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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 11/25/2025 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 5-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5-10 of copending Application No. 18409561 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations claimed are anticipated by the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application 18048118
Co-pending application 18409561
1
1+2+5
2
1
3
1
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9+2+5
9
10+2+5
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, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN WIEMEERSCH (US 20160337814 A1) in view of DESINOR, JR. (US 20170294064 A1) further in view of RETTIG et al. (US 20200184749 A1).
Re claim 1. VAN WIEMEERSCH discloses (abstract) a vehicle control device (i.e. FIG.1-3) comprising:
a memory; and
a processor (FIG.1 – processors are commonly coupled directly to a memory for processing data) coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is structured so as to:
judge whether or not a predetermined user operation (FIG.4 – steps 305) for control (i.e. intent and movement by user carrying key fob/portable device 15/20) of the vehicle is detected (FIG.2-3);
wherein the predetermined user operation is unlocking a door of the vehicle by touching a door handle. [0040]
[0040] As another example, a sensor 130 may detect a user grabbing or touching a door handle to pull on the door handle with the intent to open the door, and based on the detection, the computer 100 may initiate and establish communications with fobs 15 proximate the vehicle 25 to authorize unlocking a door. The computer 100 may determine that one or more of the fobs 15 is an authorized fob 15 for the vehicle 25, e.g., in a manner as described above. Conversely, if the door was already unlocked the trigger of sensor 130 may still be used to inform computer 100 that a user is about to open a door. The computer 100 may also receive an input from a key pad on the vehicle 25, a door or global unlock event activated by a mechanical key, an ignition activated by a mechanical key, from a telematics system, etc. that is identified as a trigger event for initiating a user location identification process. Still further, the computer 100 could initiate the user location identification process periodically, based on a timer, etc.
However, VAN WIEMEERSCH fails to explicitly disclose:
receive, from a user, setting processing for setting a time period in which control of a vehicle by using an information processing device is suppressed;
when it is determined that the predetermined user operation is detected in the time period that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, permit control of the vehicle; and
when it is determined that the predetermined user operation is detected within the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, not permit control of the vehicle.
DESINOR, JR. teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a lock system wherein they system receives, from a user [0042], setting processing for setting a time period (i.e. making a pre-approved time slot for allowing unlocking function) in which control of an unlocking device (FIG.2) by using an information processing device (FIG.14 – buyer's mobile device 1422 carried by a user) is suppressed (i.e. a reserved time period for access) [0008];
in a case in which it is judged that the predetermined user operation is detected in a time period (i.e. pre-approved time slot) that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed [0008], permit unlocking of the device in accordance with receiving a signal indicating that the information processing device is moving [0044]; and
in a case in which it is judged that the predetermined user operation is detected within the time period in which control is suppressed [0008, 0044], not permit control even if the signal indicating that the information processing device is moving is received. [0008, 0044]
[0008] Another embodiment comprises a wireless lockbox comprising: a Bluetooth interface, the Bluetooth interface operable to communicate with a plurality of mobile devices; a cellular interface, the cellular interface operable to communicate with a plurality of servers; a lockable tray, the lockable tray operable to hold a house key; and a microprocessor, the microprocessor coupled to the Bluetooth interface, the cellular interface, and the lockable tray, the microprocessor operable to unlock the lockable tray upon receiving an unlock command from one of the plurality of mobile devices over the Bluetooth interface, wherein the unlock command is received during a predetermined time period and if the unlock command is received outside the predetermined time period then the microprocessor does not unlock the lockable tray.
[0044] FIG. 14 displays an embodiment of a system under the present disclosure wherein a potential buyer 1420 approaches a house 1410 for a pre-approved tour. Buyer 1420 can approach the house at then pre-approved appointment time. The buyer's mobile device 1422 can be equipped with both cellular and Bluetooth functionality. The wireless lockbox 1412 can be equipped with cellular and Bluetooth functionality (and option Wi-Fi functionality). When the buyer approaches the house he will open the appropriate application on the mobile device 1422 and see interface 1424. The buyer may need to power on the wireless lockbox 1412 (or the wireless lockbox 1412 may already be powered on). Powering on the wireless lockbox 1412 can require flipping a switch or pressing down on a button, or in some embodiments the wireless lockbox 1412 can be woken via a wireless signal. The user can then select unlock function 1426 from the wireless device 1422. LED lights or a screen can indicate the status (on/off/transmitting/etc) of the wireless lockbox 1412. Selecting unlock 1426 will use the mobile device 1422 Bluetooth chip to convey a Bluetooth communication to wireless lockbox 1412 commanding to the wireless lockbox 1412 to open and provide the house key. The buyer 1420 can then enter the house, view the house, and then return the key to the wireless lockbox 1412. The buyer 1420 can then select a lock function from the application and the wireless lockbox 1412 will close and lock the key inside. In most embodiments, the buyer's mobile device 1422 will only be able to unlock the wireless lockbox 1412 during the pre-approved time slot. Remote servers, such as servers 560, or the owner's wireless device 1442, communicate with wireless lockbox 1412 to set the appointed time slot for buyer 1420. Only during that pre-approved time slot will buyer 1420 be able to unlock the wireless lockbox 1412.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this function can prevent unauthorized access of a device at time periods in which a vehicle should be not be used.
Furthermore, DESINOR, JR. teaches the lock system which would receive setting processing for setting the time period (FIG.12A-12C) for a digital key registered by a mobile device [0038], which can be a function performed by a user (owner) carrying such mobile device, which can communicate when such mobile device is detected and connec000000ted to the system (FIG.5). DESINOR, JR. clearly suggests that either a potential buyer (FIG.6A-6G) could use a mobile device to connect with system, and input personal data [0036], including a desired time period for viewing/using an asset (i.e. home), thereby obtaining an approved temporary access, while an owner (FIG.7A-7E) can interact with system in a similar fashion, to properly input personal data, including an approved time period for approving a potential buyer request for temporary access [0037].
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that DESINOR, JR. clearly suggests using mobile devices to operate, when they are detected, to communicate with system of VAN WIEMEERSCH as modified by DESINOR, JR., for the purpose of selecting a specific time period for obtaining access to a vehicle system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try setting a specific predetermined time period for allowed operation of an unlocking device and use the registration function as taught by DESINOR, JR. in order to prevent access of the vehicle at unauthorized time periods and securely register new users that want to use the vehicle.
However, VAN WIEMEERSCH as modified by DESINOR, JR. fails to explicitly disclose:
when the predetermined user operation is detected, transmit a signal to the information processing device requesting verification of a digital key;
determine whether verification of the digital key is successful based on receiving a first signal from the information processing device:
when verification of the digital key is not successful, not permit control of the vehicle;
when verification of the digital key is successful, determine whether the information processing device is vibrating or moving which is detected by a sensor of the information processing device based on receiving a second signal from the information processing device;
when it determined that the information processing device is not vibrating or moving, not permit control of the vehicle;
when it is determined that the information processing device is vibrating or moving, determine whether the predetermined user operation is detected in a time period that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed.
RETTIG teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a system and method for determining intent for a lock operation [0014] including a signal indicating a successful verification of a mobile device 304-306 wherein verification using a credential is performed [0026-0027] and wherein a vibration of a key fob could be sensed to operate a locking device 102 [0014].
[0014] The accelerometer 105 in the lock device 102 may detect the intent action by the user of the mobile device 104. For example, when the user is located close to the door 106, the lock device 102 may unlock the lock mechanism 103 when the accelerometer 105 detects an intent action (e.g., a specific vibration signature) such as the rotation of a lever on the door 106. Any one or combination of intent actions (e.g., specific vibration signatures) could be sensed such as, for example, rotating a knob or lever on the lock device 102 or the door 106, pressing a thumb-piece on the lock device 102, kicking the door 106, knocking on the door 106, and/or bumping a car key fob to the door 106, among other vibrations or intent actions.
[0026] Process 300 proceeds from operation 302 to operation 304. At operation 304, during the setup of the wireless connection or after the connection is established between the lock device 102 and the mobile device 104, the mobile device 104 transmits a credential 112 to the lock device 102. In some embodiments, the mobile device 104 may transmit the credential 112 to the lock device 102 as part of the pairing or connecting process. In other embodiments, the mobile device 104 may transmit the credential 112 to the lock device 102 after the two devices are connected or paired.
[0027] Process 300 proceeds from operation 304 to operation 306. At operation 306, the lock device 102 determines whether the credential 112 is valid or authenticates the credential 112. For example, the lock device 102 may determine whether the credential 112 represents a piece of unique information so that the lock device 102 and the mobile device 104 may be paired (e.g., via Bluetooth) or otherwise form a wireless connection. The lock device 102 may also receive the credential 112 after a connection is established and look up in a database whether the credential 112 has sufficient rights to access the door 106. If the credential 112 is approved, process 300 proceeds to operation 308. If the credential 112 is not approved, process 300 proceeds to operation 302 where the lock device 102 monitors for a mobile device 104.
RETTIG furthermore teaches (FIG.3) the verification process occurs before the detection of vibration or movement is performed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the processes of verification and a vibrating or moving pattern received from a mobile device as taught by RETTIG in order to better determine an intent by a user approaching a lock device of a door.
Re claim 6. However, VAN WIEMEERSCH fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the setting processing is processing for setting either one of enabling or disabling of setting of the time period in which control of the vehicle by using the information processing device is suppressed, as well as a start time and an end time of the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed.
As discussed above for DESINOR, JR., a specific time period for allowing a user to operate a unlocking/opening function of a locked door, based on a prior registration of such user and selected time period, which would include at least a start time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to explicitly set a time period, and end time should be selected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try setting a specific predetermined time period with a start time and an end time for allowed operation of an unlocking device in order to prevent access of the vehicle at unauthorized time periods, given that such selected times would clearly define the time period.
Claim 7. VAN WIEMEERSCH discloses (FIG.1) a vehicle comprising:
the vehicle control device of claim 1; and
a door lock device carrying out locking and unlocking of doors.
Re claim 8. VAN WIEMEERSCH as modified by DESINOR, JR. and RETTIG discloses as applied for claim 1 a vehicle control method comprising:
by a computer, receiving, from a user, setting processing for setting a time period in which control of a vehicle by using an information processing device is suppressed;
judging whether or not a predetermined user operation for control of the vehicle is detected;
when the predetermined user operation is detected, transmitting a signal to the information processing device requesting verification of a digital key:
determining whether verification of the digital key is successful based on receiving a first signal from the information processing device;
when verification of the digital key is not successful, not permitting control of the vehicle;
when verification of the digital key is successful, determining whether the information processing device is vibrating or moving which is detected by a sensor of the information processing device based on receiving a second signal from the information processing device;
when it determined that the information processing device is not vibrating or moving, not permitting control of the vehicle;
when it is determined that the information processing device is vibrating or moving, determining whether the predetermined user operation is detected in a time period that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed;
when it is determined that the predetermined user operation is detected in the time period that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, permitting control of the vehicle; and
when it is determined that the predetermined user operation is detected within the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, not permitting control of the vehicle,
wherein the predetermined user operation is unlocking a door of the vehicle by touching a door handle.
Claim 9. VAN WIEMEERSCH as modified by DESINOR, JR. and RETTIG discloses as applied for claim 1, discloses a non-transitory recording medium on which is recorded a program executable by a computer of a vehicle to perform:
receiving, from a user, setting processing for setting a time period in which control of a vehicle by using an information processing device is suppressed;
judging whether or not a predetermined user operation for control of the vehicle is detected;
when the predetermined user operation is detected, transmitting a signal to the information processing device requesting verification of a digital key:
determining whether verification of the digital key is successful based on receiving a first signal from the information processing device:
when verification of the digital key is not successful, not permitting control of the vehicle;
when verification of the digital key is successful, determining whether the information processing device is vibrating or moving which is detected by a sensor of the information processing device based on receiving a second signal from the information processing device;
when it determined that the information processing device is not vibrating or moving, not permitting control of the vehicle;
when it is determined that the information processing device is vibrating or moving, determining whether the predetermined user operation is detected in a time period that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed,
when it determined that the predetermined user operation is detected in the time period that is different than the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, permitting control of the vehicle; and
when it determined that the predetermined user operation is detected within the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, not permitting control of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN WIEMEERSCH (US 20160337814 A1) in view of DESINOR, JR. (US 20170294064 A1) further in view of RETTIG et al. (US 20200184749 A1) further in view of ENDO et al. (US 20190123893 A1).
However, VAN WIEMEERSCH as modified by DESINOR, JR. and RETTIG fails to explicitly disclose:
Claim 2.
the vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the processor receives, from a user, setting processing for setting the time period, for each digital key that is registered in the information processing device.
Claim 3.
the vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein:
the processor is structured so as to further detect an information processing device with which communication is possible, and the processor can receive setting processing for setting the time period, for a digital key that is registered in the detected information processing device with which communication is possible.
ENDO teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0004], a key data management system using a vehicle key (i.e. authentication key) which can be shared among a plurality of users [0050-0051], wherein at least one processor from the system would receive a setting time period for each digital key registered among plurality of digital keys, to be used during a specific time period [0137, 0205], which can be set up by a user such as an owner [0135, 0137-0138, 0141].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try receiving from a user (i.e. owner) the setting of a time period in which a specific digital key is registered as authorized, for a plurality of digital keys to be used for different authorized users as taught by ENDO in order to provide the means for plural users to be allowed to use a vehicle during their authorized time periods.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN WIEMEERSCH et al. (US 20220017043 A1) in view of DESINOR, JR. (US 20170294064 A1) further in view of RETTIG et al. (US 20200184749 A1) and further in view of BROWN et al. (US 9582949 B2).
However, VAN WIEMEERSCH as modified by DESINOR, JR., and RETTIG fails to explicitly disclose:
Claim 5. the vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is structured so as to, in a case in which the predetermined user operation is detected within the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed, further give notice that a current time is within the time period in which control of the vehicle is suppressed.
BROWN teaches (c.14, ll.66 - c.15, ll.11) in a same field of invention, the function of notifying a user of various situations, during a process of managing keys used by users. BROWN further teaches giving notices during current times within a time period in which control of the vehicle (c.1, ll.21-62) is allowed to be used. BROWN suggests modifying notifications for the purpose of informing a user of time deadlines or other times.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need to modify notifications as suggested to include a clear notification for users that notifies a vehicle cannot be controlled during a time of suppression (i.e., unauthorized time period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try modifying notifications as taught by BROWN in order to provide notifications that let users know they cannot control the vehicle at a specific time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 1/30/2026