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 .
REOPENING OF PROSECUTION
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 6/10/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
FINALITY
Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office Action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Appeal Brief filed on 6/10/2026. Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regard to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at para. [0006], “increased wake states is me based on current vehicle context” appears to be a typo. Examiner suggests amending to: “increased wake states is [[me]] met based on current vehicle context.”
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 and 8 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 1:
“one or processors” appears to be a typo. Examiner suggests amending to: “one or more processors.”
“the lot mode” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests amending to: “the lot security mode” to follow established antecedent basis.
“whether a vehicle is moving” – the preamble establishes antecedent basis for “a vehicle;” hence, the element at issue should read: “whether [[a]] the vehicle is moving”.
As to claim 5:
“the predefined distance” lacks antecedent basis – Examiner suggests amending to: “[[the] a predefined distance”.
“the boundary associated with the storage lot” lacks antecedent basis – Examiner suggests amending to: “the geofenced perimeter boundary”.
As to claim 6, “the boundary” lacks antecedent basis – Examiner suggests amending to “the geofenced perimeter boundary”.
As to claim 8, “the transportation security mode” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests amending to: “the lot security mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Note
Examiner suggests review of each recitation of “boundary” in the claims to ensure that the claimed boundary refers to claim 1’s “geofenced perimeter boundary” as to ensure Applicant’s intended interpretation of the claims and to avoid potential antecedent basis issues.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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 4-7 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN114162077A; “Zhu”), in view of Nilsson et al. (US20220048472A1; “Nilsson”), in view of Novak (US20090045675A1; “Novak”) and in view of Hille et al. (US20190155307A1; “Hille”)
As to independent claim 1, Zhu discloses a vehicle comprising:
one or processors configured to enabled to control vehicle security for a vehicle (“A processor is used to execute computer programs to implement the steps of the electric vehicle anti-theft method.” ¶ n0033.), the one or more processors configured to:
autonomously engage a security mode responsive to a vehicle location for which the security mode has been predesignated (“[W]henever an electronic fence is set up, a circular boundary is obtained with the current location of the vehicle as the center and the length defined by the user as the radius. This boundary is the electronic fence. The positioning module built into the vehicle periodically uploads the vehicle's latitude and longitude information so that the backend can determine whether the vehicle has left or entered the circle. If the status of the vehicle leaving or entering the circle changes, the backend will notify the user through SMS, voice or push notification. In addition, the process of setting up an electronic fence can be initiated under user control or automatically each time a vehicle enters a parking state.” Emphasis added; ¶ n0060.);
determine, based on data from one or more sensors of the vehicle while the security mode is active, that the vehicle has begun movement and that a characteristic of the movement indicating whether a vehicle is moving under power corresponds to a trigger for a security action (Provided is “a driving judgment module, used to determine whether the vehicle is in a driving state based on the motor speed information and vehicle speed information in the status information, as well as whether the real-time location determined by the latitude and longitude information has changed; if so, it is determined that the vehicle has been stolen.” ¶ n0026. “If the backend determines that the vehicle is in a driving state by detecting the motor speed, vehicle speed, and latitude and longitude information in the vehicle status information without successful verification, it means that the electric vehicle has been stolen.” Emphasis added; ¶ n0063. “The alarm module 26 is used to control the vehicle to sound an alarm and send warning messages to users and supervisors after it is determined that the vehicle has been stolen.” ¶ n0095. “The vehicle loss reporting module 27 is used to send control information to disconnect the vehicle battery after receiving a vehicle loss reporting request.” ¶ n0096. Note: Summarizing, one more sensors of a vehicle provide information — e.g., motor speed, vehicle speed, etc. — which indicate that a vehicle has begun movement and that the characteristic of its moving is that the vehicle is moving under its own power (i.e., in a driving state). Based upon determining that the vehicle is moving under its own power, it is determined that a trigger for a security action is met.); and
based on the characteristic of the movement, and location corresponding to an electronic fence, automatically engage the security action, wherein, responsive to the characteristic of the movement indicating the vehicle moving under its own power, the security action includes at least limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle (“[W]henever an electronic fence is set up, a circular boundary is obtained with the current location of the vehicle as the center and the length defined by the user as the radius. This boundary is the electronic fence. The positioning module built into the vehicle periodically uploads the vehicle's latitude and longitude information so that the backend can determine whether the vehicle has left or entered the circle. If the status of the vehicle leaving or entering the circle changes, the backend will notify the user through SMS, voice or push notification. In addition, the process of setting up an electronic fence can be initiated under user control or automatically each time a vehicle enters a parking state.” ¶ n0060. “If the backend determines that the vehicle is in a driving state by detecting the motor speed, vehicle speed, and latitude and longitude information in the vehicle status information without successful verification, it means that the electric vehicle has been stolen.” Emphasis added; ¶ n0063. “The alarm module 26 is used to control the vehicle to sound an alarm and send warning messages to users and supervisors after it is determined that the vehicle has been stolen.” ¶ n0095. “The vehicle loss reporting module 27 is used to send control information to disconnect the vehicle battery after receiving a vehicle loss reporting request.” ¶ n0096. Note: Upon determining that the characteristic of the movement indicates that the vehicle is moving under its own power, and that the location of the vehicle has left the electronic fence, the maximum speed of the vehicle is limited (essentially to zero) via disablement of its battery.).
Zhu fails to explicitly disclose: one or more processors enabled to control vehicle security for a vehicle during the course of transport from a production facility to a destination.
Nevertheless, Nilsson teaches: one or more processors enabled to control vehicle security for a vehicle during the course of transport to a destination (“The electronic control unit is configured to change an operating setting of a vehicle theft alarm system from a normal alarm mode to a transport alarm mode.” ¶ 40.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhu to include the feature of: one or more processors enabled to control vehicle security for a vehicle during the course of transport from a production facility to a destination, as taught by Nilsson, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing accidental activation of a vehicle theft alarm system during vehicle transport. (Nilsson, ¶ 97.) A skilled artisan would have recognized that incorporating Nilsson into Zhu would extend Zhu’s security monitoring to vehicle transport, thereby expanding Zhu’s applicability. As both references monitor vehicle speed and powertrain rotational state using conventional vehicle sensors (see above-cited portions of Zhu and Nilsson para. [0017]), the incorporation of Nilsson into Zhu would constitute a predictable application of known techniques to a known system.
Of note, while Nilsson does not explicitly teach transport from a production facility to a destination, the particular origin of the transport does not alter Nilsson’s determination or the security mode it engages. Hence, a skilled artisan would have recognized Nilsson’s teaching as applicable to transport of a vehicle from a production facility to a destination. Thus, the skilled artisan would have recognized that Nilsson yields one or processors being enabled to control vehicle security for a vehicle during a course of transport from a production facility to a destination.
The combination of Zhu and Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose:
performing the above security features in regard to a storage lot for which a lot security mode has been predesignated; and
performing a security action responsive to a vehicle, moving under its own power, being within at least a predefined threshold distance of a geofenced perimeter boundary of a storage lot.
Nevertheless, Novak teaches:
a storage lot for which a lot security mode has been predesignated (“Parking lot 130 is a location where it may be desired to protect cars from unauthorized egress. Substantially any location, such as a garage, a parking deck, a parking lot, a physical structure, a private property, a public property, or a combination thereof may [be] designated as a location where part or all of the systems and methods of the inventions may be utilized. The parking lot 130 may be surrounded by a perimeter fence 135 or other types of walls to prevent unauthorized removal of vehicles or other movables (items capable of being moved) from the premises.” ¶ 27.); and
performing a security action responsive to the vehicle being near a boundary of the storage lot (A vehicle may be disabled “upon such a movable coming near or crossing a boundary of a pre-defined location” - ¶ 34.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu and Nilsson to include the feature of: a storage lot for which a lot security mode has been predesignated; and performing a security action responsive to the vehicle being near a boundary of the storage lot, as taught by Novak, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “disallowing unauthorized egress of a movable from a location” in which a “[p]arking lot 130 is a location where it may be desired to protect cars from unauthorized egress.” (Novak, ¶¶ 25 and 27, respectively.) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Zhu’s location-based security to a designated lot because Zhu already establishes a boundary around a parked vehicle and engages a security action when the vehicle leaves it, and Novak teaches that a lot perimeter is a location where such protection is desired. Thus, applying, Zhu’s technique to Novak’s lot is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding the predictable result of preventing unauthorized egress from a lot.
The combination of Zhu, Nilsson and Novak fails to explicitly disclose: the security action includes at least limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle being within a predefined threshold distance of a geofenced perimeter boundary of the storage lot.
Nevertheless, Hille teaches: limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle being within a predefined threshold distance of a geofenced perimeter boundary (“The processor 22 is further configured to determine the distance (S) between the vehicle 18 and the border 16. If the distance (S) between the vehicle 18 and the border 16 is less than a predetermined value, the processor 22 sends a signal to the engine controller 26 that causes the vehicle 18 to decelerate at a rate so that the vehicle 18 will have a speed that is no more than the maximum allowable speed on the other side of the border, when the vehicle 18 reaches the border 16.” ¶ 47.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu, Nilsson and Novak to include the feature of: limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle responsive to the vehicle being within a predefined threshold distance of a geofenced perimeter boundary, as taught by Hille, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for decelerating a vehicle before it reaches a geofenced perimeter boundary. (See Hille, ¶ 47.) Furthermore, Novak identifies a shortcoming in boundary-based systems in which a thief removes a vehicle from a designated area by moving at high speed to escape the reach of the boundary signals before forward motion can be disabled (see ¶ 7). Against this backdrop, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Hille’s distance-based speed limiting would be useful in the context of Zhu-Nilsson-Novak as it reduces vehicle speed before a boundary is breached rather than after, thereby addressing the identified escaped-by-high-speed shortcoming which Novak identifies, and enhancing Zhu’s geofence-perimeter-based security control. Therefore, the incorporation of Hille constitutes a predictable application of a known technique to a known system.
As to claim 4, Zhu fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the characteristic indicates movement under carried-transportation without the vehicle being powered.
Nevertheless, Nilsson teaches: wherein the characteristic indicates movement under carried-transportation without the vehicle being powered (“The electronic control unit 3 is configured to register a GPS-based vehicle speed based on information from the vehicle GPS-receiver 4, and to change an operating setting of, or activate, the vehicle feature 2 when the GPS-based vehicle speed is more than zero km/h, specifically more than 3 km/h, and more specifically more than 6 km/h, while the vehicle 5 is parked.” ¶ 52. “[B]y detecting that the GPS-based vehicle speed is larger than a threshold value while the vehicle is parked, it is possible to easily and cost-effectively determine a vehicle transport state, i.e. a state in which the vehicle is passively transported between two geographical locations, without a driver or autonomous driving system actively driving the vehicle.” ¶ 12. “[T]he vehicle is parked when any of the following conditions are fulfilled: … a vehicle propulsion source, such as an internal combustion engine or electrical propulsion system, is shutdown.” ¶ 17.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhu to include the feature of: wherein the characteristic indicates movement under carried-transportation without the vehicle being powered, as taught by Nilsson, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing accidental activation of a vehicle theft alarm system during vehicle transport. (Nilsson, ¶ 97.) A skilled artisan would have recognized that incorporating Nilsson into Zhu would extend Zhu’s security monitoring to vehicle transport, thereby expanding Zhu’s applicability. As both references monitor vehicle speed and powertrain rotational state using conventional vehicle sensors (see above-cited portions of Zhu and Nilsson para. [0017]), the incorporation of Nilsson into Zhu would constitute a predictable application of known techniques to a known system.
The combination of Zhu and Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose: issuing an alert responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the storage lot at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point.
Nevertheless, Novak teaches: issuing an alert responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (“FIG. 2 shows inset 140 of FIG. 1 and shows an entrance/exit from a location in an embodiment of the invention. Wire 110 extends to the entrance, i.e. the space between the fences 120 or other area designated for a car or other movable to pass through. The wire 110 may also extend across the entrance to the protected location but is generally part of a portion of a wire extending only across the entrance so that transmission from this section of wire may be disabled, while still having the other sections of wire enabled.” See at least ¶ 30 and FIG. 2; see also ¶ 32 describing “upon detection of an entering vehicle, at least a portion of the signal being transmitted from the wire 110 is disabled in embodiments of the invention where the wire 110 passes across an entrance.” See also FIG. 3 and associated discussion which describes how a wire transmits a signal upon detecting unauthorized movement over the wire. Note: Accordingly, an alert may be issued responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (i.e., the entrance/exit point where a wire is disabled).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu and Nilsson to include the feature of: issuing an alert responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point, as taught by Novak, because this feature is useful for preventing false positives of engaging a security action when a vehicle is authorized move to and from a predesignated exit point. Furthermore, this feature is useful for “disallowing unauthorized egress of a movable from a location” in which a “[p]arking lot 130 is a location where it may be desired to protect cars from unauthorized egress.” (Novak, ¶¶ 25 and 27, respectively.) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Zhu’s location-based security to a designated lot because Zhu already establishes a boundary around a parked vehicle and engages a security action when the vehicle leaves it, and Novak teaches that a lot perimeter is a location where such protection is desired. Thus, applying, Zhu’s technique to Novak’s lot is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding the predictable result of preventing unauthorized egress from a lot.
As to claim 5, the combination of Zhu and Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the boundary associated with the storage lot is further defined with respect to one or more points along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point.
Nevertheless, Novak teaches: wherein a boundary associated with a storage lot is defined with respect to one or more points along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (“FIG. 2 shows inset 140 of FIG. 1 and shows an entrance/exit from a location in an embodiment of the invention. Wire 110 extends to the entrance, i.e. the space between the fences 120 or other area designated for a car or other movable to pass through. The wire 110 may also extend across the entrance to the protected location but is generally part of a portion of a wire extending only across the entrance so that transmission from this section of wire may be disabled, while still having the other sections of wire enabled.” See at least ¶ 30 and FIG. 2; see also ¶ 32 describing “upon detection of an entering vehicle, at least a portion of the signal being transmitted from the wire 110 is disabled in embodiments of the invention where the wire 110 passes across an entrance.” See also FIG. 3 and associated discussion which describes how a wire transmits a signal upon detecting unauthorized movement over the wire. Note: Accordingly, an alert may be issued responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (i.e., the entrance/exit point where a wire is disabled).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu and Nilsson to include the feature of: issuing an alert responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point, as taught by Novak, because this feature is useful for preventing false positives of engaging a security action when a vehicle is authorized move to and from a predesignated exit point. Furthermore, this feature is useful for “disallowing unauthorized egress of a movable from a location” in which a “[p]arking lot 130 is a location where it may be desired to protect cars from unauthorized egress.” (Novak, ¶¶ 25 and 27, respectively.) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Zhu’s location-based security to a designated lot because Zhu already establishes a boundary around a parked vehicle and engages a security action when the vehicle leaves it, and Novak teaches that a lot perimeter is a location where such protection is desired. Thus, applying, Zhu’s technique to Novak’s lot is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding the predictable result of preventing unauthorized egress from a lot.
The combination of Mahvi, Nilsson and Novak fails to explicitly disclose: defining the predefined distance of the boundary in respect to the claimed one or more points.
Nevertheless, Hille teaches: defining a predefined distance of a boundary in respect to one or more points along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (“The processor 22 is further configured to determine the distance (S) between the vehicle 18 and the border 16. If the distance (S) between the vehicle 18 and the border 16 is less than a predetermined value, the processor 22 sends a signal to the engine controller 26 that causes the vehicle 18 to decelerate at a rate so that the vehicle 18 will have a speed that is no more than the maximum allowable speed on the other side of the border, when the vehicle 18 reaches the border 16.” ¶ 47. Note: The boundary of the disclosed geofence is necessarily defined by a plurality of points, wherein the points are not designated as predesignated exit points.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu, Nilsson and Novak to include the feature of: defining a predefined distance of a boundary in respect to one or more points along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point, as taught by Hille, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for decelerating a vehicle before it reaches a geofenced perimeter boundary. (See Hille, ¶ 47.) Furthermore, Novak identifies a shortcoming in boundary-based systems in which a thief removes a vehicle from a designated area by moving at high speed to escape the reach of the boundary signals before forward motion can be disabled (see ¶ 7). Against this backdrop, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Hille’s distance-based speed limiting would be useful in the context of Zhu-Nilsson-Novak as it reduces vehicle speed before a boundary is breached rather than after, thereby addressing the identified escaped-by-high-speed shortcoming which Novak identifies, and enhancing Zhu’s geofence-perimeter-based security control. Therefore, the incorporation of Hille constitutes a predictable application of a known technique to a known system.
As to claim 6, the combination of Mahvi, Nilsson and Novak fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the maximum speed is limited inverse to proximity to the boundary, such that the maximum speed decreases as proximity to the boundary at the point along the boundary increases.
Nevertheless, Hille teaches: wherein the maximum speed is limited inverse to proximity to the boundary, such that the maximum speed decreases as proximity to the boundary at the point along the boundary increases (“FIGS. 6a and 6b represent changes in speed by distance for various vehicle approaches to a border 18. The vehicle deceleration rate can be calculated as a change in speed over a determined time dv/dt, or preferably can be a change in velocity over distance dv/ds. Optionally, the vehicle 18 deceleration rate is dv/ds, where S is the distance between the vehicle and the border. It is understood that the processor 22 can be calculated in real time combinations of the distance S along the vehicle travel path at particular differences in vehicle speed compared to a formulaic combination of proper deceleration rates.” Emphasis added; ¶ 57. See also FIGS. 6a, 6b. Note: Maximum speed is decreased as a function of a change in velocity over distance; i.e., as distance decreases, permitted velocity decreases.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu, Nilsson and Novak to include the feature of: wherein the maximum speed is limited inverse to proximity to the boundary, such that the maximum speed decreases as proximity to the boundary at the point along the boundary increases, as taught by Hille, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for decelerating a vehicle before it reaches a geofenced perimeter boundary. (See Hille, ¶ 47.) Furthermore, Novak identifies a shortcoming in boundary-based systems in which a thief removes a vehicle from a designated area by moving at high speed to escape the reach of the boundary signals before forward motion can be disabled (see ¶ 7). Against this backdrop, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Hille’s distance-based speed limiting would be useful in the context of Zhu-Nilsson-Novak as it reduces vehicle speed before a boundary is breached rather than after, thereby addressing the identified escaped-by-high-speed shortcoming which Novak identifies, and enhancing Zhu’s geofence-perimeter-based security control. Therefore, the incorporation of Hille constitutes a predictable application of a known technique to a known system.
As to claim 7, Zhu discloses: wherein the maximum speed is limited and the vehicle is automatically stopped from movement if the vehicle breaches the boundary at a point along the boundary (“[W]henever an electronic fence is set up, a circular boundary is obtained with the current location of the vehicle as the center and the length defined by the user as the radius. This boundary is the electronic fence. The positioning module built into the vehicle periodically uploads the vehicle's latitude and longitude information so that the backend can determine whether the vehicle has left or entered the circle. If the status of the vehicle leaving or entering the circle changes, the backend will notify the user through SMS, voice or push notification. In addition, the process of setting up an electronic fence can be initiated under user control or automatically each time a vehicle enters a parking state.” ¶ n0060. “If the backend determines that the vehicle is in a driving state by detecting the motor speed, vehicle speed, and latitude and longitude information in the vehicle status information without successful verification, it means that the electric vehicle has been stolen.” Emphasis added; ¶ n0063. “The alarm module 26 is used to control the vehicle to sound an alarm and send warning messages to users and supervisors after it is determined that the vehicle has been stolen.” ¶ n0095. “The vehicle loss reporting module 27 is used to send control information to disconnect the vehicle battery after receiving a vehicle loss reporting request.” ¶ n0096. Note: Upon determining that the characteristic of the movement indicates that the vehicle is moving under its own power, and that the location of the vehicle has left the electronic fence, the maximum speed of the vehicle is limited (essentially to zero) via disablement of its battery.).
The combination of Zhu and Nilsson fails to explicitly disclose: performing the above along the boundary other than the predesignated exit point.
Nevertheless, Novak teaches: wherein a security action is performed as the vehicle approaches a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at appoint along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (“FIG. 2 shows inset 140 of FIG. 1 and shows an entrance/exit from a location in an embodiment of the invention. Wire 110 extends to the entrance, i.e. the space between the fences 120 or other area designated for a car or other movable to pass through. The wire 110 may also extend across the entrance to the protected location but is generally part of a portion of a wire extending only across the entrance so that transmission from this section of wire may be disabled, while still having the other sections of wire enabled.” See at least ¶ 30 and FIG. 2; see also ¶ 32 describing “upon detection of an entering vehicle, at least a portion of the signal being transmitted from the wire 110 is disabled in embodiments of the invention where the wire 110 passes across an entrance.” See also FIG. 3 and associated discussion which describes how a wire transmits a signal upon detecting unauthorized movement over the wire. Note: Accordingly, an alert may be issued responsive to the vehicle exiting a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at a point along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point (i.e., the entrance/exit point where a wire is disabled).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu and Nilsson to include the feature of: wherein a security action is performed as the vehicle approaches a boundary associated with the location predefined for engagement of the security mode at appoint along the boundary other than a predesignated exit point, as taught by Novak, because this feature is useful for preventing false positives of engaging a security action when a vehicle is authorized move to and from a predesignated exit point. Furthermore, this feature is useful for “disallowing unauthorized egress of a movable from a location” in which a “[p]arking lot 130 is a location where it may be desired to protect cars from unauthorized egress.” (Novak, ¶¶ 25 and 27, respectively.) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Zhu’s location-based security to a designated lot because Zhu already establishes a boundary around a parked vehicle and engages a security action when the vehicle leaves it, and Novak teaches that a lot perimeter is a location where such protection is desired. Thus, applying, Zhu’s technique to Novak’s lot is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding the predictable result of preventing unauthorized egress from a lot.
The combination of Zhu, Nilsson and Novak fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the maximum speed is set to zero and the vehicle is automatically stopped from movement if the vehicle breaches the boundary.
Nevertheless, Hille teaches: wherein the maximum speed is set to zero and the vehicle is automatically stopped from movement if the vehicle breaches the boundary (“The processor 22 is further configured to determine the distance (S) between the vehicle 18 and the border 16. If the distance (S) between the vehicle 18 and the border 16 is less than a predetermined value, the processor 22 sends a signal to the engine controller 26 that causes the vehicle 18 to decelerate at a rate so that the vehicle 18 will have a speed that is no more than the maximum allowable speed on the other side of the border, when the vehicle 18 reaches the border 16. In this regard, the vehicle 18 is decelerated so that the vehicle 18 will have the maximum allowable speed when the vehicle reaches the border. It should be understood the maximum speed can be zero to prevent movement of the vehicle (inside or outside) of the border 16.” Emphasis added; ¶ 47.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu, Nilsson and Novak to include the feature of: wherein the maximum speed is set to zero and the vehicle is automatically stopped from movement if the vehicle breaches the boundary, as taught by Hille, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for decelerating a vehicle before it reaches a geofenced perimeter boundary. (See Hille, ¶ 47.) Furthermore, Novak identifies a shortcoming in boundary-based systems in which a thief removes a vehicle from a designated area by moving at high speed to escape the reach of the boundary signals before forward motion can be disabled (see ¶ 7). Against this backdrop, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Hille’s distance-based speed limiting would be useful in the context of Zhu-Nilsson-Novak as it reduces vehicle speed before a boundary is breached rather than after, thereby addressing the identified escaped-by-high-speed shortcoming which Novak identifies, and enhancing Zhu’s geofence-perimeter-based security control. Therefore, the incorporation of Hille constitutes a predictable application of a known technique to a known system.
Claim 3 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Nilsson, in view of Novak and in view of Hille as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Chinigo (US20070040672A1; “Chinigo”)
As to claim 3, Zhu discloses: wherein the characteristic indicates movement under the vehicle’s own power (Provided is “a driving judgment module, used to determine whether the vehicle is in a driving state based on the motor speed information and vehicle speed information in the status information, as well as whether the real-time location determined by the latitude and longitude information has changed; if so, it is determined that the vehicle has been stolen.” ¶ n0026. “If the backend determines that the vehicle is in a driving state by detecting the motor speed, vehicle speed, and latitude and longitude information in the vehicle status information without successful verification, it means that the electric vehicle has been stolen.” Emphasis added; ¶ n0063. “The alarm module 26 is used to control the vehicle to sound an alarm and send warning messages to users and supervisors after it is determined that the vehicle has been stolen.” ¶ n0095. “The vehicle loss reporting module 27 is used to send control information to disconnect the vehicle battery after receiving a vehicle loss reporting request.” ¶ n0096. Note: Summarizing, one more sensors of a vehicle provide information — e.g., motor speed, vehicle speed, etc. — which indicate that a vehicle has begun movement and that the characteristic of its moving is that the vehicle is moving under its own power (i.e., in a driving state). Based upon determining that the vehicle is moving under its own power, it is determined that a trigger for a security action is met.).
The combination of Zhu, Nilsson, Novak and Hille fails to explicitly disclose: the security action includes recording an interior of the vehicle with a camera of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Chinigo teaches: a security action includes recording an interior of the vehicle with a camera of the vehicle (“Infrared or "night vision" cameras are placed at pre-determined locations within the vehicle, such as doorways, cargo hold, engine compartment, operators station i.e. cockpit/bridge/dashboard etc.” ¶ 8. “If the security system is breached, or the vehicle starts in motion, or motion is detected inside the vehicle when it is supposed to be at rest, the microprocessor 33 initiates a transmission to the central station to give warning of the undesirable condition, as well as, to activate cameras, initiate recording of these events, and to provide an indication of location by means of the GPS.” Emphases added; ¶ 94.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu, Nilsson, Novak and Hille to include the feature of: a security action includes recording an interior of the vehicle with a camera of the vehicle, as taught by Chinigo, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for enhancing security and preventing vehicle theft.
Claim 8 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Nilsson, in view of Novak and in view of Hille as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Tam (US20230139933A1; “Tam”)
As to claim 8, the combination of Zhu, Nilsson, Novak and Hille fails to explicitly disclose:
determine that a current time of day corresponds to a locked or unlocked vehicle access state, designated by the transportation security mode for the current time of day; and
autonomously maintain a lock state of the vehicle to the locked or unlocked access state based on the designation and the current time of day.
Nevertheless, Tam teaches: determine that a current time of day corresponds to a locked or unlocked vehicle access state, designated by the transportation security mode for the current time of day; and autonomously maintain a lock state of the vehicle to the locked or unlocked access state based on the designation and the current time of day (“In general, system 300 may be configured to determine whether one or more criteria 312 apply to the autonomous vehicle 702, and in response to determining that the one or more criteria 312 applies to the autonomous vehicle 702, grant remote access 320 to the autonomous vehicle 702. The one or more criteria 312 may include at least one of a geofence area 314, a particular time window 316.” Emphasis added; ¶ 177. “The remote access 320 may be defined to allow operating one or more particular components of the autonomous vehicle 702, such as operating side windows, doors, door locks, headlights, rear view mirrors, a radio device, etc.” Emphasis added; ¶ 189. “[T]he particular time window 316 may include a particular time period during a day.” ¶ 195.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhu, Nilsson, Novak and Hille to include the features of: determine that a current time of day corresponds to a locked or unlocked vehicle access state, designated by the transportation security mode for the current time of day; and autonomously maintain a lock state of the vehicle to the locked or unlocked access state based on the designation and the current time of day, as taught by Tam, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for enhancing vehicle safety and preventing vehicle theft in consideration of the time of day. Hence, a skilled artisan would have found these features applicable to the combination of Zhu, Nilsson, Novak and Hille given Zhu’s locking of a vehicle to prevent theft (see para. [n0035]) and Novak’s identification that egress is typically forbidden from a lot during late hours of the night (see para. [0047]).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights