DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered. No claims are amended. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-3, 9-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landes (6,060,981), and further in view of Gormley (US 5,513,107).
Regarding claim 1, Landes discloses a vehicle, comprising a plurality of ground engagement members;
a frame supported by the plurality of ground engagement members (inherent, vehicles come with tires, col. 1, lines 17-28);
a power system supported by the frame and operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of ground engagement members to power movement of the vehicle (via vehicle engine, col. 1, lines 17-28);
a controller operatively coupled to the power system to control an operation of the power system (via ECM 40 control fuel flow to the engine, col. 5, lines 54-61);
at least one user input device operatively coupled to the controller (security code input device 36, col. 5, lines 54-61); and
at least one user output device operatively coupled to the controller (via display means located in the operator compartment, col. 8, line 60-66);
wherein the controller includes a vehicle security module (security code input device 36, col. 8, lines 13-26), during a current start-up of the power system the operation of the power system being in a limited state until a valid security code is provided to the controller through the at least one user input (via vehicle in secure idle mode until valid security code inputted, col. 8, lines 34-50).
Landes discloses the vehicle security module having a secure once mode of operation, the reception of the valid security code in the secure once mode of operation disables the vehicle security module for the current start-up and all subsequent start-ups of the power system and permits the operation of the power system in a normal operating state (via vehicle enabled to operate normally upon valid security code entered, col. 8, lines 42-50).
But Landes fails to further disclose a secure all mode of operation and the reception of the valid security code in the secure all mode of operation disables the vehicle security module for only the current start-up and permits the operation of the power system in the normal operating state.
Gormley teaches a vehicle security system with a secure all mode of operation and the reception of the valid security code in the secure all mode of operation disables the vehicle security module for only the current start-up and permits the operation of the power system in the normal operating state (via entry of security code representing restricted mode of operation, wherein the vehicle operates normally for a period of time, col. 2, lines 30-52).
From the teachings of Gormley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vehicle of Landes to include disclose a secure all mode of operation and the reception of the valid security code in the secure all mode of operation disables the vehicle security module for only the current start-up and permits the operation of the power system in the normal operating state as taught by Gormley to temporarily enable normal operation of a vehicle, thereby preventing the vehicle from being used by thieves once the vehicle is disabled.
Regarding claim 2, Landes discloses wherein the limited state prevents a powered movement of the vehicle through the operation of the power system (via unauthorized use detected while in secured idle mode, vehicle engine shuts down, Col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 12).
Regarding claim 3, Landes discloses the limited state is an idle state (via secure idle mode, Col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 12).
Regarding claim 9, Gormley discloses the at least one input device includes a plurality of buttons associated with an instrument cluster (via vehicle interface 108, col. 4, lines 28-36), the at least one output device includes a display associated with the instrument cluster (display 110), and the security code is a numeric code which is input through the plurality of buttons (col. 6, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 10, Gormley discloses the valid security code is one of a plurality of possible security codes each of the possible security codes having a preset configuration for the operation of the vehicle (via control and configuration of the vehicle can be based on individual recognized operators of the vehicle, col. 2, lines 9-22 and col. 6, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 11, Gormley discloses the valid security code corresponds to a first possible security code the controller configures the vehicle in a novice mode of operation (via restricted vehicle operating mode for valets, col. 7, lines 9-22).
Regarding claim 12, Gormley discloses the valid security code corresponds to a second possible security code the controller configures the vehicle in an expert mode of operation (via vehicle selected to provide sport performance, col. 2, lines 9-22 and col. 6, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 13, Gormley discloses when the valid security code corresponds to a third possible security code the controller configures the vehicle in a cruise mode of operation (via vehicle selected to provide cruise performance, col. 2, lines 9-22 and col. 6, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 14, Gormley discloses when the valid security code corresponds to a fourth possible security code the controller configures the vehicle in a normal mode of operation (via vehicle selected to provide luxury performance, col. 2, lines 9-22 and col. 6, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 15, Gormley discloses the controller further includes a playback module which records ride information associated with the vehicle (via vehicle controller 102 able to monitor various operating characteristics of the operating subsystems for playback, col. 8, lines 17-28).
Claim 4-6, 17, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landes in view of Gormley, and further in view of Brace (US 4696148).
Regarding claim 4, Landes discloses the power system includes a transmission (col. 6, lines 56-58) and a prime mover (vehicle engine) and the limited state allows the prime mover to operate at a level below an engagement speed of the transmission (via secure idle mode, Col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 12).
But the combination of Landes and Gormley fails to specifically disclose the transmission is a continuous variable transmission (CVT).
Brace teaches CVT provides better fuel economy, is lighter and has lower manufacturing cost than the standard three speed automobile transmission. (col. 1, lines 21-30)
From the teachings of Brace, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Landes and Gormley to include the transmission is CVT as taught by Brace to lower costs and improve efficiency of vehicles.
Regarding claim 5, Gormley teaches the engine is an internal combustion engine (col. 3, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 6, Landes discloses the vehicle security module shuts off the power system during the current start-up after a predetermined time period if the valid security code has not been provided (via idle/shutldown timer expires, engines shuts down, col. 4, lines 38-43).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, claims 17 and 19 are equivalent to the combination of claims 1, 4 above; therefore, claims 17 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons above
Claim 7-8, 18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landes in view of Gormley and Brace, and further in view of Hapka (US 5070832).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Landes, Brace and Gormley discloses the prime mover is an internal combustion engine (see Gormley, col. 3, lines 7-10) and the vehicle security module shuts off the power system during the current start-up after a predetermined time period if the valid security code has not been provided (via idle/shutldown timer expires, engines shuts down, Landes, col. 4, lines 38-43).
But the combination fails to specifically disclose a temperature sensor monitoring a temperature associated with the prime mover, and if the monitored temperature associated with the prime mover is above a threshold temperature the vehicle security module shuts off the power system.
Hapka teaches an engine protection system utilizing a temperature sensor to monitor a temperature associated with a vehicle engine. When the temperature associated with the engine is sensed to be above a certain threshold, the vehicle engine power is decreased. Hapka further teaches the engine may be completely shut down to protect the engine, but with the obvious disadvantage of reduced driver’s ability to control the vehicle. (See col. 1, lines 34-40 and col. 8, lines 28-43)
From the teachings of Hapka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Landes, Brace and Gormley to include a temperature sensor monitoring a temperature associated with the prime mover, and if the monitored temperature associated with the prime mover is above a threshold temperature the vehicle security module shuts off the power system as taught by Hapka to prevent damage to an engine, with the obvious disadvantage of reduced drivability of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Hapka teaches the internal combustion engine is a liquid cooled engine and the temperature sensor monitors a temperature of a liquid of the liquid cooled engine (via engine coolant level and temperature, Abstract).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, claims 18 and 20 are equivalent to the combination of claims 1, 4, 7 above; therefore, claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landes in view of Gormley, and further in view of Obradovich (US 6275231).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Landes and Gormley fails to specifically disclose the ride information includes vehicle speed and navigation data stored in a memory accessible by the controller.
Obradovich teaches a vehicle system may store ride information that includes vehicle speed and navigation data for later use (col. 22, lines 51-57).
From the teachings of Obradovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Landes, Gormley, and Obradovich to include the ride information includes vehicle speed and navigation data stored in a memory accessible by the controller as taught by Obradovich to record vehicle ride information for later reference, thereby providing information about the vehicle when necessary.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landes in view of Gormley, Brace, and further in view of Flick (US 2005/0190080).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Landes, Gormley, and Brace fails to specifically disclose the steps of: recording ride data during the operation of the vehicle; transferring information to a website, the information including the ride data and navigation data; and marking the ride data for sharing with others through the web site.
Flick teaches a vehicle tracking unit that records ride data during the operation of the vehicle (vehicle tracking unit, Para. 11 and Figs. 1-2); transferring information to a website, the information including the ride data and navigation data (vehicle location information from GPS sent to website, Para. 152, 159); and marking the ride data for sharing with others through the web site (via vehicle information on website given to police, Para. 197).
From the teachings of Flick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Landes, Gormley, and Brace to include the steps of: recording ride data during the operation of the vehicle; transferring information to a website, the information including the ride data and navigation data; and marking the ride data for sharing with others through the web site as taught by Flick to allow tracking of the vehicle, thereby making vehicle retrievable in case of theft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8, 2nd to 3rd paragraphs that Landes and Gormley does not teach operation of the vehicle is limited during a current “start-up of the power system”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Landes clearly teaches the operation of the vehicle is limited as the vehicle is limited to operating in an idle mode until a valid security code is inputted (see col. 8, lines 34-50).
Applicant next argues on page 8, 5th paragraph that Landes does not teach reception of a valid security code in a “secure once” mode disables the vehicle security module for the current start-up and all subsequent start-ups of the power system as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Landes clearly teaches disabling the vehicle security module for the current start-up and all subsequent start-ups of the power system as claimed via calling routine as shown in Fig. 2 (via step 62, control loop 52 will return to its calling routine to check if valid security code is entered and accepted 58 to allow normal start and stop of subsequent engine operations; see Fig. 2 and col. 8, lines 54-55).
Applicant next argues Gormley does not disclose or suggest the use of two different modes of use of security codes. The claimed invention is rejected based on the teachings of Landes and Gormley. Not Gormley alone. Landes teaches enabling of one mode through input of a code and Gormley teaches enabling of a different mode through input of a code (col. 2, lines 30-52), the teachings combined renders the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689