DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is made FINAL. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1, 2-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15-20 have been amended; claims 7 and 14 have been canceled; and claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 5/3/2026 and 5/21/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous §112(b) rejections; withdraws the previous §101 rejections; and maintains the previous §102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Moeller fails to describe or suggest “’determining, by the vehicle, an adjusted threshold by deterministically modifying a baseline threshold for a security threat level based on at least one contextual factor associated with a location of the vehicle; detecting, by the vehicle, a security threat by deriving a measure from the collected sensor data and comparing the measure to the adjusted threshold’ because ‘Moeller fails to describe modifying a threshold, let alone, based on external contextual information such as environmental conditions or geographic factors of the location of the vehicle.’” Remarks at pp. 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Moeller teaches modifying a threshold based on information associated with the physical location of the vehicle. Specifically, ¶ [0124] of Moeller states:
The POI data 247 can include information associated with physical locations. Non-limiting examples of POI data 247 include location name and nicknames, location affiliation (e.g., ownership, association with a particular entity, company, or brand, etc.), categorizations and classifications, operating hours of a merchant or other business at the location, reviews and ratings of the location, and safety incidents and reports associated with the location (e.g., police and theft reports, user generated reports, etc.). Non-limiting examples of categories include industry (e.g., medical, automotive, food service, retail, entertainment, childcare, wellness, pet care, recreation, etc.), business type (e.g., gas station, fast food restaurant, hospital, pre-school, golf course, etc.), cost rating (e.g., inexpensive, affordable, average price, high price, luxury, etc.), and safety (e.g., low risk, medium risk, or high risk, weather conditions, date and time, etc.). Safety categorizations can refer to risks of criminal activity overall or to risks of particular safety concerns, such as carjacking, vehicle theft, vehicle break-in, and vehicle vandalism. In one example, the monitor application 215 determines that a current location of the vehicle 106 is associated with a high-risk category for vehicle break-in. Continuing the example, in response to the determination, the monitor application 215 transitions the security device 103 to an elevated armed mode in which one or more sensors are configured for high sensitivity and/or high power operation.
Elevating the sensor into a high sensitivity and/or high power operation is in relation to the threat thresholds described in at least ¶¶ [0073] – [0075], which are modified based on the physical location of the vehicle, and specifically in physical locations associated with higher safety threats. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 are maintained.
Applicant did not present independent arguments for dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20. Therefore, the rejection of those claims are maintained for the reason above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0161758 to Moeller et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Moeller et al. discloses:
A method, comprising:
collecting, by a vehicle, sensor data from at least one sensor on the vehicle, wherein the sensor data is related to a movement (¶ [0073] describing detecting movement of an object via sensors data);
determining, by the vehicle, an adjusted threshold by deterministically modifying a baseline threshold for a security threat level based on at least one contextual factor associated with a location of the vehicle (¶ [0124] describing adjusting the security threshold based on a contextual factor, specifically the known criminal activity in the area);
detecting, by the vehicle, a security threat by deriving a measure from the collected sensor data and comparing the measure to the adjusted threshold (¶ [0075] describing detecting a security threat by analyzing the sensor data; (¶ [0073] describing detecting the security threat when the object is within a threshold distance of the vehicle);
entering, by the vehicle, a security mode in response to detection of the security threat (¶ [0075] describing entering a security mode based on the detect security threat);
notifying, by the vehicle, a device associated with the vehicle when entering the security mode (¶ [0070] describing notifying a device associated with the vehicle that the vehicle has entered security mode); and
receiving, by the vehicle, a message from the device, wherein the message directs the vehicle to perform an action in response to the security threat (¶ [0161] describing the vehicle receiving commands for actions from the mobile device in response to the security threat).
Regarding claim 2, Moeller et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller further discloses:
wherein the detecting the security threat comprises detecting the security threat when the measure is greater than the adjusted threshold (¶ [0073] describing detecting the security threat when the object is within a threshold distance of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Moeller et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller further discloses:
wherein the movement is related to at least one of:
a person proximate the vehicle (¶ [0073] describing the threat being movement of a person proximate the vehicle); or
an object identified as a threat proximate the vehicle (Claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 4, Moeller et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller further discloses:
wherein the notifying comprises outputting information about an alarm being triggered by the vehicle based on the security threat (¶ [0161] describing notifying the mobile device about the threat/alarm detected; ¶ [0076] describing sending alarms to the mobile device based on the detected threat).
Claims 8-11 contains all the limitations of claims 1-4, but with the additional elements of a memory and processor (¶ [0079] memory and processor). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1-4 applies equally as well to claims 8-11.
Claims 15-18 contains all the limitations of claims 1-4, but with the additional elements of a computer-readable medium and processor (¶ [0171] computer-readable medium and processor). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1-4 applies equally as well to claims 15-18.
Regarding claim 21, Moeller et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller further discloses:
wherein the determining the adjusted threshold comprises modifying the baseline threshold based on a crime level associated with the location of the vehicle (¶ [0124] describing adjusting the security threshold based the known criminal activity in the area).
Regarding claim 22, Moeller et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller further discloses:
wherein the determining the adjusted threshold comprises modifying the baseline threshold based on a time period during which the vehicle is located at the location (¶ [0110] describing increasing the safety threshold and increasing the transceiver to a maximum power based on the vehicle being in a location for a predetermined period of time without receiving a message from the user).
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.
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 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0021610 to Ahire et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, Moeller et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1. Moeller et al. further discloses:
wherein the notifying comprises displaying the message on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display indicating the security mode was entered (¶ [0128] describing displaying various messages on a user interface indicating that the security mode was entered).
Moeller et al. does not expressly disclose that the user interface is located in the vehicle.
Ahire et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches displaying threats activity on a user interface located in the vehicle (¶ [0076] describing displaying the security threats on a user interface in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate displaying the threat message in the vehicle, as taught by Ahire et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in notifying the user of the threats and providing suggestions, warnings, or preventative measures (Ahire et al. at ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Moeller et al. and Ahire et al. Renders obvious all the limitations of claims 5. Ahire et al. further discloses:
wherein the message indicates a number of times the security threat occurred (¶ [0076] describing indicating the number of times the security threat occurred based on a threat score being greater than or equal to the threat threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate displaying the number of threats occurring, as taught by Ahire et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in notifying the user of the threats and providing suggestions, warnings, or preventative measures (Ahire et al. at ¶ [0076]).
Claim 12 contains all the limitations of claims 5, but with the additional elements of a memory and processor (¶ [0079] memory and processor). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1-4 applies equally as well to claims 8-11.
Claim 13 contains all the limitations of claims 6, but with the additional elements of a memory and processor (¶ [0079] memory and processor). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1-4 applies equally as well to claims 8-11.
Claim 19 contains all the limitations of claims 5, but with the additional elements of a computer-readable medium and processor (¶ [0171] computer-readable medium and processor). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 20 contains all the limitations of claims 6, but with the additional elements of a computer-readable medium and processor (¶ [0171] computer-readable medium and processor). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0191311 to O’Brien et al. teaches autonomously moving a vehicle based on a detected threat (¶¶ [0025] – [0028]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0272992 to Gage et al. teaches capturing an image of ab object proximate to a vehicle, identifying the type of object, assessing a threat level based on the object, and determining whether the threat level is exceeded (¶ [0018]).
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 JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/8/26
Prosecution Insights