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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “the transmission source is between the first quadrant and a second quadrant”. It is unclear how something can be between 2 quadrants. The specification indicates that the vehicle is divided into four cartesian quadrants (paragraph 0020, and shown in Fig 2); however, there are no points on a cartesian quadrant system that would be “between” two quadrants. One could imagine the position overlapping quadrants by being exactly on a defined axis between the quadrants (such as axis 202 in Fig 2), but this does not indicate “between” as conventionally understood, and is not further defined in the specification to suggest anything other than conventional interpretation. The examiner is interpreting “between”, to mean that the transmission source is moving from one quadrant into another. In this case, the examiner requests rephrasing the claim language/disclosure to better indicate this.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilik (US20170369034A1) in view of Gennermann (US20170249792A1), Weinerman (US11400888B1) and Howarter (US20100075655A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bilik teaches;
A system (taught as a perimeter security and control system of a vehicle, paragraph 0003) comprising:
a first signal sensing device, a second signal sensing device and a third signal sensing device (taught as a radar system disposed on an automobile, element 120, which can include multiple ultra-short range radar elements to number from, for example, 4-12 systems, paragraph 0013),
wherein the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device and the third signal sensing device area positioned around an object (shown in Fig 1, where the radar systems are positioned around the vehicle by elements 120, and their sub elements 121-122) and configured to detect a transmission signal coded with identification or authorization information (taught as modifying a received signal from the vehicle and transmitting the modulated signal to the vehicle, wherein signals that do not perform the modulation [effectively an encoding step] are determined as a security threat, paragraph 0019) from a transmission source (taught as transmitting a pulse and detecting the strength of the reflection, paragraph 0015, and further receiving a modulated version of the pulse from a communication unit [such as a key fob], paragraph 0016);
a first subsystem at a first location in the object (taught as a door lock, controlled by controller 130, paragraph 0016);
a second subsystem (taught as a door lock, controlled by controller 130, paragraph 0016);
a control system operably coupled with the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device, and the third signal sensing device (taught as a controller, element 130, which receives information from the radar system to make security and control decisions, paragraph 0015), the control system configured to:
determine a position of the transmission source relative to the object, the position being chosen from [the examiner is interpreted “chosen from” to indicate ”or”, as in either an orientation or a location within a perimeter is used] an orientation relative to the object and based on a relative received signal strength of the transmission signal received by the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device, and the third signal sensing device (taught as determining the position of a reflection source/target based on the signal strength, using information from each transmit element [multiple] of the array of transmitters, paragraph 0015),
in response to determining the position of the transmission source is closer to the first signal sensing device than the second signal sensing device, initiate a first operation to i) activate the first subsystem to unlock, at a first time, a first door of the object at the first location (taught as using the combination of a threshold range and a signal from the communication unit to determine whether to unlock the door, and unlocking the door closest to the communication unit if the conditions are met, paragraph 0016); and
in response to determining the position of the transmission source is closer to the second signal sensing device than the first signal sensing device, initiate a second operation to i) activate the second subsystem to unlock, at the first time, a second door of the object at the second location (taught as using the combination of a threshold range and a signal from the communication unit to determine whether to unlock the door, and unlocking the door closest to the communication unit if the conditions are met, paragraph 0016).
However, Bilik does not explicitly teach;
a second subsystem at a second location in the object different from the first location, a third subsystem at a third location in the object, the third location between the first location and the second location; activate the first subsystem to unlock, at a first time, a first door of the object at the first location and to illuminate a first exterior light at the first location and to illuminate a second exterior light at the second location, the third subsystem to turn on, at a second time different from the first time, an interior light at the third location, and the third subsystem to turn on, at the second time different from the first time, the interior light.
Gennermann teaches; activate the first subsystem to unlock, at a first time, a first door of the object at the first location and to illuminate a first exterior light at the first location and to illuminate a second exterior light at the second location (taught as activating the headlights when the operator approaches to a specified distance and unlocks the access to the vehicle, paragraph 0045).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate headlights by a keyless/proximity based entry system as taught by Gennermann in the system taught by Bilik in order to improve user experience. For example, Gennermann teaches that such a function improves the comfort and safety (paragraph 0012), such as by improving visibility of the vehicle.
However, Gennermann does not explicitly teach; a second subsystem at a second location in the object different from the first location, a third subsystem at a third location in the object, the third location between the first location and the second location; the third subsystem to turn on, at a second time different from the first time, an interior light at the third location, and the third subsystem to turn on, at the second time different from the first time, the interior light
Weinerman teaches; a second subsystem at a second location in the object different from the first location (taught as a vehicle arrangement including a plurality of door locks and door sensors in operative connection with a controller, column 3 lines 16-22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separate associated door locks as taught by Weinerman in the system taught by Bilik in order to improve usability. Such a system allows for more individualized actions, such as opening specific compartments/doors while keeping others locked and secure and reduce the risk of unauthorized access (column 12 lines 53-column 13 line 7).
However, Weinerman does not explicitly teach; a third subsystem at a third location in the object, the third location between the first location and the second location; the third subsystem to turn on, at a second time different from the first time, a light at third location, and the third subsystem to turn on, at the second time, the light.
Howarter teaches; a third subsystem at a third location in the object (taught as internal cabin lights, paragraph 0021), the third location between the first location and the second location; the third subsystem to turn on, at the second time, the light, the third subsystem to turn on, at a second time different from the first time, a light at third location, and the third subsystem to turn on, at the second time, the light (taught as a user device initiating commands, based on proximity thresholds, including unlocking doors and turning on the lights of the vehicle, paragraph 0060, wherein the control logic is understood to be configured based on distances, time periods or other settings for sequencing events, paragraph 0036, and more explicitly using internal cabin lights, paragraph 0021).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate turning on lights of a vehicle as taught by Howarter in the system taught by Bilik in order to improve customization and usability of the vehicle. Such manipulation of lights enables the user to better find the vehicle corresponding to them, such as at nighttime, based on their preferred settings, as exemplified in paragraph 0060 of Howarter.
Regarding claim 3, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein the transmission source includes a source chosen from a key, a key fob (taught as a key fob, paragraph 0016) and a smartphone.
Regarding claim 4, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein at least one of the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device, or the third signal sensing device includes:
a plurality of perimeter signal sensing devices positioned around a perimeter of the object (taught as radar systems, such as an ultra-short radar system, consisting of 10-12 systems on the automobile, paragraph 0013); and
at least one internal signal sensing device configured to detect whether the transmission source is inside the object (taught as a transceiver within the communication unit to receive the radar signal and send a modulated version back to the vehicle, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 5, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein:
the object includes a vehicle (taught as an automobile, element 110); and
at least one of the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device, or the third signal sensing device includes at least four signal sensing devices positioned at four locations around the perimeter of the vehicle (taught as radar systems, such as an ultra-short radar system, consisting of 10-12 systems on the automobile, paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 6, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection). However, Bilik does not explicitly teach; wherein the control system is further configured to turn on front lights proximate to the position of the transmission source.
Gennermann teaches; the control system is further configured to turn on the first exterior light or the second exterior light based on whether the first exterior light or the second exterior light is [interpreted to be the font lights/headlights, such as element 760 in Fig 7] proximate to the position of the transmission source (taught as activating the headlights when the operator approaches to a specified distance, paragraph 0012).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate headlights by a keyless/proximity based entry system as taught by Gennermann in the system taught by Bilik in order to improve user experience. For example, Gennermann teaches that such a function improves the comfort and safety (paragraph 0012), such as by improving visibility of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman, Howarter and Gennermann teaches;
The system of Claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). Bilik further teaches; a first door is chosen from a cabin door (taught as a door, paragraph 0016) and a cargo hatch (taught as a trunk or tailgate, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 9, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein the control system is further configured to initiate a complementary operation of at least one of the first subsystem, the second subsystem, or the third subsystem associated with the object in response to determining that the transmission source is located outside of a predetermined range of the object (taught as locking a vehicle door if the communication device is determined to be outside a threshold range, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 10, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein the complementary operation includes at least one operation chosen from locking the first door (taught as locking a vehicle door if the communication device is determined to be outside a threshold range, paragraph 0016), disabling at least one of the first subsystem, the second subsystem, or the third subsystem, and powering off at least one of the first subsystem, the second subsystem, or the third subsystem.
Regarding claim 15, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The vehicle of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein control system is further configured to unlock at least one vehicle door proximate to the position of the transmission source (taught as the controller opening the door unlocking/opening the door closest to the communication unit, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 16, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The vehicle of Claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection). Bilik further teaches; wherein the at least one vehicle door includes a door chosen from a cabin door (taught as a door, paragraph 0016) and a cargo hatch (taught as a trunk or tailgate, paragraph 0012).
Regarding claims 11, 13-14 and 18-19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1 and 3-10. Therefore, claims 11, 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under the same rationales as claims 1, 3-4 and 9-10, where claim 11 correspond to claim 1, claims 13-14 corresponds to claims 3-4, and claims 18-19 correspond to claims 9-10.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilik (US20170369034A1) as modified by Gennermann (US20170249792A1), Weinerman (US11400888B1) and Howarter (US20100075655A1), and further in view of Pflug (US20180056937A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bilik as modified by Gennermann, Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Bilik does not explicitly teach; wherein:
at least one of the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device, or the third signal sensing device includes near-field sensors; and
the transmission source includes a near-field transmitter.
Pflug teaches; at least one of the first signal sensing device, the second signal sensing device, or the third signal sensing device includes near-field sensors; and
the transmission source includes a near-field transmitter (taught as using BLUETOOTH® for communication between an electronic key/mobile device and the vehicle, paragraph 0016, indicating both a BLUETOOTH® transmission protocol and a BLUETOOTH® receiver, wherein BLUETOOTH® uses near-field communication).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bluetooth as taught by Pflug in the system taught by Bilik in order to improve security of communication between the key and the vehicle. For example, Pflug teaches that such a feature improves defense against relay attacks (paragraph 0016), which serves to additionally identify unauthorized persons (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 8, Bilik as modified by Weinerman and Howarter teaches;
The system of Claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection). However, Bilik does not explicitly teach; wherein the control system is further configured to enable operation of a vehicle drive system in response to determining that the transmission source is inside of the vehicle.
Pflug teaches; wherein the control system is further configured to enable operation of a vehicle drive system in response to determining that the transmission source is inside of the vehicle (taught as requiring the presence of the electronic key in the interior of the vehicle to be detected to enable functions of the vehicle, including the ignition and steering locks, paragraph 0010).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bluetooth as taught by Pflug in the system taught by Bilik in order to improve security of the vehicle. For example, Pflug teaches that the enabling/disabling functions, such as from detecting the electronic key in the interior of the vehicle (paragraph 0010), serve to increase security against misuse (paragraph 0012), such as from relay attacks (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 12, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 2. Therefore, claims 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 8. Therefore, claims 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilik (US20170369034A1) in view of the examiner’s official notice as evidenced by Guba (US20140335902A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Bilik teaches;
A method comprising:
detecting a transmission signal coded with identification or authorization information at two or more of a plurality of signal sensing devices (taught as a key fob which, upon receiving a signal from the assigned vehicle, returning a signal that is coded/shifted in an assigned way to unlock doors, paragraph 0016) the plurality of signal sensing devices including at least one signal sensing device positioned at a perimeter of a vehicle (shown in Fig 1 as radar systems, element 120, suggested to be at least four, paragraph 0013) and one signal sensing device positioned inside of the vehicle (suggested by the language that radar systems are “in” the automobile, paragraph 0013);
determining, based on the two or more of a plurality of signal sensing devices, a position of a transmission source of the transmission signal relative to the vehicle based on a relative received signal strength of the transmission signal determined by the at least two of the plurality of signal sensing devices (taught as using the array of transmitters to determine the position of a reflection [key fob], paragraph 0015);
in response to determining the position of the transmission source is proximate to a first quadrant of the vehicle, initiate a first subsystem at the first quadrant, wherein the first subsystem controls a first component of the vehicle nearest to the first quadrant (taught as a door lock, based on the controller unlocking/opening the door closest to and being approached by the key fob, paragraph 0016); and
in response to determining the position of the transmission source is between the first quadrant and a second quadrant of the vehicle, initiate a second subsystem between the first quadrant and the second quadrant [interpreted to indicate that the transmission source is moving from the first quadrant into the second quadrant, or that the direction of motion is taken into account] (taught as determining the direction of motion of the key fob, such as moving away from the vehicle, paragraph 0016), wherein the second subsystem controls a second component of the vehicle between the first quadrant and the second quadrant (taught as unlocking the door closest to the key fob, paragraph 0016; such that when the key fob gets closer to a second door, the second door would unlock).
However, Bilik does not explicitly teach “quadrants”.
While Bilik does not explicitly teach dividing the vehicle into quadrants, the examiner takes official notice that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to segment/divide the vehicle into quadrants as a way to determine which door to open.
One example suggested in Bilik indicates four short-range radar systems (paragraph 0013) that detect proximity. With four systems, and a stated order of field of view of 90 degrees (paragraph 0014), and the symmetric placement of the systems (seen in Fig 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would conceive of defining each radar system to be a quadrant assigned to the nearest door. As an example, Guba teaches the division of the vehicle interior into quadrants (paragraph 0054), as a way to determine which functions to activate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that the amended independent claim language is not taught by Bilik, specifically in regards to Howarter in addressing the timing limitations such that the time period is not tied to any time sequence based upon the detection of a transmission source.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Howarter teaches the use of defining and controlling actions based on time period and other settings. For example, reading Howarter would indicate that additional actions occur after an initial state, such as detecting a specified distance threshold [without interacting with the vehicle system, which would likely involve a time period to determine], then command the doors to relock, turn of the lights and secure the trunk. In this case, the time period would at least refer to a time period where no interaction has taken place before activating different subsystems. Thus, Howarter sufficiently teaches that different times are used to activate different subsystems.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that the amended claim 20 overcomes the previous rejections, in that the prior art does not suggest the use of sensing devices at different quadrants to determine whether to initiate a subsystem or whether the transmission source is between two quadrants.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is not explicitly taught in the recited prior art, simply dividing a vehicle into quadrants is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Bilik [and evidenced by Guba]. For example, as explained in the rejection above, constructing a system of four radar systems, with 90 degree field of view each, in a symmetrical fashion of a four door vehicle, would result in effective quadrant designation relating to the closest door to each radar system. Thus, based on the knowledge of the art and the teachings of Bilik, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to represent the vehicle in quadrants.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that based on the allowability of the independent claims, the dependent claims are also allowable.
In light of the above arguments and rejections, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further key detection and door unlocking; US20210232642A1, US20210255634A1, US20210101546A1, and US20140308971A1
For further Bluetooth enabling entry/functions to a vehicle; US20140240091A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662