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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15, recite, “in response to……that a person associated with the device is approaching or inside the vehicle, pairing the device with the vehicle, without using an identity of the person.”
The applicant argues that para. [0059] of the SPEC disclosing the determination of the association of Person 106 and Device 108 using the locations, as support for “without using an identity of the person”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the examiner submits that para. [0059] of the SPEC discloses: ” For example, the data in the identity of person 106 may include details of device 108 (e.g., MAC ID, etc.), and the data in the details of the device may include the identity of person 106.” The examiner submits that MAC ID (media access control ID) of Device 108 is known to be used for pairing the device. Additionally, para. [0035] of the SPEC discloses: “Thus, appearances of the phrases "example embodiments", "in some embodiments", "in other embodiments," or other similar language, throughout this specification do not necessarily all refer to the same group of embodiments, and the described features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments.”
Thus, the examiner submits that “pairing the device with the vehicle, without using an identity of the person” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierfelice et al. (US. Pub. No. 2015/0093993 A1; hereinafter “Pierfelice”) in view of Scott et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0284098 A1; hereinafter “Scott”) and Chmeiseh et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0252410 A; hereinafter “CHMEISEH”)
Regarding claim 1, Pierfelice teaches a method (see Pierfelice, fig. 5), comprising:
in response to detecting that a device associated with a vehicle is in proximity (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 510, para. [0078]) and a person associated with the device is in proximity (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 504, para. [0075]), pairing the device with the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 518, para. [0079]).
Pierfelice is silent to teaching that detecting proximity comprising detecting approaching or inside the vehicle; and pairing the device without using an identity of the person.
In the same field of endeavor, Scott teaching a method wherein detecting proximity comprising detecting approaching or inside the vehicle (See Scott, fig. 8, person 16-1, mobile 16-2; fig. 9, zone, para. [0019,41-42]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice with the teaching of Scott in order to improve antenna performance and vehicle security (see Scott, para. [0002-3]).
The combination of Pierfelice and Scott is silent to teaching that wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person.
In the same field of endeavor, CHMEISEH teaches a method wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person (see CHMEISEH, fig. 3, 6, para. [0045,66-67], pairing via QR code without passenger entering code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice and Scott with the teaching of CHMEISEH in order to provide secure pairings and maintain passenger privacy (see CHMEISEH, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the person is approaching the vehicle or is in the vehicle comprises:
analyzing data from a sensor of the vehicle, wherein the data comprises information about an area inside and outside the vehicle (see Pierfelice, para. [0067,72-73], Scott, fig. 8,9).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH teaches the method of claim 1, comprising
in response to detecting that an other device is not proximate to the vehicle but is within pairing distance of the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 1, devices 162,172,182, outside, not inside, para. [0029]) and that the other person associated with the other device is not in the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 1, persons 160,170,182, outside),not pairing the other device with the vehicle (see Pierfelice, para. [0077], ignoring).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
detecting that a plurality of devices associated with the vehicle are approaching or inside the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 1, 162,172,182, para. [0029]); and
pairing with a device from the plurality of devices that is associated with a person closet to a driver's seat of the vehicle (see Pierfelice, para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH teaches the method of claim 1, comprises:
in response to the detecting that the person is approaching the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 502,504), reserving the device for pairing (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 508,510, para. [0077], ignoring not associated devices).
Regarding claim 8, Pierfelice teaches a system, comprising:
a processor that executes instructions stored in (see Pierfelice, para. [0054]) a memory (see Pierfelice, para. [0054]) to configured the processor to:
in response to is being detected that a device associated with a vehicle is in proximity (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 510, para. [0078]) and a person associated with the device is in proximity (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 504, para. [0075]), pair the device with the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 518, para. [0079]).
Pierfelice is silent to teaching that detecting proximity comprising detecting approaching or inside the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Scott teaching a device wherein detecting proximity comprising detecting approaching or inside the vehicle (See Scott, fig. 8, person 16-1, mobile 16-2; fig. 9, zone, para. [0019,41-42]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice with the teaching of Scott in order to improve antenna performance and vehicle security (see Scott, para. [0002-3]).
The combination of Pierfelice and Scott is silent to teaching that wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person.
In the same field of endeavor, CHMEISEH teaches a system wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person (see CHMEISEH, fig. 3, 6, para. [0045,66-67], pairing via QR code without passenger entering code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice and Scott with the teaching of CHMEISEH in order to provide secure pairings and maintain passenger privacy (see CHMEISEH, para. [0008]).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 13, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 2-4, and 6, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, Pierfelice teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor (see Pierfelice, para. [0054]), cause the processor to perform:
in response to detecting that a device associated with a vehicle is in proximity (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 510, para. [0078]) and a person associated with the device is in proximity (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 504, para. [0075]), pairing the device with the vehicle (see Pierfelice, fig. 5, 518, para. [0079]).
Pierfelice is silent to teaching that detecting proximity comprising detecting approaching or inside the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Scott teaching a device wherein detecting proximity comprising detecting approaching or inside the vehicle (See Scott, fig. 8, person 16-1, mobile 16-2; fig. 9, zone, para. [0019,41-42]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice with the teaching of Scott in order to improve antenna performance and vehicle security (see Scott, para. [0002-3]).
The combination of Pierfelice and Scott is silent to teaching that wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person.
In the same field of endeavor, CHMEISEH teaches a device wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person (see CHMEISEH, fig. 3, 6, para. [0045,66-67], pairing via QR code without passenger entering code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice and Scott with the teaching of CHMEISEH in order to provide secure pairings and maintain passenger privacy (see CHMEISEH, para. [0008]).
Regarding claims 16-18, and 20, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 2-4, and 6, respectively.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Nishidai et al. (US. Pub. No. 2017/0251335 A1; hereinafter “Nishidai”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH is silent to teaching that comprising:
in response to detecting that the person associated with the device is no longer in or approaching the vehicle, and that the device associated with the person remains in the vehicle, unpairing the device.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishidai teaches a method comprising
in response to detecting that the person associated with the device is no longer in or approaching the vehicle (see Nishidai, fig. 10, para. [0068], key 2 is outside), and that the device associated with the person remains in the vehicle (see Nishidai, fig. 10, smartphone 3), unpairing the device (see Nishidai, fig. 10, para. [0068], cancel pair).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH with the teaching of Nishidai in order to provide convenient settings and connections between wireless devices and vehicles (see Nishidai, para. [0004]).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Seymour et al. (US. Pub. No. 2014/0018000 A1; hereinafter “Seymour”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH is silent to teaching that comprising:
detecting that an other device associated with the vehicle is approaching or inside the vehicle;
detecting that the other device is associated with the person;
determining a higher priority; and
pairing with whichever of the device or the other device has a higher priority.
Seymour teaches a method comprising
detecting that an other device associated with the vehicle is approaching or inside the vehicle (see Seymour, fig. 4, 410, para. [0021-22]);
detecting that the other device is associated with the person (see Seymour, fig. 4, 422, para. [0024]);
determining a higher priority (see Seymour, fig. 4, 430, para. [0025]); and
pairing with whichever of the device or the other device has a higher priority (see Seymour, fig. 4, 432, para. [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Pierfelice, Scott and CHMEISEH with the teaching of Seymour in order to provide convenient selection and connection for wireless devices in vehicles (see Seymour, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection, the applicant argues that the teaching of the association determination between the device and the person by either identity or distance provides support for limitation of “pairing the device with the vehicle without using the identity of the person”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the examiner submits that the data in the identity of person 106 may include details of device 108 (e.g., MAC ID, etc.). It is well known that pairing two devices using MAC ID of those devices.
Regarding the 103 rejection of the claim 1, the applicant argues that CHMEISEH is silent to teaching “pairing without using the identity of the person”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, CHMEISEH teaches a method wherein pairing the device without using an identity of the person (see CHMEISEH, fig. 3, 6, para. [0045,66-67], pairing via QR code without passenger entering code). Here, the examiner submits that QR code is not the identity of the person.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner submits that key 2 is outside reads on the teaching of detecting that the person associated with the device is no longer in or approaching the vehicle, because the key is carried by the person.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights