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
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 26 August 2025 for application number 19/231,271. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 6/6/25; 6/12/25; 1/20/26; 3/23/26.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,862 in view of Liesener et al. (US 2020/0377060).
Regarding claim 1, ‘862 discloses a security system for an in-vehicle digital video recorder, comprising a sensor and a processor processing resource, the security system operative in: a second mode in which the sensor is operative at a second resolution higher than the first resolution; the security system operative to receive signals from the sensor; wherein the processor invokes a change in sensor mode responsive to the sensor signal traversing a threshold value (claim 1).
Although ‘862 further discloses a first mode in which the sensor is operative at a first resolution (claim 1), ‘862 does not explicitly disclose for monitoring a perimeter region extending from an exterior of a vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Liesener discloses for monitoring a perimeter region extending from an exterior of a vehicle (par. 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify ‘862 to include the teachings of Liesener in order to provide a driver of the vehicle with additional visual information about the vehicle’s environment (Liesener, par. 3).
Regarding claim 2, see teachings of claim 1. ‘862 further discloses wherein the security system is operative to maintain the second mode responsive to the processing resource determining a system condition is satisfied (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claims 1 and 2. ‘862 further discloses wherein the system condition is expiry of a first system time duration (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claims 1-3. ‘862 further discloses wherein the first system time duration is configurable and is stored in a system memory, wherein the first system time duration is 50- 1000 milliseconds (ms) (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claims 1 and 2. ‘862 further discloses wherein the system condition to maintain the security system in the second mode is traversal of a first system number of security threat criterion cycles (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claims 1, 2, and 5. ‘862 further discloses wherein the first system number of security threat criterion cycles is stored in a system memory, wherein the first system number of security threat criterion cycles is 3 (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claim 1. ‘862 further discloses operative to invoke a third mode responsive to the processing resource determining that the security threat criterion is satisfied, the sensor configured in the third mode to operate at a third resolution higher than the second resolution and the first resolution (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, see teachings of claims 1 and 7. ‘862 further discloses further operative in the third mode to invoke a further sensor (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, see teachings of claims 1, 7, and 8. ‘862 further discloses wherein the further sensor is invoked responsive to user actuation (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, see teachings of claims 1, 7, and 8. ‘862 further discloses wherein the further sensor is a camera (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, see teachings of claims 1 and 7. ‘862 further discloses further operative in the third mode to generate an alert signal responsive to determining that a sensor signal or a further sensor signal satisfies a second security threat criterion (claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, see teachings of claims 1, 7, and 11. ‘862 further discloses wherein the alert signal is transmitted to a wireless communication device to alert a user (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, see teachings of claims 1 and 7. ‘862 further discloses further operative to invoke a fourth mode responsive to the security system detecting a security system power supply achieving a second threshold value, the fourth mode being functionally independent of the first, second and third modes and in which the further sensor is operative (claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, see teachings of claims 1, 7, and 13. ‘862 further discloses wherein the security system invokes: the third mode; or the second mode; or the first mode; responsive to the security system detecting a decrease in the power supply to the security system from the second threshold value for a period of time indicative of the vehicle having been turned off (claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, see teachings of claims 1, 7, 13, and 14. ‘862 further discloses wherein the security system enters the third mode responsive to the security system detecting a decrease in the power supply to the security system from the second threshold value for a period of time indicative of the vehicle having been turned off; and wherein the security system enters the second mode responsive to the security system detecting a decrease in the power supply to the security system from a third threshold value wherein the third threshold value is lower than the second threshold value; and wherein the security system enters the first mode responsive to the security system detecting a persistent decrease in the power supply to the security system from a fourth threshold value wherein the fourth threshold value is lower than the third threshold value (claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, see teachings of claims 1, 7, 13, and 14. ‘862 further discloses wherein the security system enters the third mode responsive to the security system detecting a decrease in the power supply to the security system from the second threshold value for a period of time indicative of the vehicle having been turned off; and wherein the security system enters the second mode after a second system time duration in which no sensor signals have satisfied the second security threat criterion wherein the second system time duration is configurable and is stored in the system memory; and wherein the security system enters the first mode after the first system time duration (claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, see teachings of claims 1, 7, and 13. ‘862 further discloses wherein the security system is further operative to invoke the fourth mode responsive to the security system detecting initiation of vehicle motion based on computer vision analysis of image data captured by the further sensor (claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, see teachings of claims 1, 7, 13, and 17. ‘862 further discloses wherein the security system is configured to invoke the third mode responsive to the security system detecting cessation of vehicle motion based on computer vision analysis of image data captured by the further sensor for a period of time exceeding a first motion cessation threshold; and wherein the security system is configured to invoke the second mode after a time duration which exceeds a second motion cessation threshold, starting from when motion cessation was detected; and wherein the security system is configured to invoke the first mode after a time duration which exceeds a third motion cessation threshold, starting from when motion cessation was detected wherein the third threshold value is longer in time than the second motion cessation threshold (claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, see teachings of claims 1, 7, and 13. ‘862 further discloses further operative in the fourth mode to generate a further alert signal responsive to determining that a sensor signal satisfies a third security threat criterion (claim 19).
Regarding claim 20, see teachings of claim 1. ‘862 further discloses in which the sensor is any one of: a RADAR radar sensor; an IMU sensor, a voltage sensor, a location sensor; an acceleration sensor; a sound sensor; and an infrared sensor (claim 20).
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights