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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method and system for operating a UWB sensor device for vehicle interior monitoring and adaptive vehicle function control.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites:
"examining the sensor signal using classified signal types"
The term "classified signal types" renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear because the claim fails to define:
what constitutes a signal type;
how a signal type becomes classified;
what objective criteria distinguish one classified signal type from another.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation.
Claim 5 recites:
"physical examination methods"
The term lacks objective boundaries.
The claim does not identify:
what examinations are physical examination methods;
what examinations are excluded.
Therefore, the scope is uncertain.
Claim 6 recites:
"a first signal type which is specific for an approach or distance of a person"
The phrase "specific for" lacks objective boundaries.
The claim fails to define:
what characteristics make the signal type specific;
what threshold or criterion must be satisfied.
The scope is therefore uncertain.
Claim 7 recites:
"used as a marker"
The term "marker" lacks clear meaning in the context of the claim.
The claim does not define:
the structure of the marker;
the signal characteristic of the marker;
the criteria used to identify the marker.
Accordingly, the scope is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites:
"a second signal type which is specific for breathing or movement"
The phrase "specific for" lacks objective boundaries.
The claim fails to specify:
how breathing-specific signals are distinguished;
how movement-specific signals are distinguished;
what degree of correlation is required.
Therefore the claim scope is uncertain.
Claim 12 recites:
"specific for a rest situation"
The term "rest situation" lacks objective boundaries.
The claim does not identify:
what conditions define a rest situation;
how long movement must be absent;
whether sensor noise is permitted.
The scope is therefore uncertain.
Claim 13 recites:
"certain consecutive signal types"
and
"corresponding vehicle functions"
The term "certain" provides no objective boundary.
Additionally, "corresponding vehicle functions" fails to identify which functions correspond to which signal sequences.
The scope is not reasonably certain.
Claim 14
“A computer program comprising instructions in non-transitory computer readable memory that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 1.”
Claim 14 defines the invention only by its intended result:
“instructions… that… cause the computer to perform the method of claim 1”
This raises indefiniteness concerns because:
1. No Definition of Program Structure
The claim does not specify:
program architecture
signal-processing modules
classification algorithm
evaluation logic
decision rules for vehicle functions
implementation of “classified signal types”
Thus, the scope of what constitutes the “computer program” is unclear.
2. Overbroad Incorporation of Claim 1 Functional Layers
Claim 1 includes multiple complex operations:
UWB signal detection
movement inside/outside classification
signal-type classification
evaluation logic
vehicle function activation (burglary protection, access control, etc.)
Claim 14 attempts to capture all of these without specifying how the software accomplishes them.
This results in uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the claimed program.
3. Ambiguous Boundaries of “Cause the Computer to Perform”
The phrase:
“cause the computer to perform the method”
is indefinite because it does not clarify:
whether all steps must be explicitly programmed
whether ML models, heuristics, or rule-based logic are required
whether external sensor processing is included
what level of abstraction satisfies the claim
Conclusion
Claim 14 is indefinite because it:
recites only functional outcomes
lacks structural or algorithmic definition of the program
fails to define boundaries of implementation of claim 1
Claim 15 defines an ECU by:
“machine-readable instructions … which, when executed … carries out the method of claim 1”
This raises indefiniteness concerns because:
1. Ambiguous Scope of “carries out the method of claim 1”
Claim 1 includes multiple layered operations:
detecting UWB sensor signal
examining using “classified signal types”
evaluating sensor signal
providing vehicle functions
movement inside/outside classification
burglary protection / access control / child detection
However, claim 15 does not specify:
how instructions implement “classified signal types”
what algorithm performs signal classification
what evaluation logic is used
how movement inside vs outside is determined
what mapping triggers vehicle functions
A person of ordinary skill would not know the boundaries of the instruction set required.
2. Pure Result-Oriented Functional Claiming
Claim 15 claims:
“instructions… which… carries out the method”
This is pure functional claiming at the point of novelty, without:
algorithm steps
signal-processing structure
classification logic
decision tree / model description
data processing pipeline
➡ This creates uncertain scope of protection
Conclusion for Claim 15
Claim 15 is indefinite because:
it recites a result (“carries out the method”) rather than defining how
it incorporates multiple undefined functional layers from claim 1
it fails to define boundaries of the instruction set
As per claims 2-13, they are also rejected based on the dependency of claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costa Patry et al. (US 2025/0314758).
CLAIM 1
“A method for operating an ultra-wideband (UWB) sensor device to monitor an interior space of a vehicle and to provide different vehicle functions for the vehicle including burglary protection, access control, interior space presence detection, or child presence detection, wherein the different vehicle functions are provided depending on the detection of movement inside or outside of the vehicle, wherein the UWB sensor device has a sensor unit for monitoring at least one row of seats in the interior space of the vehicle, the method comprising:”
COSTA PATRY shows a method for operating a UWB sensor device to monitor an interior space of a vehicle (¶[0002], “method for monitoring the inner space of a vehicle using a UWB sensor device”), and to provide vehicle functions such as interior presence detection and child presence detection (¶[0008], “improved presence detection, in particular small child presence detection”; ¶[0016], “warn a vehicle user if children remain in the vehicle”).
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly disclose:
burglary protection systems or access control systems as claimed functional outputs (¶[0016], ¶[0052] disclose only warning/suppression functions)
a dual condition where vehicle functions depend on detection of movement “inside or outside of the vehicle” (COSTA PATRY ¶[0008], ¶[0037] limited to interior monitoring only)
explicit classification of multiple vehicle functions (burglary protection, access control, etc.) as a unified functional framework
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
UWB-based occupancy detection driving vehicle response functions (¶[0016], ¶[0052])
differentiation of occupant states (child/adult/newborn) using signal classification (¶[0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify COSTA PATRY to provide additional vehicle security-related functions including burglary protection and access control and to associate UWB-based signal classification outputs with such functions because COSTA PATRY already teaches a UWB-based vehicle monitoring system that classifies occupants and generates vehicle responses based on detected signal characteristics, and extending such outputs to additional vehicle security functions represents a predictable application of the same sensing and classification framework.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
“detecting a sensor signal with the UWB sensor device;”
COSTA PATRY shows detecting UWB sensor signals reflected from occupants in a vehicle (¶[0003], “UWB sensor units can detect the transit time of sensor signals reflected by people in the inner space of the vehicle”).
COSTA PATRY does not fail to disclose this limitation; it fully discloses it.
however COSTA PATRY teaches reflected signal detection using UWB radar principles (¶[0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to detect a sensor signal using a UWB sensor device because COSTA PATRY explicitly discloses UWB reflection-based sensing for occupant detection in a vehicle environment.
It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
“examining the sensor signal using classified signal types;”
COSTA PATRY shows examination of sensor signals using machine learning classification (¶[0027], “analysis of sensor signals can be carried out using a machine learning method”), including classification of occupants into categories such as newborn, child, and adult (¶[0027], ¶[0052]).
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly disclose:
the term “classified signal types” as a formal signal-type architecture
a structured signal-type taxonomy independent of occupant classification
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
ML-based signal classification of radar returns into distinct occupant classes (¶[0027])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to examine the sensor signal using classified signal types because COSTA PATRY already teaches machine learning-based classification of UWB sensor signals into distinct occupant categories, and formalizing such classifications as “signal types” is a predictable labeling and structuring of known classification outputs.
It would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
“evaluating the sensor signal depending on the examination;”
COSTA PATRY shows evaluation of classified sensor outputs to determine occupant state (¶[0052], “if several antennas sense a person, it can be assumed the person is an adult”).
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly disclose a separate “evaluation step” distinct from classification in claim terminology.
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
rule-based evaluation of classification outputs to determine system response (¶[0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to evaluate the sensor signal depending on the examination because COSTA PATRY already teaches evaluating classified UWB signal outputs to determine occupant state and system behavior.
It would be an implementation of use of known techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
“and providing a corresponding vehicle function depending upon the evaluation.”
Primary reference COSTA PATRY shows:
COSTA PATRY shows providing vehicle functions based on evaluation of sensor data, including:
issuing warnings for children left in vehicle (¶[0016])
suppressing warnings based on adult detection (¶[0052])
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly disclose:
burglary protection systems
access control systems
authentication request initiation
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
vehicle response functions triggered by occupant detection results (¶[0016], ¶[0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a corresponding vehicle function depending upon the evaluation because COSTA PATRY already teaches generating vehicle responses based on UWB-based occupant classification, and extending such responses to additional vehicle security functions such as access control or burglary protection is a predictable application of known vehicle safety and security systems.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
CLAIM 14
“A computer program comprising instructions in non-transitory computer readable memory that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 1.”
COSTA PATRY shows a computer program product configured to implement the UWB vehicle monitoring method, including signal detection, classification, evaluation, and generation of vehicle functions.
Specifically, COSTA PATRY discloses:
a computer program product stored in a non-transitory medium (¶[0028], “computer program product comprising commands… stored in memory”),
executable instructions that cause a computer to perform a vehicle monitoring method (¶[0028], “cause the computer to carry out a method described above”),
execution of UWB signal processing including detection of reflected signals (¶[0003]),
machine learning-based classification of sensor signals (¶[0027]),
evaluation of classified outputs to determine occupant state (¶[0052]),
the invention relates to a corresponding computer program product, a corresponding control unit, and a corresponding sensor device, in particular a UWB sensor device, for carrying out a corresponding method (¶[0002]),
generation of vehicle functions such as warnings or suppression of warnings (¶[0016], ¶[0052]).
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly use the exact claim phrasing:
“computer program comprising instructions in non-transitory computer readable memory”
“instructions that explicitly map to each limitation of claim 1 in ordered form”
However, COSTA PATRY inherently discloses all corresponding functional program elements as part of its computer program product disclosure.
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
software-based execution of UWB sensor signal processing in a vehicle control system (¶[0028])
programmatic execution of classification and evaluation logic for vehicle responses (¶[0027], ¶[0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement a computer program comprising instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable memory that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 1 because COSTA PATRY already teaches a computer program product configured to execute UWB-based vehicle monitoring, classification, evaluation, and vehicle function generation, and reducing such disclosure into a formal “instruction set stored in memory” is a routine software implementation of an already fully defined computer-implemented method.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
CLAIM 14 —CONCLUSION
Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over COSTA PATRY because:
COSTA PATRY discloses:
a non-transitory computer program product (¶[0028])
executable instructions performing UWB vehicle monitoring
signal detection, classification, evaluation, and output generation
full computer-implemented workflow corresponding to claim 1
and the claimed differences are merely:
express formatting of software instructions as a “computer program comprising instructions,”
which represents routine software claim drafting rather than a structural or functional distinction.
CLAIM 15
“An electronic control unit comprising a computing unit and a memory unit in which machine-readable instructions are stored which, when executed by the computing unit, carries out the method of claim 1.”
COSTA PATRY discloses an electronic control unit (ECU) configured for UWB-based vehicle interior monitoring and control.
Specifically, COSTA PATRY teaches:
an electronic control unit (¶[0029], “control unit (ECU) having a computing unit and a storage unit”),
a computing unit configured to execute stored code (¶[0029], “code stored which… is carried out by the computing unit”),
a memory/storage unit storing machine-readable instructions (¶[0029], “storage unit in which a code is stored”),
execution of instructions that implement UWB signal detection (¶[0003]),
signal processing including machine learning classification (¶[0027]),
evaluation of classified outputs for occupant determination (¶[0052]),
generation of vehicle functions such as warnings or suppression of alerts (¶[0016], ¶[0052]),
the invention relates to a corresponding computer program product, a corresponding control unit, and a corresponding sensor device, in particular a UWB sensor device, for carrying out a corresponding method (¶[0002]).
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly recite:
the ECU as a separately claimed structural entity using identical claim terminology (“electronic control unit comprising a computing unit and a memory unit”),
nor does it explicitly map each software step of claim 1 as a discrete instruction set within the ECU claim language.
However, COSTA PATRY clearly and inherently discloses a structurally identical ECU executing identical functionality.
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
an ECU architecture with processor and memory executing UWB-based vehicle monitoring logic (¶[0029])
software-controlled execution of signal classification and evaluation functions (¶[0027], ¶[0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement an electronic control unit comprising a computing unit and a memory unit in which machine-readable instructions are stored which, when executed by the computing unit, carries out the method of claim 1 because COSTA PATRY already discloses an ECU having a processor and storage executing instructions to perform UWB-based sensing, classification, evaluation, and vehicle function control, and expressing this known computing architecture in explicit “machine-readable instruction” claim format represents a routine and predictable hardware-software implementation of the same functional system.
It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over COSTA PATRY because:
COSTA PATRY discloses:
an ECU (¶[0029])
a computing unit (processor)
a memory/storage unit
executable machine instructions
full implementation of UWB-based vehicle monitoring and control logic
and the differences are only:
formal claim language mapping of standard ECU architecture,
without any structural or functional distinction over COSTA PATRY.
CLAIM 16
“A sensor device having the electronic control unit of claim 15.”
COSTA PATRY discloses a sensor device configured for UWB-based monitoring of a vehicle interior space, which includes an integrated electronic control unit (ECU) that processes sensor signals and executes vehicle monitoring functions.
Specifically, COSTA PATRY teaches:
a sensor device configured for UWB sensing in a vehicle interior (¶[0030], “sensor device, in particular a UWB sensor device”),
integration of a control unit within the sensor system (¶[0030], “sensor device comprises a control unit”),
an ECU comprising a computing unit and memory executing stored instructions (¶[0029], “control unit (ECU) having a computing unit and a storage unit in which a code is stored”),
execution of machine-readable instructions for UWB signal detection (¶[0003]),
classification of sensor signals using machine learning methods (¶[0027]),
evaluation of classified outputs for occupant detection (¶[0052]),
generation of vehicle functions such as warnings or suppression of alerts (¶[0016], ¶[0052]).
COSTA PATRY does not explicitly recite:
a separate structural claim format explicitly stating “sensor device having the electronic control unit of claim 15,”
nor does it expressly define dependency relationships between claims in the same formal claim language structure.
However, COSTA PATRY inherently discloses a sensor device that includes and integrates the ECU functionality required by claim 15.
however COSTA PATRY teaches:
a UWB sensor device architecture incorporating an ECU (¶[0030])
integrated processing and control of sensor data within the sensor hardware system (¶[0029], ¶[0030])
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement a sensor device having the electronic control unit of claim 15 because COSTA PATRY already discloses a UWB sensor device that integrates a control unit (ECU) comprising a computing unit and memory executing instructions for signal detection, classification, evaluation, and vehicle function control, and explicitly placing such ECU functionality within a sensor device represents a straightforward and predictable integration of known vehicle sensing and processing components.
It would be an implementation of use of known techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
CLAIM 16 §103 CONCLUSION
Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over COSTA PATRY because:
COSTA PATRY discloses:
a UWB sensor device (¶[0030])
integrated control unit / ECU (¶[0029], ¶[0030])
computing unit and memory executing instructions
full vehicle interior monitoring system with signal classification and evaluation
and the differences are only:
formal dependency phrasing (“having the electronic control unit of claim 15”),
without any structural or functional distinction over COSTA PATRY’s integrated sensor-ECU architecture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights