DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is in response to application no.19/250,853 filed on 06/26/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-7 and 10-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12365293 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims 1-7 and 10-20 are anticipated by claims 1-14 of pat. ‘293.
Table 1 below shows the comparison between the current claims and the claims of the cited pat. ‘293.
TABLE 1
Current claims
Pat. No. US 12365293 B2 claims
1. A video recording apparatus, comprising: a camera configured to perform a video recording function of an outside of a vehicle; a motion detection controller configured to: obtain sensing data in a digital format at specific intervals based on a reception signal of radar; determine signal strength of the reception signal based on the obtained sensing data; determine target data when the signal strength is greater than or equal to a threshold strength; and output an activation signal when a number of the target data is greater than or equal to a first threshold value; and a main controller configured to activate the camera based on receiving the activation signal.
1. A video recording apparatus, comprising: a motion detection sensor configured to: obtain sensing data in a digital format at specific intervals based on a reception signal of radar; and determine signal strength of the reception signal based on the obtained sensing data; a controller configured to: activate when the motion detection sensor senses motion of an external object; receive the sensing data from the motion detection sensor during a predetermined time period; determine target data based on a determination that the signal strength is greater than or equal to a threshold strength; calculate signal strength deviations between (n+1)-th target data, where n is a natural number, and n-th target data among pieces of target data during the predetermined time period; and activate an image processor when a number of corresponding positive values among the signal strength deviations is greater than or equal to a first reference value; and the image processor configured to activate based on a monitoring result of the external object and perform a video recording function of an outside of a vehicle.
2. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main controller and the camera are each configured to enter a deactivation state when an ignition is turned off.
2. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller and the image processor are each configured to enter a deactivation state when an ignition is turned off.
3. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motion detection controller is configured to: calculate signal strength deviations between (n+1)-th target data, where n is a natural number, and n-th target data among pieces of target data during the predetermined time period; and output the activation signal when a number of corresponding positive values among the signal strength deviations is greater than or equal to a first reference value.
1. A video recording apparatus, comprising…a controller configured to:.. calculate signal strength deviations between (n+1)-th target data, where n is a natural number, and n-th target data among pieces of target data during the predetermined time period; and activate an image processor when a number of corresponding positive values among the signal strength deviations is greater than or equal to a first reference value; and the image processor configured to activate based on a monitoring result of the external object and perform a video recording function of an outside of a vehicle.
4. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motion detection controller is further configured to: generate the activation signal for allowing the main controller to activate the camera based on low voltage differential signaling (LVDS).
3. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motion detection sensor is further configured to: generate an activation signal for allowing the motion detection sensor to activate the controller, and transmit the activation signal to the controller based on low voltage differential signaling (LVDS).
5. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main controller is configured to: control the camera to enter a deactivation state; and maintain the deactivation state of the camera based on the target data.
2. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller and the image processor are each configured to enter a deactivation state when an ignition is turned off.
4. The video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: maintain a deactivation state of the image processor based on the target data.
6. The video recording apparatus of claim 5, wherein the main controller is further configured to: maintain the deactivation state of the camera when a first number corresponding to the target data having the signal strength greater than or equal to the threshold strength is less than a first threshold value.
5. The video recording apparatus of claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the deactivation state of the image processor when a first number corresponding to the target data having the signal strength greater than or equal to threshold strength is less than a first threshold value and/or a second number corresponding to the target data having a detected distance less than a threshold distance is less than a second threshold value.
7. The video recording apparatus of claim 5, wherein the main controller is further configured to: maintain the deactivation state of the camera when a second number corresponding to the target data having a detected distance less than a threshold distance is less than a second threshold value.
5. The video recording apparatus of claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the deactivation state of the image processor when a first number corresponding to the target data having the signal strength greater than or equal to threshold strength is less than a first threshold value and/or a second number corresponding to the target data having a detected distance less than a threshold distance is less than a second threshold value.
10. A video recording apparatus, comprising: a camera configured to perform a video recording function of an outside of a vehicle; a motion detection controller configured to: obtain sensing data in a digital format at specific intervals based on a reception signal of radar; determine a detected distance of an external object based on the obtained sensing data; determine target data when the detected distance is less than a threshold distance; and output an activation signal when a number of the target data is greater than or equal to a second threshold value; and a main controller configured to activate the camera based on receiving the control signal.
9. A controlling method of a video recording apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining, by a motion detection sensor of a camera module, sensing data in a digital format at specific intervals based on a reception signal of radar; determining, by the motion detection sensor, signal strength of the reception signal based on the obtained sensing data; activating, by the motion detection sensor, a controller of a cam control module when an external object is detected by the motion detection sensor; receiving, by the controller, the sensing data from the motion detection sensor during a predetermined time period based on activation of the controller; determining, by the controller, target data based on a determination that the signal strength is greater than or equal to a threshold strength; calculating, by the controller, signal strength deviations between (n+1)-th target data, where n is a natural number, and n-th target data among pieces of target data during the predetermined time period; and activating, by the controller, an image processor when a number of corresponding positive values among the signal strength deviations is greater than or equal to a first reference value.
11. The video recording apparatus of claim 10, the motion detection controller is configured to: calculate detected distance deviations between (n+1)-th target data, where n is a natural number, and n-th target data among pieces of target data during the predetermined time period; and output the activation signal when a number of zeros or negative values among the detected distance deviations is greater than or equal to a second reference value.
9. A controlling method of a video recording apparatus, the method comprising: .. a controller of a cam control module when an external object is detected by the motion detection sensor; receiving, by the controller, the sensing data from the motion detection sensor during a predetermined time period based on activation of the controller; determining, by the controller, target data based on a determination that the signal strength is greater than or equal to a threshold strength; calculating, by the controller, signal strength deviations between (n+1)-th target data, where n is a natural number, and n-th target data among pieces of target data during the predetermined time period; and activating, by the controller, an image processor when a number of corresponding positive values among the signal strength deviations is greater than or equal to a first reference value.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the controller and the image processor enter a deactivation state in case of an ignition off.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein activating the image processor further includes: maintaining a deactivation state of the image processor based on the target data.
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 3, 6, 10-14, 17 and 20 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 3 inconsistently recite the limitation “a first reference value”. Independent claim 1 previously recite “a first threshold value”. Furthermore, the limitation in claim 3 should refer back to the previously recited “a first threshold value” in claim 1 to have a proper antecedent basis. Accordingly, claim 3 is indefinite.
In claim 3 there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the predetermined time period”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “a first threshold value” without a proper antecedent basis. Independent claim 1 previously recites “a first threshold value”. It is unclear whether “a first threshold value” in claim 6 is intended to refer to the previously recited “a first threshold value” in claim 1 or to a different threshold value. If it is intended to refer to the previously recited limitation in claim 1, it should refer to it by reciting “the first threshold value” or if a different threshold intended, the claim should instead introduce it distinctly using a different term. Accordingly, claim 6 is indefinite.
In claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the control signal”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 11 there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the predetermined time period”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 inconsistently recite the limitation “a second reference value”. Independent claim 1 previously recite “a second threshold value”. Furthermore, the limitation in claim 11 should refer back to the previously recited “a second threshold value” in claim 11 to have a proper antecedent basis, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 14, recites the limitation “a second threshold value” without a proper antecedent basis. Independent claim 10 previously recites “a second threshold value”. It is unclear whether “a second threshold value” in claim 14 is intended to refer to the previously recited “a second threshold value” in claim 10 or to a different threshold value. If it is intended to refer to the previously recited limitation in claim 10, it should refer to it by reciting “the second threshold value” or if a different threshold intended, the claim should instead introduce it distinctly using a different term, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 12-13 are rejected base on their dependency from the rejected claim 10.
Claim 17 is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci (US 10534819 B2) in view of Ludlow et al. (US 20160178741 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Ricci teach the claim limitation as follows:
A video recording apparatus, comprising: a camera configured to perform a video recording function of an outside of a vehicle (col. 38, lines 38-41, col. 39, lines 3-40: The camera sensors 760…may record still images, video, and/or combinations thereof.. See FIG. 7B, vehicle exterior sensors including camera sensor(s) 760); a motion detection controller configured to: obtain sensing data in a digital format at specific intervals based on a reception signal of radar (col. 33, lines 10-17, col. 72, lines 1-16: an electromagnetic radiation emitter/receiver that emits electromagnetic radiation and receives electromagnetic waves reflected by the object) to sense objects, such as other vehicles and pedestrians and optionally determine the distance, trajectory and speed of such objects, in the vicinity or path of the vehicle, ...radar transmitter/receiver output). Note that electromagnetic waves oscillate at a certain frequency. Ricci (col. 114, lines 50-67) further discloses in response to detecting movement within the first threshold distance of the vehicle at the motion sensor, activating one or more electromagnetic sensors communicably coupled to the vehicle; detecting, at the one or more electromagnetic sensors, that an entity has made contact with the vehicle; in response to detecting that an entity has made contact with the vehicle at the one or more electromagnetic sensors, activating an image sensor mounted externally to the vehicle; capturing an image at the image sensor mounted externally to the vehicle.
Ricci does not teach the limitation: determine signal strength of the reception signal based on the obtained sensing data; determine target data when the signal strength is greater than or equal to a threshold strength; and output an activation signal when a number of the target data is greater than or equal to a first threshold value; and a main controller configured to activate the camera based on receiving the activation signal.
Ludlow teaches the limitation: determine signal strength of the reception signal based on the obtained sensing data (¶0028, 0030: FIG. 2 shows …the sensor nodes 12, 14. Each node 12, 14 comprises an antenna 20, preferably a directional antenna, capable of sending and receiving signals via the wireless link between the nodes 12, 14…The transceiver 18 is coupled to the antenna 20 for sending signals to the antenna 20 when in transmit mode, and receiving signals from the antenna 20 when in receive mode…When in receive mode, the transceiver 18 is preferably configured to produce an output signal comprising an RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator) signal); determine target data when the signal strength is greater than or equal to a threshold strength (¶0060-0061: if the RSSI RMS level is determined to be above the threshold this indicates that an object has been detected in the detection zone 22…); and output an activation signal when a number of the target data is greater than or equal to a first threshold value (¶0060: At block 42, 42′, the received signal is subjected to a threshold analysis to determine if a target 24 with an RCS above a certain level has been detected within the detection zone 22 of the link supported by the nodes 12, 14.The threshold analysis involves comparing a characteristic, typically the amplitude, of the received signal…It is preferred to analyse variations in the multipath signal strength (RSSI level in this example) using RMS values. If the RMS amplitude exceeds the threshold value for a given measurement period of, for instance, 0.1 seconds then it is assumed that an object has been detected in the detection zone); and a main controller configured to activate the camera based on receiving the activation signal (¶0061: In cases where the system 10 includes one or more activatable detection or monitoring devices, for example one or more video cameras for monitoring the detection zone 22 (or elsewhere), such devices may be activated in response to the detection of an object at block 42, 42′). Note that in Ludlow activation of the camera is based on determining the RSSI level is above the threshold. Thus, outputting activation signal is implicitly disclosed in Ludlow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ricci’s object detection system by incorporating the teaching of Ludlow as noted above, in order to minimize the computational resources and current consumption used by the system, as taught by Ludlow ¶0012.
Regarding claim 8, Ricci teaches the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the camera includes an image sensor (col. 88, lines 5-7: sensors 622A-B (e.g., cameras, etc.)) and a camera driving circuit for driving the image sensor. Ricci (col. 114, lines 50-67) discloses in response to detecting movement within the first threshold distance of the vehicle at the motion sensor…activating an image sensor mounted externally to the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a camera driving circuit for driving the image sensor necessarily required in Ricci, and is implicitly disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, Ricci teaches the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the camera and the motion detection controller are mounted in a single module (See Figs. 7A-7B: motion sensor(s) 744 and camera sensor(s) 760 mounted on a vehicle 104).
Regarding claim 10, Ricci teach the claim limitation as follows:
A video recording apparatus, comprising: a camera configured to perform a video recording function of an outside of a vehicle (col. 38, lines 38-41, col. 39, lines 3-40: The camera sensors 760…may record still images, video, and/or combinations thereof.. See FIG. 7B, vehicle exterior sensors including camera sensor(s) 760); a motion detection controller configured to: obtain sensing data in a digital format at specific intervals based on a reception signal of radar (col. 33, lines 10-17, col. 72, lines 1-16: an electromagnetic radiation emitter/receiver that emits electromagnetic radiation and receives electromagnetic waves reflected by the object) to sense objects, such as other vehicles and pedestrians and optionally determine the distance, trajectory and speed of such objects, in the vicinity or path of the vehicle, ...radar transmitter/receiver output). Note that electromagnetic waves oscillate at a certain frequency; determine a detected distance of an external object based on the obtained sensing data (col. 39, line 66 to col. 40, line 3: the vehicle sensors 750 can provide distance/directional information relating to a distance (e.g., distance from the vehicle 104 to the detected object)…); determine target data when the detected distance is less than a threshold distance (col. 78, lines 58-65, col. 114, lines 50-67: a motion sensor may detect movement near the vehicle 104…For example, a distance of ten feet surrounding the vehicle (i.e. line 120 of FIG. 1) may be defined as a threshold distance); and a main controller configured to activate the camera based on receiving the control signal (col. 116, lines 9-28: a vehicle control system installed in the vehicle and configured to: detect, at the motion sensor, movement within a first threshold distance of the vehicle…in response to detecting that an entity has made contact with the vehicle at the one or more electromagnetic sensors, activate the image sensor mounted externally to the vehicle).
Ricci does not teach the following limitation: output an activation signal when a number of the target data is greater than or equal to a second threshold value.
Ludlow teaches output an activation signal when a number of the target data is greater than or equal to a second threshold value (¶0060: At block 42, 42′, the received signal is subjected to a threshold analysis to determine if a target 24 with an RCS above a certain level has been detected within the detection zone 22...The threshold analysis involves comparing a characteristic, typically the amplitude, of the received signal…It is preferred to analyse variations in the multipath signal strength (RSSI level in this example) using RMS values. If the RMS amplitude exceeds the threshold value for a given measurement period of, for instance, 0.1 seconds then it is assumed that an object has been detected in the detection zone. ¶0061: In cases where the system 10 includes one or more activatable detection or monitoring devices, for example one or more video cameras for monitoring the detection zone 22 (or elsewhere), such devices may be activated in response to the detection of an object at block 42, 42′). Note that in Ludlow activation of the camera is based on determining the RSSI level is above the threshold. Thus, outputting activation signal is implicitly disclosed in Ludlow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ricci’s object detection system by incorporating the teaching of Ludlow as noted above, in order to minimize the computational resources and current consumption used by the system, as taught by Ludlow ¶0012.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 10, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 12, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci (US 10534819 B2) in view of Ludlow et al. (US 20160178741 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Santora et al. (US 20180215344 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ricci in view of Ludlow do not teach the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main controller and the camera are each configured to enter a deactivation state when an ignition is turned off.
Santora teaches the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main controller and the camera are each configured to enter a deactivation state when an ignition is turned off (¶0092: after the vehicle discontinues operation.. the power management unit 318 then switches the system 100 in to a power saving mode…if the motion detector 400 detects any significant movement in the vicinity of the vehicle…the motion detector 400 sends a signal to the power management unit 318 which triggers activation of the system 100 and, in particular, the control module 20, the cameras 302, 302a, 302b, 302c, 302d, 302e).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ricci’s object detection system by incorporating the teaching of Santora as noted above, in order to save power consumed by the monitoring system, as taught by Santora (¶0094-0095).
Regarding claim 5, Ricci in view of Ludlow do not teach the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main controller is configured to: control the camera to enter a deactivation state; and maintain the deactivation state of the camera based on the target data.
Santora teaches the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main controller is configured to: control the camera to enter a deactivation state; and maintain the deactivation state of the camera based on the target data (¶0092: When the system 100 is operating in power saving mode, the motion detector 400 is fully powered and operational so as to be able to detect motion. As such, if the motion detector 400 detects any significant movement in the vicinity of the vehicle, e.g., within 20 to 30 feet or so, of the vehicle, the motion detector 400 sends a signal to the power management unit ,318 ,which triggers activation of the system ,100 ,and, in particular, the control module ,20, the cameras ,302, ,302a, ,302b, ,302c, ,302d, ,302e…In the event that the motion detector ,400 no longer detects any further movement in the vicinity of the vehicle for a predetermined time period, e.g., 1-10 or so, then the power management unit 318 switches the system 100 back over to the power saving mode…). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 2 applies here.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation analogous to claim 5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 2, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci (US 10534819 B2) in view of Ludlow et al. (US 20160178741 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 10771669 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Ricci teaches the video recording apparatus of claim 1, wherein the motion detection controller is further configured to: generate the activation signal for allowing the main controller to activate the camera (col. 114, lines 50-67: in response to detecting movement within the first threshold distance of the vehicle at the motion sensor, activating one or more electromagnetic sensors communicably coupled to the vehicle; detecting, at the one or more electromagnetic sensors, that an entity has made contact with the vehicle; in response to detecting that an entity has made contact with the vehicle at the one or more electromagnetic sensors, activating an image sensor mounted externally to the vehicle; capturing an image at the image sensor mounted externally to the vehicle). Note that in Ricci activation of the image sensor is based on determining a movement within a threshold distance of the vehicle. Thus, generating activation signal to activate the image sensor is implicitly disclosed in Ludlow.
Ricci does not teach generating the activation signal …based on low voltage differential signaling (LVDS).
Balasubramanian teaches generating the activation signal …based on low voltage differential signaling (LVDS) (col. 4, lines 26-38; col. 7, lines 37-43: transmit the digital trigger to the radar sensor 208 using a low-voltage differential signaling (LVDS)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ricci’s object detection system by incorporating the teaching of Balasubramanian as noted above, in order to measure events occurring around the vehicle, as taught by Balasubramanian (col. 2, lines 52-55).
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci (US 10534819 B2) in view of Ludlow et al. (US 20160178741 A1) and in view of Santora et al. (US 20180215344 A1) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Hariri et al. (US 20180290627 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ricci in view of Ludlow and Santora do not teach wherein the main controller is further configured to: maintain the deactivation state of the camera when a second number corresponding to the target data having a detected distance less than a threshold distance is less than a second threshold value.
However, Hariri teaches wherein the main controller is further configured to: maintain the deactivation state of the camera when a second number corresponding to the target data having a detected distance less than a threshold distance is less than a second threshold value (Fig. 3, ¶0028: mobile device 80 may be detected within a detection range 90…detection range 90 may be configured to be less than the maximum range (e.g., within about 30 meters of vehicle 10). ¶0031: When mobile device 80 is in authentication range 92, controller 100 may also collect data…Controller 100 may also be configured to activate camera 32…). Note that the camera 32 is in the deactivated state between the detection range 90 and the authentication range 92.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ricci’s object detection system by incorporating the teaching of Hariri as noted above, in order to conserve a battery power, as taught by Hariri (¶0052).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 7, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 7, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 7.
The following is the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colburn et al. (US 20090002222 A1) discloses a trend analysis and a target tracking and a trend analysis of a return signal strength. Abstract, ¶0035, claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 11 and 17 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.
Claim 13 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights