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 .
Claims 1 thru 15 and 21 thru 25 have been examined. Claims 16 thru 20 have been cancelled following a restriction requirement.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 thru 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/22/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1010” has been used to designate both a motor drive (P[0072] and Figure 10A) and a DC-DC converter (P[0072] and Figure 10A). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1228” has been used to designate both Send First Signals To Motor Drive (Figure 12A) and Send Second Signals to RFR Module (Figure 12A). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0058] line 1, the phrase “adapter harness 836” should be “adapter harness 834” to agree with Figure 8A and the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0066] line 2, the phrase “LH mirror controller 906” should be “LH mirror controller 904” to agree with Figure 9 and the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0066] lines 6 and 7, the phrase “LH mirror assembly 908” should be “LH mirror assembly 920” to agree with Figure 9 and the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0087] line 9, the phrase “steps 1230 and1230” are recited. This is either needlessly redundant, or one of the 1230 steps should be changed.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms BLUETOOTH and FLEX-RAY (P[0064]), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 17, the phrase “the activating the functionality” should be “the activating of the functionality”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 23 thru 25 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 23 recites that the first and second vehicle devices are a same type of device, but the first and second devices are defined in claims 2 and 3 to be different types of devices. The bounds and limits of “a same type of device” are unclear. The examiner assumes that it means that the both devices may be activated and deactivated for continued examination.
Claim 24 recites, “a powered running board” in line 14, while “at least one powered running board” is recited in line 13. It is unclear if this is a different powered running board from the at least one powered running board, or the same powered running board. The examiner assumes it is the same powered running board for continued examination.
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 thru 15 and 21 thru 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0300250 A1 in view of Boesen Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0279032 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Smith teaches the claimed controller associated with vehicle devices, “The vehicle computing systems 316 can generally comprise any vehicle related computer system or subsystem. In particular, the vehicle computer systems 316 can include any type of vehicle ECU or other module that provides information sufficient to determine when it is appropriate to move or otherwise control the stepping deck 310. Examples include a central control module (CCM), general or generic electronic module (GEM), door control unit (DCU), engine control unit (ECU), seat control unit (SCU), and transmission control unit (TCU), speed control unit (SPU) without limitation.” (P[0100] and Figure 3), the controller comprising:
the claimed at least one processor, “The automated step system 300 can include an interpretation module which may include software, firmware, and/or associated electronics (e.g., one or more microcontrollers or other processors) configured interpret or otherwise process the information received from the vehicle into a format that is usable by the step system for determining when to move the step.” P[0111];
the claimed communication interface coupled to the processor, “the vehicle interface 304 of the step system 300 includes a port 324 adapted to connect with existing vehicle ports such as the first port(s) 334 of the vehicle computing system 316 (e.g., similar to the embodiment shown in FIG. 2F), the second port(s) 336 of the vehicle computing system 316, or to the existing port(s) 318 (e.g., similar to the embodiments shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B). As discussed previously, the vehicle interface 304 can further include processing electronics 326 for processing data received from the vehicle 302 via the port 324 (e.g., door status information) and/or one or more replica ports 328 providing functional access to the existing vehicle ports that occupied by the vehicle interface 304.” (P[0103] and Figure 3); and
the claimed memory storing computer readable instructions executed by the processor, “The step controller 306 is communication with the vehicle interface 304 and can generally include hardware (e.g., one or more microcontrollers, memory, and circuitry) and/or software configured to control operation of the automated step system 300.” P[0110], cause the controller to:
the claimed receive a first command via the communication interface and from a user interface, a signal to unlock the door or a key FOB actuation to unlock the door (Table on page 16);
the claimed send first signals to control the first vehicle device based on the first command, the vehicle door is unlocked using the FOB (Table on page 16);
the claimed activate a functionality of the controller to control a second vehicle device and deactivate a functionality of the controller to control the first vehicle device where the second vehicle device is different from the first vehicle device, based on the unlocking of the door then the step is deployed (Table on page 16), the step deployment equates to the claimed activate control of a second vehicle device, the completion of unlocking the doors equates to the claimed deactivate control of the first vehicle device, and the door locks and step equate to the different vehicle devices;
the claimed receive a second command from the user interface, the step is deployed when receiving a signals from the key FOB (Table on page 16), and “the remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150], the user can override the step deployment; and
the claimed activating the functionality of the controller to control the second vehicle device based on the second command and send second signals to control the second vehicle device, the key FOB causes the step to deploy (Table on page 16), and “the step remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150].
Smith does not teach the claimed receive an input sequence from the user interface, the claimed compare the input sequence to a predetermined sequence, and the claimed perform activation based on a matching sequence. But these method steps are similar to a input authentication to determine if a user is authorized to control the functions.
Boesen teaches,
the claimed receive an input sequence from the user interface and the claimed compare the input sequence to a predetermined sequence, verify or authenticate the user is authorized based on a password, pin, input sequence, or other input may be required to access the systems of the vehicle P[0028], and “verifying the user is authorized” claim 3; and
the claimed perform activation based on a matching sequence, then controlling vehicle systems based on the verification P[0008].
The password or pin verification of an authorized user (Boesen) would be combined with Smith as part of the access step to unlocking the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the user authorization by input sequence of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 2 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed second vehicle device is a powered running board, “Powered retractable vehicle step assist systems and methods are provided. The steps systems are configured for installation (e.g., after market installation) and use with a vehicle. The system can include a stepping member movable between a retracted position and a deployed position with respect to the vehicle. The system can further include a vehicle interface. A controller of the step system can be configured to process information received from the vehicle interface and, based at least partly on the processing of the information, cause movement of the stepping member between the retracted position and the deployed position.” (abstract).
Regarding claim 3 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith does not explicitly teach the claimed first vehicle device is one of rear view mirrors, windshield wipers, headlights, an audio system or a power seat. But Smith does teach control of power seats using a body control module P[0088] or a seat control unit P[0100]. Boesen teaches, “examples of the passenger comfort system 50 may include one or more subsystems such as automatic climate control, electronic seat adjustment, automatic wipers, automatic headlamps, and automatic cooling” P[0032]. The control of the systems of Boesen would be controlled by the vehicle computing system of Smith. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the control of electronic seat adjustment, automatic wipers, or automatic headlamps of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 4 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed user interface is one of a mirror tilt switch, a headlight control switch, a windshield wiper switch, an audio system control switch, or a power seat control switch, “the controls portion 912 on the lights tab 926 desirably comprises one or more switches or buttons 940, each corresponding to a particular light or set of lights of the vehicle” (P[0181], Figures 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 5 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed deactivate functionality of the controller to control the second vehicle device and reactivate the functionality of the controller to control the first vehicle device, do not allow deployment of the step under conditions of vehicle speed, engine on, or transmission in gear (Table on page 16).
Smith does not teach causing the controller to: the claimed receive a second input sequence, the claimed compare the second input sequence to the predetermined sequence, and the claimed basing the deactivation on the second input sequence matching. These claimed steps are merely repeated steps of claim 1 (receiving and comparing being performed a second time).
Boesen teaches,
the claimed receive a second input sequence from the user interface and the claimed compare the second input sequence to a predetermined sequence, verify or authenticate the user is authorized based on a password, pin, input sequence, or other input may be required to access the systems of the vehicle P[0028], and “verifying the user is authorized” claim 3; and
the claimed perform deactivation based on the matching sequence, then controlling vehicle systems based on the verification P[0008].
The password or pin verification of an authorized user (Boesen) would be combined with Smith as part of the access step to unlocking the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the user authorization by input sequence of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 6 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed send second signals to at least one of a wireless transceiver, actuators associated with the second vehicle device, or controllers associated with the second vehicle device, “the controller 306 processes control inputs received from the vehicle interface 304 and sends appropriate control signals to the drive unit 308” P[0110], the drive unit equates to the claimed actuators.
Regarding claim 7 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed based on a determination that a predetermined period of time has elapsed following reception of the second command without receiving additional commands then deactivate the functionality of the controller to control the second vehicle device and reactivate functionality of the controller to control the first vehicle device, “It can be desirable, however, to include a timer that can automatically end an override after a certain amount of time has passed. Such a feature can make the retractable step system more useful and user-friendly, for example, because in many cases when a user would wish to override the automated positioning of the retractable steps, it would only be for a relatively short duration of time, and setting an automated timer may eliminate the need for the user to remember to manually cancel the override.” P[0170], “if a predetermined period of time has passed with no selection on the selectable notification 930, the process flow proceeds back to block 1403” (P[0208] and Figure 14-1), and block 1403 monitors the status of the door (open/close, locked/unlocked) P[0207].
Regarding claim 8 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claims 1 and 7 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed cause the controller to:
the claimed after deactivation of the functionality of the controller to control the second vehicle device then receive a third command via the communication interface and from the user interface, “If an override is not active at block 1407, then the process flow proceeds to block 1409. At block 1409, if the door status change detected is that the door is now open, the process flow proceeds to blocks 1411 and 1413 and causes the system to deploy the step and illuminate the step. If, at block 1409, the door status change detected is that the door status has changed from open to closed, the process flow proceeds to blocks 1415 and 1417, and the system is caused to retract the step and disable the step illumination.” (P[0207] and Figure 14-2); and
the claimed send third signals to control the first vehicle device based on the third command, a signal to lock/unlock the door or a key FOB actuation to lock/unlock the door (Table on page 16).
Regarding claim 9 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed cause the controller to delay communications such that the functionality of the control to control the first vehicle device is disabled during activation of the functionality of the controller to control the second vehicle device, “Once all of the doors are closed, the method leaves decision block 606, and the step system retracts the stepping deck at step 608. In some cases, the controller implements a delay before retracting the stepping deck at step 608 (e.g., of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more seconds).” P[0138].
Regarding claim 10 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed sending second signals via the wireless communication interface, “Although this embodiment illustrates physical wiring 216, 219 for connecting the system controller 210 to the step motor and/or light 1004, other embodiments may utilize wireless technologies for one or both of these functions.” P[0241].
Regarding claim 11 Smith teaches the claimed system, a powered retractable vehicle step assist system (abstract), comprising:
the claimed secondary vehicle device, a retractable running-board step assist 100 attached to an underside of a vehicle 110 (Figures 1A and 1B and P[0065]; and
the claimed controller connected to the secondary vehicle device, “The vehicle computing systems 316 can generally comprise any vehicle related computer system or subsystem. In particular, the vehicle computer systems 316 can include any type of vehicle ECU or other module that provides information sufficient to determine when it is appropriate to move or otherwise control the stepping deck 310. Examples include a central control module (CCM), general or generic electronic module (GEM), door control unit (DCU), engine control unit (ECU), seat control unit (SCU), and transmission control unit (TCU), speed control unit (SPU) without limitation.” (P[0100] and Figure 3), and the vehicle computing system 316 is connected to the automated retractable step system 300 (Figure 3), the controller comprising:
the claimed at least one processor, “The automated step system 300 can include an interpretation module which may include software, firmware, and/or associated electronics (e.g., one or more microcontrollers or other processors) configured interpret or otherwise process the information received from the vehicle into a format that is usable by the step system for determining when to move the step.” P[0111];
the claimed communication interface coupled to the processor, “the vehicle interface 304 of the step system 300 includes a port 324 adapted to connect with existing vehicle ports such as the first port(s) 334 of the vehicle computing system 316 (e.g., similar to the embodiment shown in FIG. 2F), the second port(s) 336 of the vehicle computing system 316, or to the existing port(s) 318 (e.g., similar to the embodiments shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B). As discussed previously, the vehicle interface 304 can further include processing electronics 326 for processing data received from the vehicle 302 via the port 324 (e.g., door status information) and/or one or more replica ports 328 providing functional access to the existing vehicle ports that occupied by the vehicle interface 304.” (P[0103] and Figure 3); and
the claimed memory storing computer readable instructions executed by the processor, “The step controller 306 is communication with the vehicle interface 304 and can generally include hardware (e.g., one or more microcontrollers, memory, and circuitry) and/or software configured to control operation of the automated step system 300.” P[0110], cause the controller to:
the claimed receive a first command via the communication interface and from a user interface, a signal to unlock the door or a key FOB actuation to unlock the door (Table on page 16);
the claimed send first signals to control a primary vehicle device based on the first command, the vehicle door is unlocked using the FOB (Table on page 16);
the claimed activate a functionality of the controller to control a secondary vehicle device, based on the unlocking of the door then the step is deployed (Table on page 16), the step deployment equates to the claimed activate control of a second vehicle device, the completion of unlocking the doors equates to the claimed deactivate control of the first vehicle device, and the door locks and step equate to the different vehicle devices; and
the claimed activate the functionality of the controller to control the secondary vehicle device and perform operations to control the secondary vehicle device, the key FOB causes the step to deploy (Table on page 16), and “the step remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150].
Smith does not teach the claimed receive an input sequence from the user interface, the claimed compare the input sequence to a predetermined sequence, and the claimed perform activation based on a matching sequence. But these method steps are similar to a input authentication to determine if a user is authorized to control the functions.
Boesen teaches,
the claimed receive an input sequence from the user interface and the claimed compare the input sequence to a predetermined sequence, verify or authenticate the user is authorized based on a password, pin, input sequence, or other input may be required to access the systems of the vehicle P[0028], and “verifying the user is authorized” claim 3; and
the claimed perform activation based on a matching sequence, then controlling vehicle systems based on the verification P[0008],
The password or pin verification of an authorized user (Boesen) would be combined with Smith as part of the access step to unlocking the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the user authorization by input sequence of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 12 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed system of claim 11 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed secondary vehicle device is a powered running board, “Powered retractable vehicle step assist systems and methods are provided. The steps systems are configured for installation (e.g., after market installation) and use with a vehicle. The system can include a stepping member movable between a retracted position and a deployed position with respect to the vehicle. The system can further include a vehicle interface. A controller of the step system can be configured to process information received from the vehicle interface and, based at least partly on the processing of the information, cause movement of the stepping member between the retracted position and the deployed position.” (abstract).
Regarding claim 13 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed system of claim 11 (see above), Smith does not explicitly teach the claimed primary vehicle device is one of rear view mirrors, windshield wipers, headlights, an audio system or a power seat. But Smith does teach control of power seats using a body control module P[0088] or a seat control unit P[0100]. Boesen teaches, “examples of the passenger comfort system 50 may include one or more subsystems such as automatic climate control, electronic seat adjustment, automatic wipers, automatic headlamps, and automatic cooling” P[0032]. The control of the systems of Boesen would be controlled by the vehicle computing system of Smith. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the control of electronic seat adjustment, automatic wipers, or automatic headlamps of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 14 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed system of claim 11 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed user interface is one of a mirror tilt switch, a headlight control switch, a windshield wiper switch, an audio system control switch, or a power seat control switch, “the controls portion 912 on the lights tab 926 desirably comprises one or more switches or buttons 940, each corresponding to a particular light or set of lights of the vehicle” (P[0181], Figures 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 15 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed system of claim 11 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed deactivate functionality of the controller to control the secondary vehicle device, do not allow deployment of the step under conditions of vehicle speed, engine on, or transmission in gear (Table on page 16).
Smith does not teach causing the controller to: the claimed receive a second input sequence, the claimed compare the second input sequence to the predetermined sequence, and the claimed basing the deactivation on the second input sequence matching. These claimed steps are merely repeated steps of claim 1 (receiving and comparing being performed a second time).
Boesen teaches,
the claimed receive a second input sequence from the user interface and the claimed compare the second input sequence to a predetermined sequence, verify or authenticate the user is authorized based on a password, pin, input sequence, or other input may be required to access the systems of the vehicle P[0028], and “verifying the user is authorized” claim 3; and
the claimed perform deactivation based on the matching sequence, then controlling vehicle systems based on the verification P[0008].
The password or pin verification of an authorized user (Boesen) would be combined with Smith as part of the access step to unlocking the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the user authorization by input sequence of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 21 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed system of claim 11 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed secondary vehicle device comprises one or more auxiliary lighting devices, “the controls portion 912 on the lights tab 926 desirably comprises one or more switches or buttons 940, each corresponding to a particular light or set of lights of the vehicle” (P[0181] and Figure 10A), the lights controlled are step lights, puddle lights, bed lights and grill lights (Figure 10A), and the claimed controller performs operations to control the secondary vehicle device by controlling auxiliary lighting devices to perform activation or deactivation of the auxiliary lights, “The various lights that are controllable by the described system may be part of the retractable step system, may be part of the vehicle separate from the retractable step system, may be aftermarket add-on lights, and/or any combination of the foregoing. For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 10A, the bed lights may be part of the vehicle separate from the retractable step system, and the step lights may be part of the retractable step system. In some embodiments, the system is configured to communicate with the vehicle data bus in order to control some or all of the lights.” P[0181].
Regarding claim 22 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed second vehicle device comprises one or more auxiliary lighting devices, “the controls portion 912 on the lights tab 926 desirably comprises one or more switches or buttons 940, each corresponding to a particular light or set of lights of the vehicle” (P[0181] and Figure 10A), the lights controlled are step lights, puddle lights, bed lights and grill lights (Figure 10A), and the claimed controller performs operations to control the secondary vehicle device by controlling auxiliary lighting devices to perform activation or deactivation of the auxiliary lights, “The various lights that are controllable by the described system may be part of the retractable step system, may be part of the vehicle separate from the retractable step system, may be aftermarket add-on lights, and/or any combination of the foregoing. For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 10A, the bed lights may be part of the vehicle separate from the retractable step system, and the step lights may be part of the retractable step system. In some embodiments, the system is configured to communicate with the vehicle data bus in order to control some or all of the lights.” P[0181].
Regarding claim 23 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 1 (see above), Smith teaches,
the claimed first vehicle device and second vehicle device are a same type of device that comprises an aftermarket device for replacement of a factory equipment device, “The automated step system 300 may be installed after market, for example, and can include a vehicle interface 304, a step controller 306, a drive unit 308, linkage 309, and a stepping deck 310.” P[0094], cause the controller to:
the claimed control a first functionality of the aftermarket device by sending the signals to control the first vehicle device, a signal to unlock the door or a key FOB actuation to unlock the door (Table on page 16); and
the claimed control a second functionality of the aftermarket device by sending the second signals to control the second vehicle device, the key FOB causes the step to deploy (Table on page 16), and “the step remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150].
Regarding claim 24 Smith teaches the claimed controller associated with vehicle devices, “The vehicle computing systems 316 can generally comprise any vehicle related computer system or subsystem. In particular, the vehicle computer systems 316 can include any type of vehicle ECU or other module that provides information sufficient to determine when it is appropriate to move or otherwise control the stepping deck 310. Examples include a central control module (CCM), general or generic electronic module (GEM), door control unit (DCU), engine control unit (ECU), seat control unit (SCU), and transmission control unit (TCU), speed control unit (SPU) without limitation.” (P[0100] and Figure 3), the controller comprising:
the claimed at least one processor, “The automated step system 300 can include an interpretation module which may include software, firmware, and/or associated electronics (e.g., one or more microcontrollers or other processors) configured interpret or otherwise process the information received from the vehicle into a format that is usable by the step system for determining when to move the step.” P[0111];
the claimed communication interface coupled to the processor, “the vehicle interface 304 of the step system 300 includes a port 324 adapted to connect with existing vehicle ports such as the first port(s) 334 of the vehicle computing system 316 (e.g., similar to the embodiment shown in FIG. 2F), the second port(s) 336 of the vehicle computing system 316, or to the existing port(s) 318 (e.g., similar to the embodiments shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B). As discussed previously, the vehicle interface 304 can further include processing electronics 326 for processing data received from the vehicle 302 via the port 324 (e.g., door status information) and/or one or more replica ports 328 providing functional access to the existing vehicle ports that occupied by the vehicle interface 304.” (P[0103] and Figure 3); and
the claimed memory storing computer readable instructions executed by the processor, “The step controller 306 is communication with the vehicle interface 304 and can generally include hardware (e.g., one or more microcontrollers, memory, and circuitry) and/or software configured to control operation of the automated step system 300.” P[0110], cause the controller to:
the claimed receive a first command via the communication interface and from a user interface, a signal to unlock the door or a key FOB actuation to unlock the door (Table on page 16);
the claimed send first signals to control the first vehicle device based on the first command, the vehicle door is unlocked using the FOB (Table on page 16);
the claimed activate a functionality of the controller to control a powered running board where the first vehicle device is different from the powered running board, based on the unlocking of the door then the step is deployed (Table on page 16), the step deployment equates to the claimed activate control of a powered running board, and the door locks equate to the different vehicle device;
the claimed receive a second command from the user interface, the step is deployed when receiving a signals from the key FOB (Table on page 16), and “the remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150], the user can override the step deployment; and
the claimed activation of the functionality of the controller to control the powered running board performs operation to control the powered running board, the key FOB causes the step to deploy (Table on page 16), and “the step remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150].
Smith does not teach the claimed receive an input sequence from the user interface, the claimed compare the input sequence to a predetermined sequence, and the claimed perform activation based on a matching sequence. But these method steps are similar to a input authentication to determine if a user is authorized to control the functions.
Boesen teaches,
the claimed receive an input sequence from the user interface and the claimed compare the input sequence to a predetermined sequence, verify or authenticate the user is authorized based on a password, pin, input sequence, or other input may be required to access the systems of the vehicle P[0028], and “verifying the user is authorized” claim 3; and
the claimed perform activation based on a matching sequence, then controlling vehicle systems based on the verification P[0008],
The password or pin verification of an authorized user (Boesen) would be combined with Smith as part of the access step to unlocking the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the vehicle step of Smith with the user authorization by input sequence of Boesen in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve the safety or experience of existing vehicles (Boesen P[0029]).
Regarding claim 25 Smith and Boesen teach the claimed controller of claim 24 (see above), Smith teaches the claimed cause the controller to
the claimed receive a second command from the user interface, the key FOB causes the step to deploy (Table on page 16), and “the step remote device 1000 may be used to instruct the system to place the retractable step into an override condition in the retracted or deployed position” P[0150]; and
the claimed perform operations of a command up or command down of the powered running board based on the second command, the step is deployed or retracted based on a signals from a key FOB (Table on page 16), and “At block 1423, the process flow depends on whether the requested manual override is an override into the deployed direction or the retracted direction. If the requested manual override is to deploy the steps, the process flow proceeds to blocks 1425 and 1427 and causes the system to deploy the step and illuminate the step using the step lights. If, at block 1423, the manual override is a request to retract the steps, the process flow proceeds to blocks 1429 and 1431 and causes the system to retract the steps and disable the step lights.” (P[0209] and Figure 14-1).
Response to Amendment
The examiner points to Westra et al Patent Number 9,639,688 B2 as related art but not relied upon for any rejection. Westra et al is directed to a vehicle resource usage control system that includes a vehicle computer having security policies that define usage rules for one or more vehicle resources (abstract, and Figures 3 thru 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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 at 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662