Detailed Action
Objections
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in line 6 “by the passenger compartment monitoring apparatus of a vehicle”.. The limitation of “vehicle” was already defined. Therefore, the limitation of “vehicle” in line 6 must be preceded by the word “the” instead of “a”. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim(s) 11-15, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 10.
In regards to claim 13, the claim recites in line 3 “acceleration of the structure of the vehicle structure”. The limitation of “structure” is repeated two times and, therefore, it is redundant. Therefore, the limitation should recite “acceleration of the structure of the vehicle
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites in line 13 “when the at least one acceleration sensor of the vehicle detects”. Line 3 of the claim defines an at least one acceleration sensor. Lines 5-6 also defines an at least one acceleration sensor. Both of the defined acceleration sensors belong to the vehicle. Therefore, it is unclear if the sensor recited in line 13 is referring to the sensor defined in line 3 or to the sensor defined in lines 5-6. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution:
“A vehicle comprising:
a vehicle alarm;
at least one acceleration sensor configured to measure acceleration of a structure of the vehicle; and
a passenger compartment monitoring apparatus
wherein the vehicle is configured to determine that a parking status of the vehicle is a parked status and activate, responsive to determining the parking status of the vehicle is the parked status, the passenger compartment monitoring apparatus,
wherein the passenger compartment monitoring apparatus is configured to detect movements in an interior of the vehicle, and
wherein the vehicle is configured to suppress triggering of the vehicle alarm when the at least one acceleration sensor of the vehicle detects an acceleration excitation of the structure of the vehicle at a same time as the movements in the interior of the vehicle are detected.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 10, Madau (US-5,510,765) teaches a vehicle system for detecting vehicle invasion in which acceleration of a structure of the vehicle and movement in the interior of the vehicle are monitored, and in which the vehicle generates an alarm and activates motion detection when acceleration data indicates glass breakage and generates a different alarm when motion data indicates movement inside the vehicle after the activation of the motion detection [col. 2 L. 15-19, col. 5 L. 3-14, col. 6 L. 63-67, col. 7 L. 6-10 and L. 30-35].
Radici (US-12,057,002) teaches a vehicle system for determining that a person or an animal was abandoned in the vehicle and for generating an alarm only after two motion sensors have detected movement in the interior of the vehicle at the same time [col. 2 L. 44-61, col. 12 L. 36-39 and L. 44-45, col. 13 L. 1-8]. Also, Radici teaches that the system is activated when the vehicle is in a parked status [col. 11 L. 64-67].
Allen (US-7,482,918) teaches a system in which acceleration monitoring of a structure of a vehicle can be suppressed when motion data of a motion sensor indicates that the detected motion is expected [fig. 3, col. 4 L. 49-54, col. 5 L. 31-42 and L. 54-58, col. 7 L. 19-25].
Hagstrom et al. (US-11,961,388) teaches a vehicle system that suppresses motion detection in a location inside the vehicle while activating motion detection in another location inside the vehicle to permit to detect vehicle invasion while an authorized person or animal is inside the vehicle [col. 2 L. 21-32].
However, the above cited prior art does not teach the following limitations: determining whether to trigger or suppress a vehicle alarm of the vehicle, wherein it is determined to suppress the vehicle alarm when the at least one acceleration sensor of the vehicle detects an acceleration excitation of the structure of the vehicle at a same time as the movements in the interior of the vehicle are detected.
In regards to claims 11-15, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 10.
In regards to claim 18, the claim would be allowable for the same reasons provided for claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are allowed.
In regards to claim 16, Madau (US-5,510,765) teaches a vehicle system for detecting vehicle invasion in which acceleration of a structure of the vehicle and movement in the interior of the vehicle are monitored, and in which the vehicle generates an alarm and activates motion detection when acceleration data indicates glass breakage and generates a different alarm when motion data indicates movement inside the vehicle after the activation of the motion detection [col. 2 L. 15-19, col. 5 L. 3-14, col. 6 L. 63-67, col. 7 L. 6-10 and L. 30-35].
Radici (US-12,057,002) teaches a vehicle system for determining that a person or an animal was abandoned in the vehicle and for generating an alarm only after two motion sensors have detected movement in the interior of the vehicle at the same time [col. 2 L. 44-61, col. 12 L. 36-39 and L. 44-45, col. 13 L. 1-8]. Also, Radici teaches that the system is activated when the vehicle is in a parked status [col. 11 L. 64-67].
Allen (US-7,482,918) teaches a system in which acceleration monitoring of a structure of a vehicle can be suppressed when motion data of a motion sensor indicates that the detected motion is expected [fig. 3, col. 4 L. 49-54, col. 5 L. 31-42 and L. 54-58, col. 7 L. 19-25].
Hagstrom et al. (US-11,961,388) teaches a vehicle system that suppresses motion detection in a location inside the vehicle while activating motion detection in another location inside the vehicle to permit to detect vehicle invasion while an authorized person or animal is inside the vehicle [col. 2 L. 21-32].
However, the above cited prior art does not teach the following limitations: wherein the passenger compartment monitoring apparatus is configured to suppress an alarm of the vehicle when at least one acceleration sensor of the vehicle detects an acceleration excitation of a structure of the vehicle at a same time as the movements in the interior of the vehicle are detected.
In regards to claims 17, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights