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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Office Action Response dated December 26, 2025. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments that amended claims 1 and 12 include that the vehicle control device outputs different control commands based upon both at least one of the first and second time intervals and the different therebetween. However, the Office notes that the mere determination of a difference between the first and second time intervals is reliant and therefore based upon the first and second time intervals. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soryal, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0155278, to Idbrant et al. (hereinafter Idbrant).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Soryal discloses an access arrangement for a vehicle (e.g. see Abstract, Fig. 2A and paras 0002, 0016 and 0028, wherein a remote entry system for a vehicle 290 is provided), comprising: a vehicle transmission/reception device (e.g. see Figs. 2A and 2C, and paras 0028 and 0032, wherein the vehicle includes a high-frequency module 232 for communicating with a HF module 235 of a key 211) configured to: transmit first and second interrogation signals to a mobile identification transmitter (e.g. see Fig. 2C, and paras 0032-0033, wherein the HF module transmits multiple challenges 238 (i.e. first and second interrogation signals) to the key), receive first response signals from the mobile identification transmitter in response and corresponding to the first interrogation signals and a second response signal from the mobile identification transmitter in response and corresponding to the second interrogation signal (e.g. see Fig. 2C, and paras 0032-0033, wherein the HF module receives multiple responses 238 (i.e. first and second response signals) from the key), and determine a first time interval…that elapsed between the transmission of the first interrogation signal and the reception of the first response signal (e.g. see para 0019 and claim 1, wherein a time delay of reception of a first signal is determined) and determine a second time interval…that elapsed between the transmission of the second interrogation signal and the reception of the second response signal (e.g. see para 0030 and claim 3, wherein a time delay of reception of a second signal is determined); and a vehicle control device configured to output a different control command based on at least one of the first and second time intervals and a difference between the first and second time intervals (e.g. see claim 5, wherein determining whether to enable an entry system of the vehicle (i.e. output a different control command) is based upon analyzing the first and second response signal, which includes analyzing the time delay of the first and second response signals; also see Fig. 2D and paras 0035-0041 wherein the second response time T2 is greater than the first response time T1; the Office further notes that a comparison between the first and second time intervals is based upon the first and second time interval).
Sorval fails to disclose that the time intervals are determined by subtracting time needed by the mobile identification transmitter to process the first/second interrogation signals and generated the first response signal from the time that elapsed between transmission of the first/second interrogation signals and the reception of the first response signal. However, Idbrant teaches wireless communication between a wireless remote control unit 230 (i.e. mobile device) and vehicle 110, wherein a flight of time duration between the remote control unit and vehicle is determined by subtracting processing time of the operator unit (e.g. mobile device) (e.g. see Fig. 1, and para 0043-0045). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Soryal to include a subtracting processing time of a round trip signal for the purpose of generating a more accurate positioning between two devices.
As per claim 3, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claim 1, and Soryal further discloses wherein the vehicle control device is configured to at least one of: output at least one first control command when a difference between the first and second time intervals is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, and output at least one second control command when a difference between the first and second time intervals is greater than a predetermined threshold value (e.g. see claim 5, paras 0035-0041, wherein determining whether to enable an entry system of the vehicle (i.e. output a different control command) is based upon analyzing the first and second response signal, which includes analyzing the time delay of the first and second response signals, wherein in one configuration the second response time T2 is greater than the first predetermined response time T1).
As per claim 7, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claim 1, and Soryal further discloses wherein the vehicle control device further outputs the control command based on at least one of the first and second time intervals (e.g. see claim 5, paras 0035-0041, wherein determining whether to enable an entry system of the vehicle (i.e. output a different control command) is based upon analyzing the first and second response signal, which includes analyzing the time delay of the first and second response signals, wherein in one configuration the second response time T2 is greater than the first predetermined response time T1).
As per claim 10, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claim 1, and Soryal further discloses which further comprises a mobile identification transmitter with a sensor configured to measure a physical parameter, wherein the vehicle control device further outputs the control command based on the physical parameter measured by the mobile identification transmitter (e.g. see claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader).
As per claim 11, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claim 1, and Soryal further discloses which further comprises the vehicle (e.g. see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 2, 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soryal, in view of Idbrant, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0176382, to Siswick et al. (hereinafter Siswick).
As per claim 2, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claims 1 and 12, respectively, but fails to particularly disclose wherein the first and second interrogation signals and the first and second response signals are signals in accordance with an ultra-wideband standard. However, Siswick teaches a system for validating communication between a remote and vehicle for the purpose of allowing entrance therein, wherein the communication between the remote and vehicle utilize ultra-wideband frequencies (e.g. see Figs. 1-2, and para 0032). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Soryal to include UWB signals for communicating identification data between a vehicle and remote as a matter of designer’s choice for the transmission of data.
As per claim 4, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the vehicle control device further outputs the control command based on a signal from a door sensor configured to sense an open or closed state of at least one door of the vehicle and/or a signal from a locking sensor configured to sense an unlocked or locked state of at least one door of the vehicle. However, Siswick teaches a security protocol of the vehicle security system does not double-lock the vehicle, meaning that there is some sort of sensing means to determine if the vehicle is already locked (e.g. see para 0051). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Soryal to include a sensing means for determining whether the vehicle is locked or unlocked prior to locking or unlocking the vehicle for the purpose of conserving battery resources.
As per claim 5, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant and Siswick, teaches the features of claim 4, and Siswick further teaches wherein the vehicle control device outputs an unlock command for the at least one door of the vehicle as at least one second control command (e.g. see para 0026, wherein each door of the vehicle has a lock mechanism which is locked or unlocked implying a first command for a first door and a second command for a second door): when a difference between the first and second time intervals greater than a predetermined threshold value is detected, or either when there is a signal from the locking sensor that represents a locked state of the at least one door of the vehicle (e.g. see para 0051, wherein a security protocol of the vehicle security system does not double-lock the vehicle, meaning that there is some sort of sensing means to determine if the vehicle is already locked) or when the second time interval is shorter than the first time interval and the second interrogation signal is transmitted later than the first interrogation signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Soryal to include a sensing means for determining whether all of the vehicle doors are locked or unlocked prior to locking or unlocking the doors for the purpose of conserving battery resources.
As per claim 6, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant and Siswick, teaches the features of claim 4, and Siswick further teaches wherein the vehicle control device outputs a lock command for the at least one door of the vehicle as at least one further second control command (e.g. see para 0026, wherein each door of the vehicle has a lock mechanism which is locked or unlocked implying a first command for a first door and a second command for a second door): when a difference between the first and second time intervals greater than a predetermined threshold value is detected, or either when there is a signal from the locking sensor that represents an unlocked state of the at least one door of the vehicle (e.g. see para 0051, wherein a security protocol of the vehicle security system does not double-lock the vehicle, meaning that there is some sort of sensing means to determine if the vehicle is already locked) or when the second time interval is longer than the first time interval and the second interrogation signal is transmitted later than the first interrogation signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Hocke to include a sensing means for determining whether all of the vehicle doors are locked or unlocked prior to locking or unlocking the doors for the purpose of conserving battery resources.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soryal, in view of Idbrant, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0329732, to Hocke et al. (hereinafter Hocke).
As per claim 8, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant, teaches the features of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the vehicle control device is configured to output a start command for a drive motor of the vehicle as at least one first control command: when a difference between the first and second time intervals. However, Hocke teaches a system configured to start an engine of the vehicle based upon the authentication (e.g. see paras 0006, 0028 and 0041). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Soryal to include allowing start-up of a vehicle as part of the security system of Soryal for the purpose of adding an additional level of security to the vehicle.
As per claim 9, Soryal, as modified by Idbrant and Hocke, teaches the features of claim 1, and Hocke further teaches wherein the vehicle control device is configured to output a deactivate command for deactivating access and/or start function as at least one further first control command: when a difference between the first and second time intervals less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value is detected, or if at least one of the first and second time intervals is greater than a time threshold value (e.g. see paras 0010-0011 and 0041-0042, and claims 2-3, wherein control of vehicle components are either allowed or denied based upon reception times of the signals being above or below a threshold value). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the security system of Soryal to include allowing start-up of a vehicle as part of the security system of Soryal for the purpose of adding an additional level of security to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B