DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3-3-2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui-Van et, al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0052881, filed August 7, 2024 in view of Gupta, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0352834, published November 23, 2023.
As per claims 1, 10 and 19, Bui-Van discloses a method for controlling signal propagation in a wireless vehicle interior sensing system, the method comprising:
transmitting wireless signals using a transmitter implemented in the interior of a vehicle; reflecting at least a portion of the wireless signals using a plurality of configurable reflective surfaces implemented within the vehicle; receiving, at a first receiver, the wireless signals, wherein the wireless signals include wireless signals conveyed via a line of sight between the transmitter and the first receiver and wireless signals reflected using the plurality of configurable reflective surfaces (Bui-Van, ¶15 where direct is the front seats and bounced signal is rear seats);
comparing data generated based on receiving the wireless signals conveyed via the line of sight to data generated based on the portion of the wireless signals reflected using the plurality of configurable reflective surfaces; determining a sensing state based on the comparing, wherein the sensing state includes determining a presence in the interior of the vehicle (Bui-Van, ¶21 occupant sensing through signal analysis of all incoming signals);
and adjusting operating parameters of the transmitter based on the sensing state, wherein the operating parameters of the transmitter include controlling a direction of beams of wireless signals transmitted by the transmitter (Bui-Van, ¶15-16 where focus can be on a region of interest).
Bui-Van fails to explicitly disclose adjusting the beam based on results on the sensing state and fails to expressly disclose the reflectors being configurable.
As Bui-Van discloses adjusting the beam to a region of interest, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust based on sensing state in order to gain the benefit of focusing the beams at positions of known occupancy within the vehicle.
Gupta teaches configurable reflective surfaces (¶57-58).
Bui-Van discloses a larger array to accommodate various reflections. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a configurable array in order to gain the benefit of allowing a smaller reflector to respond to the desired reflections of Bui-Van’s larger array.
As per claims 2-5, 11-14 and 20, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta discloses the system of claim 1 providing various ways to adjust the reflective surface (Gupta, ¶57-58 discussing various changes in voltage, frequency, PIN diodes, etc.)
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a particular method of adjusting the reflector, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Bui-Van and Gupta.
As per claims 6 and 15, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing a first sensing iteration, wherein performing the first sensing iteration comprises transmitting and receiving wireless signals while the plurality of configurable reflective surfaces are disabled; and performing a second sensing iteration, wherein performing the second sensing iteration comprises transmitting and receiving wireless signals while the plurality of configurable reflective surfaces are enabled (Bui-Van, ¶15 where the first row iteration does not use reflectors and the second row iteration uses reflectors);
wherein the comparing comprises comparing data generated during the first iteration to data generated during the second iteration (Bui-Van, ¶21 where data from all return signals, whether using reflectors or not, is analyzed).
As per claim 7, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the wireless signals at a plurality of receivers including the first receiver (Bui-Van, ¶12).
As per claim 8, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the sensing state comprises determining a presence of occupants of the vehicle (Bui-Van, ¶21).
As per claims 9 and 18, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the sensing state using a first sensing application having a first coverage area; changing, by adjusting ones of the plurality of configurable reflective surfaces, to a second coverage area, the second coverage area is different than the first, wherein changing to the second area comprises changing respective directions of the beams of wireless signals transmitted by the transmitter; and determining the sensing state using a second sensing application having the second coverage area (Bui-Van, ¶15 where the coverage areas are first and second rows and Gupta, ¶58, changing reflectors as desired).
As per claim 17, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta further discloses the system of claim 10, further comprising a plurality of receivers including the first receiver, wherein the control system is further configured to perform comparisons based on data received by each of the plurality of wireless receivers (Bui-Van, ¶12 a plurality of receivers).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bui-Van and Gupta as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Elad, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0234534, published July 28, 2022.
As per claim 16, Bui-Van as modified by Gupta discloses the system of claim 10 but fails to disclose the use of FFTs for range analysis.
Elad teaches FFT analysis of signals for range within a vehicle (¶24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use well-known FFT calculations in order to gain the obvious benefit of determining where in the vehicle the target returns come from.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights