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 .
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.
Claim Status
In the preliminary amendment filed on August 1, 2025, claims 1-8 and 19-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-30 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 9-18 and 21-30 are currently pending for examination.
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 9-18 and 21-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the first confidence value” on line 13 without proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claims 10-18 are also rejected since they depend from the rejected claim 9.
Claim 21 recites “the first confidence value” on line 8 without proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claims 22-30 are also rejected since they depend from the rejected claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 9-16 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al. (Takizawa: JP2011251563A, see the attached machine translation) in view of Bielby (US 2022/0017044).
Regarding Claim 9, Takizawa teaches a theft prevention system for a vehicle (Fig. 1 and Par 20, a vehicle AN including a crime prevention device 1 ), the theft prevention system comprising:
at least one processor; and a memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method (Fig. 1, Par 20, a determination unit ( (Crime prevention means) 12 and a control part (crime prevention means) 13), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first sensing system (Fig. 1, detection unit/monitoring unit 11), first activity data about activity within a region around the vehicle (Par [0022] The detection unit 11 has a function of detecting a person approaching the vehicle AN. Moreover, the detection part 11 has a function which detects the mischief and attack to vehicle AN. );
receiving location information of a driver identity device; determining, based on the location information, whether the driver identity device is in proximity with the vehicle (Fig. 2, step 14, and Par 27 and Par30, determine the detected person is the owner based on the received radio wave of the electronic key ); and
causing:
at least one mitigation action to be taken when the detected person is a suspicious person and the driver identity device is not in proximity with the vehicle (Fig. 2, step 14 and step 16 and Par [0032] in the process of S14, when the suspicious person determination unit 122 determines that the person detected in the process of S11 is not the owner of the vehicle AN and Par 33, in the process of S16, when the suspicious person determination unit 122 determines that the person detected in the process of S11 is not the owner of the vehicle parked around the vehicle AN, the person is a suspicious person. And the process proceeds to a crime prevention process (S19). In the process of S19, the crime prevention control unit 131 controls the vehicle equipment 30 to perform a threatening process using sound or light such as a headlight or a horn, and see also Par 24); and
the at least one mitigation action to not be taken when the driver identity device is in proximity with the vehicle (Fig. 2, step 14 and step 16 and Par [0031] In the process of S18, the control unit 13 ends the warning operation. When the owner of the vehicle AN is detected and the warning operation is terminated, the control unit 13 controls the vehicle equipment 30 to perform unlocking of the vehicle AN, and hospitality control by light / sound).
Takizawa does not explicitly disclose at least one mitigation action to be taken when the first confidence value exceeds a first confidence threshold value and the at least one mitigation action to not be taken when the first confidence value exceeds the first confidence threshold value.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of security devices for vehicles. Bielby teaches a controller of a vehicle detecting persons that are approaching the vehicle and using sensors to collect data regarding the persons to determine whether a security risk exists (abstract) and further teaches at least one mitigation action to be taken when the first confidence value exceeds a first confidence threshold value and the at least one mitigation action to not be taken when the first confidence value exceeds the first confidence threshold value (Par [0021] In one embodiment, when a person is deemed to be a stranger, a risk score is determined based on the context of the vehicle and the approaching one or more persons. In one embodiment, the risk score is compared to a predetermined threshold. If the risk score exceeds the threshold, then a security risk is deemed to exist and one or more actions are performed for the vehicle and Par 25; response to recognizing the person, the vehicle determines a security risk (e.g., a risk based on a presence and/or activities of a stranger nearby). In one example, a risk score is determined. In response to determining that a risk score exceeds a predetermined threshold, various actions are performed including locking a door of the vehicle, booting up a computer system of the vehicle, turning on an electrical and/or mechanical system of the vehicle, launching applications to be used by the driver while approaching and/or inside the vehicle, and/or adjusting settings of the vehicle specifically for the driver to provide improved security as compared to a normal mode of operation of the vehicle. And Par 54 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Bielby in order to improve security (Bielby: Par 14).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the first activity data comprises data about motion detection or proximity detection within the region (Takizawa: par 28, the detection sensor 111 outputs electromagnetic waves and receives reflected waves, thereby detecting a person existing around the vehicle AN. Alternatively, the detection sensor 111 may detect a person around the vehicle AN by capturing an image and recognizing the face).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the first activity data comprises video data or audio data of the activity within the region (Takizawa: par 28, the detection sensor 111 outputs electromagnetic waves and receives reflected waves, thereby detecting a person existing around the vehicle AN. Alternatively, the detection sensor 111 may detect a person around the vehicle AN by capturing an image and recognizing the face).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises at least one of:
activating a sound horn of the vehicle (Takizawa: Par 33, In the process of S19, the crime prevention control unit 131 controls the vehicle equipment 30 to perform a threatening process using sound or light such as a headlight or a horn);
causing an alarm system to emit an alarm comprising sound or light; or
transmitting an alert signal to a driver controller, to a fleet manager device, or to a security service device.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the first activity data comprises video data (Takizawa: Par 28, the detection sensor 111 may detect a person around the vehicle AN by capturing an image and recognizing the face. And Bielby: Par [0049] Data 128 from camera(s) 126 may include, for example, still pictures or video data of person(s) 140 approaching the vehicle 102. ), and
the method further comprises:
receiving, from a second sensing system, second activity data comprising data about motion detection or proximity detection within the region (Bielby: Data 124 from sensor(s) 122 may include, for example, the location 142 of one or more person(s) 140 relative to the vehicle 102, or voiceprint data or commands from person(s) 140 speaking near the vehicle 102. );
determining, based on the second activity data, a second confidence value indicative of whether the motion detection or the proximity detection is suspicious (Bielby: Par 52, machine-learning model 130 may use inputs, such as, for example, camera data 128 and/or sensor data 124 to identify threats from second person(s) 150 (e.g., determining whether the person(s) are carrying weapons, and/or whether their behavior shows threatening gestures or patterns of movement, posture, gait, language, or vocal tone, etc.). The machine-leaning model 130 generates a risk score 134 based on identifying a perceived security risk 132 to first person(s) 146.); and
causing a camera of the first sensing system to begin obtaining the video data when the second confidence value exceeds a second confidence threshold value (Takizawa: Par 33, a suspicious person recording process using an imaging device, and Bielby: Par 21, a risk score is determined based on the context of the vehicle such as time of day i.e. different time of day is a second risk score/threshold).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 13, wherein the at least one mitigation action comprises a first mitigation action, and the method further comprises causing:
a second mitigation action to be taken when the second confidence value exceeds the second confidence threshold value and the driver identity device is not in proximity with the vehicle, the second mitigation action being different from the first mitigation action; and the second mitigation action to not be taken when the second confidence value exceeds the second confidence threshold value and the driver identity device is in proximity with the vehicle (Bielby: Par 21, a risk score is determined based on the context of the vehicle such as time of day i.e. different time of day is a second risk score/threshold and Par 83, determine a context (e.g., vehicle context 120) of the vehicle; wherein performing the at least one action comprises selecting software based on the context, i.e. different mitigation action for different context and launching the selected software. … The software is selected based on a classification of the security risk and Par 25; response to recognizing the person, the vehicle determines a security risk (e.g., a risk based on a presence and/or activities of a stranger nearby). In one example, a risk score is determined. In response to determining that a risk score exceeds a predetermined threshold, various actions are performed including locking a door of the vehicle, booting up a computer system of the vehicle, turning on an electrical and/or mechanical system of the vehicle, launching applications to be used by the driver while approaching and/or inside the vehicle, and/or adjusting settings of the vehicle specifically for the driver to provide improved security as compared to a normal mode of operation of the vehicle. And Par 54).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the driver identity device comprises a device configured to wirelessly emit a safe signal, and the determining whether the driver identity device is in proximity with the vehicle comprises determining whether the theft prevention system has received the safe signal (Takizawa: Par 30, the suspicious person determination unit 122 refers to the transmission radio wave of the electronic key carried by the owner of the vehicle AN stored in the owner information database 121 and determines whether or not the radio wave is detected by the detection sensor 111. It is determined whether or not the detected person is the owner of the vehicle AN ).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the driver identity device comprises a key, a key fob, a phone, or a driver controller (Takizawa: Par 30,electronic key).
Regarding Claim 21, the claimed steps of the method correspond with the elements of the system as addressed in claim 9. Since the device has been made obvious, the steps of using the device in its intended manner are also made obvious.
Claims 22-28 are also rejected for the same reasons for claims 10-16 respectively as set forth above.
Claims 17-18 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa and Bielby, and further in view of Patil (US 20170161902 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Takizawa and Bielby teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the region is a region around a fuel tank of the vehicle, around a diesel exhaust fluid container of the vehicle, or a cargo access area of the vehicle.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicle sensors and warning devices. Patil teaches a system to detect a vehicle fuel door alert condition (abstract) and further teaches wherein the region is a region around a fuel tank of the vehicle (Fig. 2-4 and Par 13, In determining the fuel door status, the ECU 16 may monitor the fuel door region 18 by receiving image data from the camera 14 and using image processing techniques), around a diesel exhaust fluid container of the vehicle, or a cargo access area of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Patil in order to inhibit the vehicle from moving away from the filling station (Patil: Par 51).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Takizawa, Bielby and Patil teaches the theft prevention system of claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, from the vehicle, a vehicle start signal (Patil: par 45, method 500 may be performed each time the transmission of vehicle 12 moves from PARK to another gear, once per vehicle ignition cycle, etc.);
causing a camera to obtain video data near a fuel tank of the vehicle when the vehicle start signal is received; determining, based on the video data, whether a fuel cap is disengaged from the fuel tank; and causing, when the fuel cap is determined to be disengaged from the fuel tank, an alert system to emit an alert signal (Patil: Par 13, FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of an optical sensing system 10 for a vehicle 12 that comprises at least one optical sensor or detector, such as a camera 14, and an electronic control unit (ECU) or controller 16 in communication with the camera(s). … determining a fuel door status—e.g., whether a fuel door alert condition exists. For example, an alert condition may include determining that a fuel door 20 is open, determining that a fuel cap 22 is dangling, …); see FIGS. 1 and 2. In determining the fuel door status, the ECU 16 may monitor the fuel door region 18 by receiving image data from the camera 14 and using image processing techniques. As will be described more below, when the ECU 16 determines a fuel door alert condition, the ECU 16 accordingly may provide an output signal (e.g., an alert or control signal) to warn or alert a vehicle user ).
Claims 29-30 are also rejected for the same reasons for claims 17-18 respectively as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
