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
1. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-8, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
2. The application is filed on 05/28/2025 but claims the benefit of foreign application number KR 10-2024-0070031 filed on 05/29/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Double Patenting
4. Claims 1-8 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-7 of Application No. 19220195. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(e) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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 of this title, 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durley (US 5493269 A) (hereinafter Durley) in view of Britton (US 20050024257 A1) (hereinafter Britton).
Regarding claim 1, Durley discloses a school vehicle safety system using a radar sensor (Fig. 1, bus 10 , FIG. 3, radar units 56, 60, 58 and 62), comprising:
a lower short-range radar sensor configured to detect a moving object at a forward lower side of a school vehicle (Fig. 1, 3, Radar units 56, 58 (front radar unit and children), 60 and 62, Abstract, Radar detects objects by reacting to a reflected radio signal moving into, or changing position, within the range of radiated radio signal); and
an alarm controller configured to receive an object detection result from the lower short-range radar sensor (col. 5, lines 23-29, FIG. 3, radar units 56, 60, 58 and 62 and the effective radiation fields respectively generated by such radar units, FIG. 7 alarm means of FIG. 6 situated as within a bus, col. 6, lines 62-67, an alarm means and/or indicator means and/or read-out means for use by the driver of the bus 10),
determine whether an alarm has been generated from a lower side of the school vehicle (col. 17, lines 38-42, object is detected as being within the radiation field of any of the radar units, auditory alarm or indicator means 272 is continuously energized, preferably producing a continuous auditory signal tone, and the lamp 252, 254, 256 or 258 (or lamps) associated with the particular radar unit 56, 58, 60 or 62),
output a warning sound through a speaker (claim 34, A school bus according to claim 33 wherein electrically energizable auditory signal generating means comprises a single generator of auditory sound; and wherein said single generator of auditory sound is energized whenever radar transceiver of any of said first, second, third or fourth simultaneously electrically energized and detects a person in either the first, second, third or fourth areas, col. 38, lines 56-67, voice warning system comprises the speech module and a plurality of speakers operatively connected to the module), and
flash one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) according to a result of the determination to indicate the result of the determination (col. 37, lines 62-67, col. 38, lines 1-4, sensory signal generators 272 and 370 and said LED's are electrically cyclically pulsed and the flasher controller 76 is activated, col. 5, lines 61-67, Lamp assemblies 24, 26, 28, 30, 36, 38, 40 and 42 are, at times, made to be intermittently energized thereby creating a flashing -like light output, FIG. 2 depicts suitable flasher controller means 7).
Even though Durley discloses output a warning sound and flash one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) but specifically fails to disclose output according to determination to indicate the result of the determination.
In analogous art, Britton discloses output according to determination to indicate the result of the determination (Fig. 1, target detected 114, yellow light alarm 116, Abstract, sensing apparatus can be considered and analysed as a short-range radar system, para 37-38, FIGS. 2A and 2B shown is a side view and an underside view of a school bus 30 equipped with a sensing apparatus 20, The sensing apparatus 20, having been designed as a radar-like system, toddler 64, small animal 66, rock 68, para 14, determine whether or not objects are present; and iv) if objects are present, further processing the reflections to determine whether or not objects are of a certain type of material or not, para 31, 35, If target indicators are present (yes path, step 114) a "Yellow light" or caution alarm is activated at step 116, The red light alarm indicates that a living creature (e.g. a toddler) is in the space being monitored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of sensing the presence of a person within a selected area proximate to said vehicle, and warning means for creating a sensory warning signal whenever the presence of a person in area is sensed disclosed by Durley to detect and classify objects in a relatively small obstruction-filled space by the sensing apparatus can be considered and analysed as a short-range radar system as taught by Britton to determine whether or not objects are of the certain type of material or not includes comparing respective reflections received to determine whether or not an object [Britton, para 0014].
Regarding claim 2, Durley fails to discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 1, further comprising a speed detection short-range radar sensor configured to emit a radar signal at a first angle with respect to a bottom surface of the school vehicle at a rear lower side of the school vehicle and detect a moving speed of the school vehicle based on a signal reflected from the radar signal.
In analogous art, Britton discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 1, further comprising a speed detection short-range radar sensor configured to emit a radar signal at a first angle with respect to a bottom surface of the school vehicle at a rear lower side of the school vehicle and detect a moving speed of the school vehicle based on a signal reflected from the radar signal (Fig. 1, target detected 114, yellow light alarm 116, Abstract, sensing apparatus can be considered and analysed as a short-range radar system, para 37-38, FIGS. 2A and 2B side view and underside view of a school bus 30 equipped with a sensing apparatus 20, The sensing apparatus 20, having been designed as a radar-like system, toddler 64, small animal 66, rock 68, Para 52, Fig. 4, Reflections received from a rock 68, small animal 66 and toddler 64 located at distances d.sub.1, d.sub.2 and d.sub.3 from sensing apparatus 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of sensing the presence of a person within a selected area proximate to said vehicle, and warning means for creating a sensory warning signal whenever the presence of a person in area is sensed disclosed by Durley to use sound waves of respective different frequencies could be used to determine the composition of different materials as taught by Britton to determine whether or not objects are of the certain type of material or not includes comparing the respective reflections received at the first and second frequencies to a benchmark to determine whether or not an object [Britton, paragraph 0014].
Regarding claim 3, Durley discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 2, wherein the alarm controller is configured to stop an operation of the lower short-range radar sensor when the moving speed of the school vehicle received from the speed detection short-range radar sensor is greater than a preset first speed (col. 6, lines 15-30, bus driver will actuate the momentary switch means 102 at some selected distance (for example, approximately 200.0 feet) ahead of where the bus driver intends to bring the bus 10 to a stop, col. 16, lines 45-52, first set of yellow warning lamps are flashed as the bus is in a mode preparing to come to a stop while the second set of red warning lamps are flashed when the bus is in its stopped condition, bus stop based on detected conditions of the speed and object detection by radar sensor).
9. Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durley (US 5493269 A) (hereinafter Durley) in view of Britton (US 20050024257 A1) (hereinafter Britton) and further in view of PARK (KR 102508910 B1) (hereinafter PARK).
Regarding claim 4, Durley discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 2, further comprising a front short-range radar sensor configured to detect an object in a forward direction of the school vehicle and measure a distance to the detected object, (col. 6, lines 15-50, bus driver will actuate the momentary switch means 102 at some selected distance (approximately 200.0 feet) ahead of where the bus driver intends to bring the bus 10 to a stop, activation of flasher controller means 76 resulting in the yellow light producing lamp assemblies 28 and 30 being alternately energized and de-energized, Actuation of switch means 114 causes a signal to be applied, via conductor means 116, to flasher controller means 76 which requires controller means 76 to cease the intermittent energization of yellow light lamp assemblies 28, 30, 40 and 42 and, instead, through conductor means 78, 80, 86 and 88 respectively energize red light lamp assemblies 24, 26, 36 and 38 in a flashing mode).
Durley and Britton fails to discloses the school vehicle safety system generate an alarm with respect to a front side of the school vehicle when a distance to an object included in an object detection result received from the front short-range radar sensor is less than or equal to a first alarm distance.
In analogous art, PARK discloses the school vehicle safety system generate an alarm with respect to a front side of the school vehicle when a distance to an object included in an object detection result received from the front short-range radar sensor is less than or equal to a first alarm distance (Abstract, blind spot safety notification system, which is installed on a road (backroad intersection, etc.) to detect and measure the location, distance, speed, etc, page 8, lines 15-20, determines that the acceleration sensor is in a stable state when a sensing value smaller than a preset value, page 11, lines 1-3, When a sensing value smaller than a preset value is continuously sensed by the acceleration sensor, it is determined that a stable state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting the presence of persons in locations hidden from view of the vehicle operator and, in turn, warning the operator of such presence disclosed by Durley and Britton to detect and measure the location, distance, speed, etc to detect blind spot safety notification system that can prevent accidents of pedestrians as taught by PARK to detect blind spot safety notification system that corrects the sensed value of the gyro sensor by determining the average value of the sensing values [PARK, page 11, lines 10-12].
Regarding claim 5, Durley discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 4, further comprising: a left side short-range radar sensor configured to detect an object in a leftward direction of the school vehicle and measure a distance to the detected object; and a right side short-range radar sensor configured to detect an object in a rightward direction of the school vehicle and measure a distance to the detected object (Fig. 3, Radar units 56, 58, 60 and 62 (i.e. radar in right and left of bus 10), positioned as generally depicted, are operatively carried by the bus 10, FIG. 3 radar units 56, 60, 58 and 62 and the effective radiation fields respectively generated by such radar units, Claim 14, fourth area extends laterally left ward of said vehicle; wherein said fourth area is considered as a fourth danger zone whereby any person within said fourth danger zone is at risk of being injured by said vehicle, claim 32, fourth sensor assembly being effective to monitor a fourth area outwardly of left side exterior body panel means in order to detect presence of person in fourth area)
wherein the alarm controller is configured to generate an alarm with respect to a left-side and/or a right-side of the school vehicle when a distance to an object included in an object detection result received from the left and/or right side short-range radar sensor is less than or equal to a second alarm distance (FIG. 15 is a view depicting the vehicular right -side mounting of the sensor means, claim 14, third area extends laterally right ward of said vehicle; wherein said third area is considered as a third danger zone whereby any person within said third danger zone is at risk of being injured by said vehicle, claim 32, plurality of sensor assemblies being operatively carried by said bus body structure generally inwardly of said right side exterior body panel means and situated as to be operationally directed right ward of said bus body structure).
Regarding claim 6, Durley discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 5, wherein the alarm controller stops operations of the front short-range radar sensor, the left side short-range radar sensor, and the right side short-range radar sensor (Fig. 3, Radar units 56, 58, 60 and 62 (i.e. radar in right and left of bus 10), positioned as generally depicted, are operatively carried by the bus 10, FIG. 3 radar units 56, 60, 58 and 62 and the effective radiation fields respectively generated by such radar units).
Durley and Britton fails to discloses the school vehicle safety system when the moving speed of the school vehicle received from the speed detection short-range radar sensor is greater than or equal to a preset second speed.
In analogous art, PARK discloses the school vehicle safety system when the moving speed of the school vehicle received from the speed detection short-range radar sensor is greater than or equal to a preset second speed (Abstract, blind spot safety notification system, which is installed on a road (backroad intersection, etc.) to detect and measure the location, distance, speed, etc, page 6, lines 18-20, detects the past values sensed during a preset section including the acceleration values , When the difference between the average acceleration values (averAcX, averAcY, averAcZ) of the acceleration values is greater than a threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of sensing the presence of a person within a selected area proximate to said vehicle, and warning means for creating a sensory warning signal whenever the presence of a person in said area is sensed disclosed by Durley and Britton to detect and measure the location, distance, speed, etc to detect blind spot safety notification system that can prevent accidents of pedestrians as taught by PARK to detect blind spot safety notification system that corrects the sensed value of the gyro sensor by determining the average value of the sensing values [PARK, page 11, lines 10-12].
Regarding claim 7, Durley discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 5, wherein each of the short-range radar sensors includes two radar modules arranged at a certain angle to provide a field of view (FOV) of 180 degrees or more (col. 5, lines 23-38, Radar units 60 and 62, preferably, produce comparatively smaller fields, respectively depicted by dash-lines 110 and 112, with length of each (measured as generally normal to longitudinal axis of bus 10), radar, any motion within the field of the radar detector or sensor means and in the direction of field (i.e., towards or away from the radar detector or sensor means), The fields illustrated respectively by dash-lines 106, 108, 110 and 112 considered as depicting the effective radiation fields).
Regarding claim 8, Durley discloses the school vehicle safety system of claim 5, wherein at least one short-range radar sensor among the front short-range radar sensor, the left side short-range radar sensor, and the right side short-range radar sensor is configured to set a part of an area in which an object is detectable as a detection exclusion area to prevent an object from being detected in the detection exclusion area (Abstract, sensors for determining if personnel are present in one or more predetermined danger zones proximate to the vehicle, during times when the vehicle is undergoing the loading and/or unloading of personnel; if the presence of such personnel is determined within any one or more of such danger zones related warning apparatus creates a sensory warning signal , Radar detects objects by reacting to a reflected radio signal when reflected off of an object of adequate density moving into, or changing position, within the range of the radiated radio signal, warn personnel that they are within one or more danger zones, Fig. 3, Radar units 56, 58, 60 and 62 (i.e. radar in right and left of bus 10), positioned carried by bus 10, claim 32, plurality of sensor assemblies being operatively carried by bus body structure generally inwardly of said right side exterior body panel means and situated as to be operationally directed right ward or left ward of said bus body structure)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 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 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 automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights