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 .
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
67
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
136
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response
The examiner notes the newly amended “after an object which has entered a range of a prescribed distance from a moving body is detected, the processor activates the first camera”. As noted in applicant’s specification this is disclosed by the prior art JP-2022-133769, where a camera is activated when motion is detected (via motion sensor).
The examiner also notes the above features are well-known in multiple fields of art, in order to conserve camera power:
US 10212921 (full text background summary para 10)
US 20200228753 (para 20)
US 20180367731 (para 88)
The examiner will reject the new limitation by incorporating such convention by incorporating Gatti et al., US 20180367731.
The examiner notes the combination selects either the camera (sensor) or motion(sensor) based upon illumination (Fig 3, US 20220281413) as evidenced by Babala et al., US, 2020/0193005
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BABALA et al., US 2020/0193005 in view of Liu et al., US 20220281413 and Gatti et al., US 20180367731.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image3.png
350
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claimed a first camera and processor…is met by camera 112 and controller (110)
The claimed detect is met where a motion sensor 114 (Fig 3) and/or camera (112, Fig 3) can be used to detect to detect motion/person approaching the vehicle (para 16, 19-21, 22, 28-29, 31.
The claimed authenticate…is met by facial recognition module 130 (Fig 3) (step 280 (Fig 4)(para 35)
The claimed when an object has entered a range of prescribed distance…is met where first a gait of a person is detected when the person reaches a predetermined distance from the vehicle and facial features are determined when the person reaches a second predetermined distance (para 5, 19, 21, 27). Babala dislcloses that the camera 112 and motion sensor 114 can operate in a wake-up mode when either detects a person in the field of view (para 16, 28)
BABALA also discloses in order to minimize power the camera 112 and motion sensor 114 can operate in wake-up mode and start capturing data when either the 112 or 114 detects a person 180 in the field of view 116 (para 16). As shown in Fig 4, based upon the motion detected 215, the sensor whether camera, gait or face are used to authenticate the person.
It is noted that BABALA discloses the speed of approach can include walking, jogging, running etc…(para 11) which would also vary depending upon the vehicle moving or not as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention. The controller selects either the camera (sensor) or motion(sensor) based upon illumination (Fig 3, US 20220281413).
However, BABALA does not disclose the “illuminance” as claimed above.
The examiner evidences LIU et al., US 20220281413 which discloses a vehicle may be provided with an illuminance sensor (para 42-44, 56, Fig 3) used by peripheral target recognition unit which recognizes a target around a vehicle (para 34-36). As noted in Fig 3, the system based upon the illumination either turns on the first camera (daytime) or the motion detector (nighttime) in order to accurately detect a target around the vehicle. LIU also (d) disclose that after motion is sensed the respective camera (right or left) side is activated/turned on (para 41, 45)
The motivation to modify BABALA with LIU would provide the same benefit of ensuring during different levels of daylight/darkness the system was able to maintain detection and conserve power by selecting sensors which are ideal based upon the illuminance detected thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The examiner additionally incorporates Gatti, US 20180367731, which explicitly discloses conserving power by activating the camera 104 after the motion detector 108 detects motion (para 88).
The motivation to modify the above combination with Gatti, would provide the additional benefit to ensure power conservation for the camera thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
BABALA discloses a first and second predetermined distance from the vehicle (para 5, 19, 21,27) where the different distances (1st and 2nd) are carried out by the gait analysis and facial analysis of the camera (1st camera) captured images.
b/c) As noted in claim 1 the object/target is detected within the 2 distances of the vehicle, where the incorporated LIU discloses a camera which captures the luminance around the vehicle which is used by recognition unit to determine if nighttime or daytime (para 42).
The examiner notes the BABALA/LIU/Gatti do not explicitly recite a ranging sensor where discloses can be a LIDAR, RADAR or SONAR etc… where the examiner notes in the field of vehicle operations the use of a ranging sensor is notoriously well known in the art to ensure safe operation of the vehicle, where such sensors---LIDAR (laser pulses) offers 3D mapping, RADAR (radio detection) all weather long-range detection and SONAR short-range (sound), thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such for the benefit of performing a safe vehicle operation.
In considering claim 8,
Refer to claim 2.
In considering claim 10,
Refer to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BABALA et al., US 2020/0193005 in view of Liu et al., US 20220281413; Gatti et al., US 20180367731and OTSUKA, US 20160240085.
In considering claim 7,
The combination of BABALA/LIU/GATTI do not explicitly recite changing the exposure setting of the camera based upon the measured illuminance.
The examiner incorporates OTSUKA which discloses such features, where based upon the measured illuminance, the controller of the cameras adjust the exposure value to account for the environment (such as daytime) where the exposure is adjusted to ensure the cameras can capture an image around the vehicle (para 31-32, 44).
The motivation to modify the above combination (BABALA/LIU) with OTSUKA would provide the vehicle the same advantage to ensure the camera can capture images around the vehicle in order to perform object detection by ensuring a proper exposure level of the camera in accordance with the illuminance of the surroundings thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are allowed.
Claims 3-6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art above does not disclose the additional features of the claims as recited and being dependent upon the respective claims as recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited reference on attached form PTO-892.
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 Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights