scenario detection situations in an automotive vehicle that is capable of transporting one or more human occupants, comprising: receiving sensor output from one or more sensors located onboard the automotive vehicle (see para. 0065); detecting a potential distress situation based on the sensor output by using a language model (LM) (see para. 0067), wherein the LLM is trained to identify potential distress situations based on a collection of previously recorded in-vehicle distress calls (see paras. 0071-0072); triaging the potential distress situation to determine which among an emergent situation, a normal non- emergent situation, a good Samaritan situation and a roadside assistance situation (see paras. 0084-0087); further triaging, in response to the emergent situation to determine which among a health-related situation, a law enforcement situation, a fire situation and a rescue situation is taking (see para. 0090); and contacting, in response to the emergent situation, a respective one or more of an emergency medical service, a law enforcement service, a firefighting service and a rescue service (see para. 0051).
Buerkle does not explicitly disclose the use of a Large Language Model. However, Buerkle discloses the use of a lightweight language model (see para. 0067). Buerkle teaches that updating such a language model occurs in a manner that is substantially similar to a Large Language Model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill and knowledge to use a Large Language Model instead of a lightweight language model. It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Buerkle to include a Large Language Model based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve detection and mitigation of harassing and/or violent behavior as well as vandalism within a vehicle or similar modes of transportation (see para. 0001).
Burkle also does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle is not being driven during a distress situation. A teaching from Valeri discloses detecting a potential distress situation while the vehicle is not being driven (see para. 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Burkle to include the teaching of Valeri based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve monitoring the rear seating area of the passenger compartment that includes monitoring a vehicle operating state comprising one of a key-on state and a key-off state and monitoring the rear seating area for a presence or absence of a passenger in the rear seating area (see para. 0003).
With reference to claim 2, Buerkle further discloses wherein the detecting of the potential distress situation further occurs while the one or more human occupants engaging in one or more of: approaching the automotive vehicle; ingressing the automotive vehicle; being seated within but not manually driving the automotive vehicle; egressing the automotive vehicle; and departing away from the automotive vehicle (see paras. 0056-0058, 0050).
Pertaining to claim 3, Buerkle further discloses connecting, in response to the emergent situation, the one or more human occupants with a live call center (see para. 0051); and connecting, in response to at least one the normal non-emergent situation, the good Samaritan situation, and the roadside assistant situation, the one or more human occupants with an interactive digital assistant (see para. 0054).
Regarding claim 4, Buerkle further discloses wherein the good Samaritan situation includes the one or more human occupants showing awareness of a situation or condition which presents a potential or actual need for assistance relating to a person, an animal, an infrastructure or a property located outside the automotive vehicle (see para. 0050).
Referring to claim 5, Buerkle further teaches wherein the roadside assistance situation includes the one or more human occupants showing awareness of a situation or condition which presents a potential or actual need for assistance relating to the automotive vehicle (see para. 0090, pulled to roadside; para. 0106, finding “safe spot” equivalent to pulling over with regards to need for assistance to prevent vandalism).
With regards to claim 6, Buerkle further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of an internal microphone inside the automotive vehicle, an external microphone outside the automotive vehicle, an internal camera inside the automotive vehicle, an external camera outside the automotive vehicle, a seat occupancy detector, a seatbelt payout detector, a park/reverse/neutral/drive/low status detector, a door locked/unlocked status detector, an accessory mode on/off status detector, a key fob/key pass proximity detector, a temperature detector outside the automotive vehicle, a weather sensor outside the automotive vehicle and a wireless receiver of transmitted information (see para. 0065).
For claim 7, Buerkle further discloses wherein the transmitted information includes information relating to one or more of a location of the automotive vehicle, a current time of day, current or expected weather conditions at the location of the automotive vehicle, and a respective age, medical condition, mobility status or biometric information of at least one of the one or more human occupants (see para. 0092).
Pertaining to claim 8, Buerkle further teaches detecting a proximity of the one or more human occupants to the automotive vehicle by one or more of: receiving a proximity signal (see para. 0065, 0066), imaging the one or more human occupants by using a camera onboard the automotive vehicle, and sensing the one or more human occupants by using a microphone onboard the automotive vehicle (see para. 0065, 0066); and activating one or more other sensors onboard the automotive vehicle in response to the detecting of the proximity of the one or more human occupants (see para. 0025, 0065). However, Buerkle does not explicitly disclose the use of a key fob or a digital device to sense proximity. It is well known in the art at the effective date of filing to sense proximity to a vehicle using a key fob or digital device. It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Buerkle to include sensing proximity to a vehicle using a key fob or digital device based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve detection and mitigation of harassing and/or violent behavior as well as vandalism within a vehicle or similar modes of transportation (see para. 0001).
With reference to claim 10, Buerkle further teaches wherein one or both of the triaging and the further triaging is performed by using the LM (see paras. 0084-0090).
Claims 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkle, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0397858) and Valeri, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0221583) in view of Neerukonda, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0292595).
For claim 9, Buerkle further teaches wherein the LM is trained to identify the potential distress situations by: extracting metadata from the collection of the previously recorded in-vehicle distress calls (see paras. 0072-0077) while ignoring personally identifiable information from the distress calls (see para. 0081), wherein the metadata includes: audio data (see paras. 0065-0066), text data (see paras. 0067-0068, 0088), sensor data collected by the automotive vehicle or by other automotive vehicles (see para. 0025), a type of emergency related to the distress call (see para. 0089, actions based on type of violence; 0088), and an outcome of the distress call (see para. 0051, call equivalent to outcome; para. 0084, false positive would call based on outcome; then used for training, para. 0072). Burkle does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Neerukonda discloses correlating the metadata to produce a ruleset (see para. 0036, 0097-0098), wherein: the ruleset, in response to each of the events, correlates the audio data, the text data, and the sensor data (see para. 0097 correlates data having audio, text and sensor data) with one or both of the type of emergency and the outcome (see para. 0055, rules used for distress detection); and the ruleset is extraneous to the LLM (see para. 0036, model trained with rules to perform any number of detection tasks and is therefore not necessarily limited to direct correlations); updating the ruleset using additional recorded in-vehicle distress calls (see para. 0036, fine tuning using metadata attributes; 0098, updating); and applying the ruleset as guardrails to the LLM (see paras. 0097-0098, metadata associations guide determination of context for events). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Burkle with the teachings of Neerukonda based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve occupant monitoring tasks that include child presence detection, occupant out-of-position (occupant in an unsafe position), distress detection, and monitoring seatbelt usage (see para. 0003).
A teaching from Valeri discloses updating data models while the automotive vehicle is not being driven (see para. 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Burkle to include the teaching of Valeri based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve monitoring the rear seating area of the passenger compartment that includes monitoring a vehicle operating state comprising one of a key-on state and a key-off state and monitoring the rear seating area for a presence or absence of a passenger in the rear seating area (see para. 0003).
Claim 11 defines elements and subject matter defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter that is included in claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claims 1 and 9.
Pertaining to claim 12, Valeri further teaches filtering the previously recorded in-vehicle distress calls and the additional recorded in-vehicle distress calls to exclude any manual driving situations (see para. 0024, the determination excludes data from key-on events, para. 0030).
With respect to claim 13, Burkel further discloses wherein the previously recorded in-vehicle distress calls and the additional recorded in-vehicle distress calls are recorded in one or both of an audio-based format and a text-based format (see paras. 0048, 0065-0068, 0088).
Regarding claim 14, Burkle further discloses converting (i) the audio-based format of the previously recorded in-vehicle distress calls and (ii) the additional recorded in-vehicle distress calls into the text-based format (see paras. 0065-0068, 0088).
With reference to claim 15, Burkle further teaches wherein the personally identifiable information includes biometric information (see para. 0081, voice pattern explicitly ignored when saved as text, paras. 0067-0068).
With regards to claim 16, Burkle further discloses wherein the sensor data includes one or more of: detection data, measurement data, image data or video data received from one or more sensors that are onboard the automotive vehicle, and transmitted information received from a wireless receiver onboard the automotive vehicle (see para. 0092).
For claim 17, Burkle further teaches wherein the audio data includes one or more of: verbal speech sounds, non-verbal speech sounds, and non-speech sounds (see paras. 0029, 0066).
Referring to claim 18, Burkle further discloses wherein the type of emergency includes one or more of: an emergent situation, a normal non-emergent situation, a good Samaritan situation, and a roadside assistance situation (see paras. 0084-0087).
With respect to claim 19, Burkle further teaches the type of emergency in the emergent situation further includes one or more of: a health-related situation, a law enforcement situation, a fire situation, and a rescue situation (see paras. 0084-0090), and the outcome includes connecting the one or more human occupants with one or more of: a live call center, an emergency medical service, a law enforcement service, a firefighting service, and a rescue service (see paras. 0051, 0054).
Claim 20 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter that is included in claims 1, 3 and 9. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claims 1, 3 and 9. Additionally, Buerkle discloses wireless communication for a vehicle including an access point (see para. 0117).
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights