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 .
Summary
The Amendment filed on 15 September 2026 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 5 are amended.
Claims 6 – 13 are newly presented.
Currently, claims 1 – 13 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Hereinafter Kim) (US 2021/0009064 A1) and in further view of Elie et al. (Hereinafter Elie) (US 2017/0247926 A1).
As per claim 1, Kim teaches the limitations of:
a disembarking support device comprising a processor for executing disembarking support control for protecting a passenger by issuing a warning in case of a moving body approaching a vehicle (See at least abstract; A safe exiting assistance system includes an object detector that detects an object which approaches from a rear side of a vehicle, a body detector that detects physical information of a passenger in the vehicle, a door opening/closing detector that detects door opening or closing information of the vehicle, a determiner that determines whether a situation requires alert to the passenger in response to detection results of the object detector and the door opening/closing detector and calculates a value sensed by the body detector in response to vehicle information set in advance, and a controller that differently controls a position and an irradiation angle of a light source in response to the physical information when information in which the alert is necessary is received from the determiner.), the processor executing the following processing:
judging whether the passenger is present in the vehicle in case of ending the disembarking support control (See at least abstract; A safe exiting assistance system includes an object detector that detects an object which approaches from a rear side of a vehicle, a body detector that detects physical information of a passenger in the vehicle, a door opening/closing detector that detects door opening or closing information of the vehicle, a determiner that determines whether a situation requires alert to the passenger in response to detection results of the object detector and the door opening/closing detector and calculates a value sensed by the body detector in response to vehicle information set in advance, and a controller that differently controls a position and an irradiation angle of a light source in response to the physical information when information in which the alert is necessary is received from the determiner.),
executing output control for outputting notification contents for notifying ending of the disembarking support control in case of it is judged that the passenger is present (See at least abstract and paragraph 32 – 34; The object detector 100 detects whether an object, which approaches from a rear side of a vehicle, exists and detects a speed at which the object approaches. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the object detector 100 may include a radar sensor for detecting a distance, a speed, and the like with respect to the object. The body detector 110 detects physical information of a passenger in the vehicle. Here, the passenger in the vehicle may represent a driver positioned in a driver's seat of the vehicle, a passenger positioned in a front passenger seat, or a passenger positioned in a rear seat. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, it will be described as an example that the passenger in the vehicle represents the passenger positioned in the rear seat. For example, the body detector 110 senses an eye height of the passenger, a sitting height, or the like to display an alert for a dangerous situation visually at an optimal position when the passenger exits the vehicle. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, it will be described as an example that the body detector 110 senses the eye height of the passenger.), and
Kim does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
not executing the output control in case of it is judged that the passenger is not present.
However, the system and method of Kim only generate alarm and warning when there is object approaching and there is a passenger trying to exit (Please see the rejection above such as abstract and paragraph 32 – 34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify system and method of Kim to include the feature of not executing the output control in case of it is judged that the passenger is not present as Kim’s alarm/warning works when the warning is necessary based on the determined factor of presence of objects and passenger who is trying to exit (Abstract and paragraph 11).
Kim does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
controlling a door drive unit to stop an opening operation of the door in case of it is judged that the moving body approaching the vehicle is present.
Elie teaches the limitation of:
controlling a door drive unit to stop an opening operation of the door in case of it is judged that the moving body approaching the vehicle is present (See at least paragraph 66 – 67; The controller 70 may be configured to process the detection data from the one or more sensors to identify the approaching vehicle 162 as a moving object approaching or passing through entry region 164. In response to the detection, the door control system 160 may be configured to control a position of the doors 44 of the vehicle 10 via the door actuators 22. Accordingly, the door control system 160 may be configured similar to the door assist system 12 and may be configured as a fully automatic door system as discussed herein. In some embodiments, the door actuator 22 may be operable to generate a torque or force required to position the door 14 between open and closed positions, as well as various detent positions. Referring now to FIGS. 7 and 8, the door control system may be configured to identify the approaching vehicle 162 in a first position 170 and a second position 172. Based on the identification of the vehicle in the first position 170 and the second position 172, the controller 70 may be configured to identify a movement 174 or rate of motion of the approaching vehicle 162. Based on the rate of motion, the controller 70 may determine a clearance time of the approaching vehicle 162 to control at least one door actuator 22 of the door control system 160. Based on the clearance time of the approaching vehicle 162 and ongoing monitoring of the detection data, the controller 70 may prevent an opening operation of an obstructed door 176.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include controlling a door drive unit to stop an opening operation of the door in case of it is judged that the moving body approaching the vehicle is present as taught by Elie in the system of Kim, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 1 above, respectively.
As per claim 2, Kim teaches the limitations of:
wherein the processor judges whether or not the passenger is present in the vehicle based on image data captured in the vehicle (See at least paragraph 5).
As per claim 3, Kim teaches the limitations of:
wherein the processor judges whether or not the passenger is present in the vehicle based on a detection value of a seat occupancy sensor for detecting a seat occupancy state of the passenger (See at least abstract and paragraph 32 – 34).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Elie and in further view of Diamond et al. (Hereinafter Diamond) (US 2024/0151092 A1).
As per claim 4, Kim teaches the limitations of:
wherein the processor judges whether or not the passenger is present in the vehicle based on a detection value (See at least abstract and paragraph 32 – 34), but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
a detection value of a buckle switch for detecting a fastening state of a buckle of a seatbelt provided in the vehicle.
Diamond teaches the limitation of:
a detection value of a buckle switch for detecting a fastening state of a buckle of a seatbelt provided in the vehicle (See at least paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a detection value of a buckle switch for detecting a fastening state of a buckle of a seatbelt provided in the vehicle as taught by Diamond in the system of Kim and Elie, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Elie and in further view of Reiley et al. Hereinafter Reiley (US 20190197325 A1).
As per claim 8, the combination of Kim and Elie does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
wherein the processor ends the disembarking support control in case of a door lock switch is operated to a locked state after the door is closed.
Reiley et al teaches the limitations of:
wherein the processor ends the disembarking support control in case of a door lock switch is operated to a locked state after the door is closed (See at least paragraph 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the processor ends the disembarking support control in case of a door lock switch is operated to a locked state after the door is closed as taught by Reiley in the system of the combination of Kim and Elie, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 8 above, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 7,9 – 11 and 13 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.
Conclusion
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 IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights