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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 recites the limitation " a back up region of the ride-on equipment" in lines 2-3 of claim 1, line 2 of 13, and line 2 of 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the “ride-on equipment” has not been positively recited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the time of flight sensor " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected for depending on a rejected indefinite claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmalz et al. (US 006044632 A), hereinafter Schmalz over in view of Leadbetter (GB 2602202 A), hereinafter Leadbetter.
Regarding claim 1, Schmalz discloses a back up system (col. 1 lines 44-66, col. 2 lines 1-7 and 42-46, fig. 1 and 1a) for ride-on equipment (12, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-26) comprising:
a plurality of back up sensors (10 = 14+16, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51) configured to sense an object within a back up region of the ride-on equipment (24 = 20+22 / 20 / 22, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51);
an indicator (first, second, and third output signals, col. 3 lines 12-24, col. 4 lines 37-51, and col. 6 line 3-5); and
a controller (40, fig. 7, col. 4 lines 37-51 and col. 7 lines 27-34) configured to:
determine whether the sensed object is within the back up region based on feedback from the plurality of back up sensors (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34), and
activate, in response to determining that the object is within the back up region (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34), the indicator (col. 6 line 3-5 and col. 7 lines 27-34).
Schmalz teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a deterrence device and activating the deterrent device.
Leadbetter teaches a similar device in the same field of safety detection systems wherein there is a deterrent device and when a hazardous condition is detected the deterrent is activated (directional sound device 130, page 13 line 13).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmalz to incorporate the deterrent and potential activation of the deterrent of Leadbetter in order to alert a person to the hazard and therefore increase safety (page 1 line 7 to page 2 line 4 of Leadbetter).
Claims 2-5, 7, 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmalz et al. (US 006044632 A), hereinafter Schmalz over in view of Leadbetter (GB 2602202 A), hereinafter Leadbetter in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2022/0057519 A1), hereinafter Goldstein.
Regarding claim 2, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter teaches a plurality of back up sensors (10 = 14+16, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51), but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of back up sensors is a time of flight sensor.
Goldstein teaches a similar device in the same field of detection systems wherein at least one of the plurality of back up sensors is a time of flight sensor ([0055 and 0063]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the infrared sensor of Schmalz in view of Leadbetter to include at least one camera in the plurality of backup sensors to yield the predictable result of detect a living being in the area of interest ([0004-0005 and 0098] of Goldstein).
Regarding claim 3, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches a plurality of back up sensors (10 = 14+16, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51), but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of back up sensors is a camera.
Goldstein teaches a similar device in the same field of detection systems wherein at least one of the plurality of back up sensors is a camera ([0055 and 0063]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the infrared sensor of Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein to include at least one camera in the plurality of backup sensors to yield the predictable result of detect a living being in the area of interest ([0004-0005 and 0098] of Goldstein).
Regarding claim 4, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the sensed object is a living being (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34 of Schmalz) based on feedback from the camera ([0055, 0063 -0064 and 0098, see also [0118-0120 and 0129]).
Regarding claim 5, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the controller is configured to activate the deterrence device only if the controller determines that the sensed object is a living being (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34 of Schmalz).
Regarding claim 7, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the deterrence device is configured to emit sound waves (directional sound device 130, page 13 line 13 of Leadbetter) in a frequency range between 17,000 Hz and 19,000 Hz (page 11 lines 5-12 of Leadbetter).
Regarding claim 13, Schmalz discloses a back up system (col. 1 lines 44-66, col. 2 lines 1-7 and 42-46, fig. 1 and 1a) for ride-on equipment (12, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-26) comprising:
a sensor (10 = 14+16, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51) configured to sense an object within a back up region of the ride-on equipment (24 = 20+22 / 20 / 22, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51);
an indicator (first, second, and third output signals, col. 3 lines 12-24, col. 4 lines 37-51, and col. 6 line 3-5); and
a controller (40, fig. 7, col. 4 lines 37-51 and col. 7 lines 27-34) configured to:
determine whether the sensed object is within the back up region (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34), and
activate, in response to determining that the object is within the back up region (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34), the indicator (col. 6 line 3-5 and col. 7 lines 27-34).
Schmalz teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a deterrence device and activating the deterrent device.
Leadbetter teaches a similar device in the same field of safety detection systems wherein there is a deterrent device and when a hazardous condition is detected the deterrent is activated (directional sound device 130, page 13 line 13).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmalz to incorporate the deterrent and potential activation of the deterrent of Leadbetter in order to alert a person to the hazard and therefore increase safety (page 1 line 7 to page 2 line 4 of Leadbetter).
Further regarding claim 13, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter teaches the above but fails to explicitly teach that the plurality of back up sensors including at least one time of flight sensor and determine whether the sensed object is within the back up region based on feedback from the time of flight sensor.
Goldstein teaches a similar device in the same field of detection systems the plurality of back up sensors including at least one time of flight sensor ([0004, 0067, 0076, 0155, 0172]) and determine whether the sensed object is within the back up region based on feedback from the time of flight sensor ([0004, 0067, 0076, 0155, 0172]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the infrared sensor of Schmalz in view of Leadbetter to include at least one time of flight sensor in the plurality of backup sensors to yield the predictable result keeping the area of interest safe ([0004-0005 and 0308] of Goldstein).
Regarding claim 15, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the sensor includes at least one selected from a group consisting of: a millimeter wave sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, and a camera (infrared sensors 14 and 16, col. 3 lines 12-17 of Schmalz).
Regarding claim 17, Schmalz discloses a back up system (col. 1 lines 44-66, col. 2 lines 1-7 and 42-46, fig. 1 and 1a) for ride-on equipment (12, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-26) comprising:
a plurality of back up sensors (10 = 14+16, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51) configured to sense an object within a back up region of the ride-on equipment (24 = 20+22 / 20 / 22, fig. 1 and 1a, col. 3 lines 12-34 and col. 4 lines 37-51); and
a controller (40, fig. 7, col. 4 lines 37-51 and col. 7 lines 27-34) configured to:
determine whether the sensed object is within the back up region based on feedback from the plurality of back up sensors (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34),
determine whether the sensed object is a living being based on feedback from the sensor (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34).
Activate something, in response to determining that the object is within the back up region (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34) and that the object is a living being (col. 1 lines 20-34, col. 2 lines 9-34, col. 4 lines 1-16 and lines 37-51, and col. 7 lines 27-34).
Schmalz teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose a deterrence device and activating the deterrent device, and a deterrence device configured to emit sound waves in a frequency range from 17,000 Hz to 19,000 Hz.
Leadbetter teaches a similar device in the same field of safety detection systems wherein there is a deterrent device and when a hazardous condition is detected the deterrent is activated (directional sound device 130, page 13 line 13) and a deterrence device configured to emit sound waves in a frequency range from 17,000 Hz to 19,000 Hz (page 11 lines 5-12).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmalz to incorporate the deterrent and potential activation of the deterrent of Leadbetter in order to alert a person to the hazard and therefore increase safety (page 1 line 7 to page 2 line 4 of Leadbetter) and to use the frequency range of between 17Khz to 19 Khz in order to gain the attention of people, particularly younger people (page 11 lines 5-12 of Leadbetter).
Further regarding claim 17, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter teaches the above but fails to explicitly teach that the plurality of back up sensors including at least one camera and determine whether the sensed object is a living being based on feedback from the camera.
Goldstein teaches a similar device in the same field of detection systems wherein the sensors can include at least one camera ([0055 and 0063]) and determine whether the sensed object is a living being based on feedback from the camera ([0064 and 0098, see also [0118-0120 and 0129]]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the infrared sensor of Schmalz in view of Leadbetter to include at least one camera in the plurality of backup sensors to yield the predictable result of detect a living being in the area of interest ([0004-0005 and 0098] of Goldstein).
Regarding claim 18, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the controller is configured to activate an indicator to indicate that a living being is within the back up region in response to determining that the sensed object is a living being (first, second, and third output signals, col. 3 lines 12-24, col. 4 lines 37-51, col. 6 line 3-5, and col. 7 lines 27-34).
Claims 9-12, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmalz et al. (US 006044632 A), hereinafter Schmalz over in view of Leadbetter (GB 2602202 A), hereinafter Leadbetter in view of Armstrong (1,991,718), hereinafter Armstrong.
Regarding claims 9, 14, and 19, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches the deterrence device is a sound emitting device, but is silent on what type sound emitting device is used.
Goldstein teaches a similar device in the same field of detection systems wherein the deterrence device is a sound emitting device that can be a siren ([0237 and 0239]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general sound emitting device of Schmalz with the siren of Goldstein to yield the predictable result of to yield the predictable result of deterring/ alerting the person in the area of interest ([0005 and 0239] of Goldstein).
Further regarding claim 19, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches as now modified teaches a siren, but fails to explicitly disclose the details of the siren.
Armstrong teaches a similar device in the same field of siren alert devices wherein the siren includes having a rotatable fan (1, page 1 line 38 to page 2 line 11, Fig. 1 and 4) and a stator (10, page 1 line 38 to page 2 line 11, Fig. 1 and 4) surrounding the fan (fig. 1 and 4), the stator including a first plurality of fins (8, page 1 line 38 to page 2 line 11, Fig. 1 and 4) and the fan including a second plurality of fins (7, page 1 line 38 to page 2 line 11, Fig. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general siren of Schmalz in view of Goldstein to includes the details of the siren to yield the predictable result of generating an alert sound ([0005 and 0239] of Goldstein; page 1 lines 1-7 of Armstrong).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter, Goldstein, and Armstrong teaches wherein the first plurality of fins and the second plurality of fins include the same number of fins (7 and 8, page 1 line 38 to page 2 line 11, Fig. 1 and 4, fig. 4 of Armstrong).
Regarding claim 11-12, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter, Goldstein, and Armstrong teaches siren with a fan/rotor and stator that can have number of openings, fins, and the desired revolution. It has also been established the desired frequency range. There is a known relationship between these variables. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the different variables in order to achieve a frequency within the range of 17,000 Hz to 19,000 Hz.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmalz et al. (US 006044632 A), hereinafter Schmalz over in view of Leadbetter (GB 2602202 A), hereinafter Leadbetter in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2022/0057519 A1), hereinafter Goldstein in view of Gregg et al. (US 2020/0249213 A1), hereinafter Gregg.
Regarding claim 8, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches the deterrence device (directional sound device 130, page 13 line 13 of Leadbetter), but fails to explicitly the deterrence device includes a piezo buzzer.
Gregg teaches a similar device in the same field of vehicles wherein the deterrence device (alert device 166, [0033]) includes a piezo buzzer ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the general sound producing deterent device of Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein to the specific piezo buzzer of Gregg tp yield the predictable result of alerting a person ([0033] of Gregg).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schmalz et al. (US 006044632 A), hereinafter Schmalz over in view of Leadbetter (GB 2602202 A), hereinafter Leadbetter in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2022/0057519 A1), hereinafter Goldstein in view of Bejeck (US 2024/0081173 A1), hereinafter Bejeck.
Regarding claim 6, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate a warning on the display to indicate that a living being is within the back up region in response to determining that the sensed object is a living being (first, second, and third output signals, col. 3 lines 12-24, col. 4 lines 37-51, col. 6 line 3-8, and col. 7 lines 27-34 of Schmalz).
Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the indicator is a display.
Bejeck teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the indicator is a display (142 and 144, fig. 1 and 7, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein to incorporate the wherein the indicator is a display of Bejeck in order to give this operator information on obstacle and other conditions ([0028] of Bejeck).
Regarding claim 16, Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches wherein the ride-on equipment is a lawn mower (fig. 1, col. 3 lines 36-39 of Scmalz).
Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein teaches the above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein including operating handles configured to control forward and reverse movement of the lawn mower, and wherein the indicator is located on the operating handles.
Bejeck teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers including operating handles (28 and 30, fig. 1-2 and 7, [0029]) configured to control forward and reverse movement of the lawn mower (fig. 1-2 and 7, [0029 and 0036-0038]), and wherein the indicator is located on the operating handles (142 and 144, fig. 1 and 7, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmalz in view of Leadbetter and Goldstein to have simply substituted the generic riding lawnmower of Schmalz with a specific riding lawn mower of Bejeck that includes operating handles configured to control forward and reverse movement of the lawn mower to yield the predictable result of controlling a lawnmower in order to mow () and
And to incorporate wherein the indicator is a display of Bejeck in order to give this operator information on obstacle and other conditions ([0028] of Bejeck).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights