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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 24 May 2026.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 16, 21, 24-26, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 36-38 have been added.
The 112b rejection of Claims 21, 24-26 and the objection to the drawings and claims as indicated in the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 16-18, 20-30, 32-35 are pending. Claims 16 and 30 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/26 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 4/24/26 has been entered and accepted.
The amendment to the abstract filed on 4/24/26 has been entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure, filed 4/24/26 remains objected because the abstract involves language that is not in narrative form since its written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; but not written like a claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 4/24/26 have been entered and accepted.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 38 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 36 is 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 36 recites the subject matter/limitation “inhibiting generation of the polling signal in dependence on a determination that the vehicle reference velocity is greater than or equal to the first velocity threshold”. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. Applicant’s specification does not state the generation of the polling signal is inhibit when it determined that the vehicle reference velocity is greater than or equal to the first velocity threshold. On other hand, pg 4, ll. 31-32 of Applicant’s specification states that the transmission of the polling signal may be inhibited when the vehicle reference velocity increases above the first velocity threshold. pg 4, ll. 31-32 of Applicant’s specification does not state the inhibiting occurs when the vehicle reference velocity equals the first velocity threshold. Thus, the transmission (e.g. the generation of the transmission) of the polling signal is inhibited when the vehicle reference velocity increases above the first velocity threshold. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 36 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in pg 4, ll. 31-32.
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation as “…inhibiting generation of the polling signal in dependence on a determination that the vehicle reference velocity is greater than the first velocity threshold”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 16, 20, 22-27, 29-30, 34-35 remain and 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath (US20180218552, 2018)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/24/23) in further view of Saiki et al (US 20190147678, 2019)
As per independent claim 16, Helligrath discloses a system for controlling at least one handle deployment mechanism associated with an aperture closure member of a vehicle; the system comprising: (0019; 0038-0040: deploying handle of a door on a vehicle)
a transceiver for communicating with at least one device; (0017, 0019: sensor system that transmits/receive signals to/from a fob)
a control unit comprising one or more controller configured to: (0017, 0019)
identify one of the at least one device which is an authorized device; (0014: discloses the fob or the like is used to perform vehicular operations such as a door handle deploying(0041) 0005 discloses authenticating a transmission of the key fob resulting in a vehicular operation being performed once authenticated. 0045 states “the proximity and relative positioning of the fob 16 promote convenient and safe access of an authorized or verified user with the ability to operate the vehicle 10”. 0043: discloses that a transmission, such as an access code, of the fob 16 is authentic. Thus, since the transmission needs to be authentic first for a vehicular operation to be performed, then an authentic fob used to operate the vehicle functions is indeed an authorized device)
determine a location of the authorized device in relation to the vehicle; (0019, 0021, 0041-0042: determine if the fob is in the specific communication zone of a specific door handle)
compare the determined location of the or each authorized device to one or more target zones; and (0019, 0021, 0041-0042: determine if the fob is in the specific communication zone of a specific door handle)
actuate the at least one handle deployment mechanism for deployment of a handle in dependence on a determination that the or each authorized device is located within the one or more of the target zones. (0041, 0042: deploy the handle)
Furthermore, Helligrath discloses a vehicle includes detecting, with a position sensor, a key fob at a specified position relative to a door of the vehicle, communicating, via a processor, with the key fob, (0005) Furthermore, FIG 1 discloses signals and communication zones are transmitted/outputted by the vehicle. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that a form of controller produces the signals and/or communication signals. However, Helligrath fails to specifically disclose wherein identification of the authorized device comprises the one or more controllers generating a polling signal to initiate communication with one or more of the at least one device; wherein a transmission rate of the polling signal is increased in dependence on a determination that a vehicle reference velocity has decreased to less than a first velocity threshold”. However, Saiki et al discloses transmitting a polling signal from the vehicle to a mobile device, a form of communication with a device. (0085) 0032 discloses the mobile device acts like a key for the vehicle) 0085 discloses the authentication processing unit F4 transmits a polling signal which is within the vehicle itself. (0070 discloses unit F4 is within vehicle-side control unit 111 wherein FIG 2 discloses unit 111 is within ECU 110 wherein FIG 1 discloses ECU 110 is part of in-vehicle system which in-vehicle system 100 is part of the vehicle itself (FIG 1; 0043)). Furthermore, 0085 of Saiki clearly indicates that the polling signal (from F4/ECU) being initiated and/or periodically transmits (e.g. every 200ms) the signal when the vehicle is parked (not moving as explained in 0075 clearly indicating the vehicle’s turned off). Thus, when the vehicle is parked, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the vehicle’s velocity is zero. In addition, Saiki discloses transitioning from a non-parked state to a parked state such that communications are transmitted after identifying when a vehicle has transitioned from a non-parked to a parked state for transmission signal purposes. One of a skilled artisan would have realized when the vehicle is in a non-parked state (not parked) then its velocity would have been greater than zero since the vehicle would have been moving and not in park. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized when the vehicle goes to non-parking state to parking state, the velocity would have decreased to zero or extremely low between states. Thus, the transmission rate of the polling signal is not being transmitted when the vehicle is in a non-parked state since communications are not enabled; however, the transmission rate of the polling signal is functional when the vehicle is parked, a form of the transmission rate increasing from an inactive state to an active state. Therefore, in summary, the certification ECU (110) initiates or periodically transmits a polling signal to search for the mobile device (200) while the vehicle is parked (i.e., transitioning from a non-parked state to a parked state, meaning that the vehicle speed drops to zero or extremely low). Thus, Saiki discloses that the transmission of the polling signal is initiated and/or increased depending on the vehicle speed decreasing to a certain extent. Thus, Saiki clearly shows that the transmission rate of polling signal is increased in dependent on determining that the vehicle’s velocity is below a first velocity threshold (a velocity greater than zero)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Saiki et al since determining the velocity of the vehicle for door handle purposes would have provided the benefit of a vehicular electronic key system which is capable of restricting a reduction in user's convenience while restricting the possibility of unauthorized establishment of authentication in a wireless communication between an in-vehicle device and a mobile device.
As per dependent claim 20, Helligrath disclose wherein determining the location of the authorized device comprises receiving a response signal from the authorized device and processing the response signal to determine a location of the authorized device. (0013; 0019, 0021, 0041-0042, 0044: fob sends signals indicating its location)
As per dependent claims 22-23, Helligrath discloses the one or more controller is suitable for controlling a plurality of handle deployment mechanisms; the one or more controller being configured to compare the determined location of the authorized device to a plurality of the target zones, each target zone being associated with a respective one of the plurality of handle deployment mechanisms and identify which one of the plurality of target zones the authorized device is located within; and outputting the first actuation signal to the handle deployment mechanism associated with the identified target zone (Helligrath discloses the door has a handle (Abstract) wherein a vehicle has doors (0016) and multiple handles (0027). Since Helligrath discloses each door has a handle (Abstract) and a vehicle has multiple doors and handles then each door has a handle. (0016) Also, Helligrath discloses each handle has a contact sensor to sense a person reaching for the handle (0024, 0043) In addition, Helligrath discloses the position sensor detecting whether the fob 16 is within a specified communication zone Z relative to the handle 14 and the position sensor detecting whether or not the fob 16 is at a specified position relative to the vehicle 10 such as the handle 14 of the door. (0019) Thus, 0019 discloses a handle is associated with a specified communication zone wherein the position sensor detects of the fob is near the handle of a particular communication zone. Furthermore, Helligrath discloses that the specified communication zone(s) Z can be positional areas around various parts of the vehicle 10, such as at the entry/exit points defined at the doors. (0021) Thus, 0021 discloses each door associated with one of the communication zones.
Therefore, in summary, Helligrath discloses a vehicle having more than one door wherein each door has a handle having its own sensor. In addition, Helligrath discloses each door is associated with one of the communication zones wherein the handle of each door is associated with one of the communication zones. Thus, Helligrath discloses each door handle of the vehicle is associated with one of the communication zones. Thus, the position sensor in 0019 can detect 1) which handle of which door the fob is located near and 2) which communication zone the fob in. In response, Helligrath can deploy the appropriate door handle based on the detecting which handle the fob is near based on the communication zone the fob is in.)
As per dependent claim 24, Helligrath discloses the or each target zone is displaced from the associated aperture closure member in a direction of travel of the vehicle; or extends from the associated aperture closure member in a direction of travel of the vehicle (FIG 1, 0021-0022: Discloses that the zone, emitted from the door, includes being emitted from the car in a direction of travel of the vehicle. Shows it being extended/emitted to in front travel direction and back travel direction)
As per dependent claim 25, Helligrath discloses the one or more controller is configured to actuate the handle deployment mechanism to retract the handle in dependence on a determination that the at least one authorized device is located outside the or each target zone (0042: retracts after the fob leaves the zone)
As per dependent claim 26, Helligrath discloses the one or more controller is configured to actuate the handle deployment mechanism to retract the handle in dependence on a determination that the at least one authorized device is located outside the or each target zone for a predetermined time period (0042: retracts after certain amount of time passes even while in the zone)
As per dependent claim 27, Helligrath discloses the aperture closure member is a door for ingress to a cabin of the vehicle. (0016)
As per dependent claim 29, Claim 29 recites similar limitations as in Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per independent claims 30 and 35, Claims 30 and 35 recites similar limitations as in Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, One of a skilled artisan would have realize that instructions for instructing the deploying of a door handle would require pre-stored instructions being stored, such on a medium, and executed by the processor in order to perform these functions
As per dependent claim 34, Claim 34 recites similar limitations as in Claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 36, Claim 36 recites similar limitations as in Claim 16 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Helligrath fails to specifically disclose inhibiting generation of the polling signal in dependence on a determination that the vehicle reference velocity is greater than or equal to the first velocity threshold. However, based on the rejection of claim 16 and the rationale incorporated, Saiki discloses inhibiting generation of the polling signal in dependence on a determination that the vehicle reference velocity is greater than or equal to the first velocity threshold. Saiki et al discloses transmitting a polling signal from the vehicle to a mobile device, a form of initiating communication with a device. (0085) 0032 discloses the mobile device acts like a key for the vehicle) 0085 discloses the authentication processing unit F4 transmits a polling signal which is within the vehicle itself. (0070 discloses unit F4 is within vehicle-side control unit 111 wherein FIG 2 discloses unit 111 is within ECU 110 wherein FIG 1 discloses ECU 110 is part of in-vehicle system which in-vehicle system 100 is part of the vehicle itself (FIG 1; 0043)). Furthermore, 0085 of Saiki clearly indicates that the polling signal is only initiated when the vehicle is parked (not moving as explained in 0075 clearly indicating the vehicle’s turned off). Thus, when the vehicle is parked, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the vehicle’s velocity is zero. In addition, Saiki discloses transitioning from a non-parked state to a parked state such that only enabling communications after identifying when a vehicle is transitioned to a parked state to enable communication. One of a skilled artisan would have realized when the vehicle is in a non-parked state (not parked) then its velocity would have been greater than zero since the vehicle would have been moving and not in park. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized when the vehicle goes to non-parking state to parking state, the velocity would have decreased to zero between states. Thus, Saiki clearly shows that the initiation of the polling signal is dependent on determining that the vehicle’s velocity is below a first velocity threshold (a velocity greater than zero) Therefore, if the vehicle’s velocity is above a first velocity threshold, then the initiation of the polling signal would not occur.
Claim(s) 17-18, 21, 33 remain and 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Aerts et al (US20150035296, 2015) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 7/24/23)
As per dependent claim 17, Helligrath discloses an electronic processor having electronic input (Claim 1); at least one memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions therein so as to determine the location of the at least one authorized device (0019; Claim 1: discloses if fob is in a communication zone. If so, the processor receives communication(s) instructing it to perform the deploying of the door handle. One of a skilled artisan would have realize that instructions for instructing the deploying of a door handle would require pre-stored instructions being stored and executed by the processor to perform these functions.) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose receiving a reference velocity signal indicating a reference velocity of the vehicle. However, Aerts et al discloses receiving a reference velocity signal indicating a reference velocity of the vehicle (0036-0038: vehicle controller determines if the vehicle is moving)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Aerts et al since determining the velocity of the vehicle for door handle purposes would have provided the benefit of advantageous aerodynamic qualities when the vehicle is in motion. (0023)
As per dependent claim 18, Helligrath discloses the at least one electronic processor has at least one output for outputting a first actuation signal to actuate the handle deployment mechanism (0019, 0021, 0041-0042:signal outputted to deploy/retract handle based on fob being in a communication zone)
As per dependent claim 21, Helligrath fails to specifically disclose actuate the at least one handle deployment mechanism when the reference velocity is determined to be less than a second velocity threshold, the second velocity threshold being less than the first velocity threshold. However, based on the rejection of Claim 17 and the rationale incorporated, Aerts et al discloses wherein the one or more controller is configured to actuate the handle deployment mechanism when the reference velocity is determined to be less than a second velocity threshold, the second velocity threshold being less than the first velocity threshold. (0023, 0037: discloses the handle may be extended when the vehicle is stopped or relatively slow speed. 0048 discloses the handle is retracted at fast speeds. Thus, Aerts discloses three types of speed: zero, slow, and fast. Thus, when the vehicle is stopped, its handle is deployed since the vehicle’s velocity is less than slow and fast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Aerts et al since that if the handle has to be deployable at a certain velocity, the system needs to start polling for the presence of an authorized key already from a higher measured vehicle speed in order to ensure a smooth execution.)
As per dependent claim 33 and 38, Claim 33 recites similar limitations as in Claim 21 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 28 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Kwon (US20120049544, 2012)
As per dependent claim 28, the cited art fails to specifically wherein the aperture closure member is a tailgate for access to a load space of the vehicle. However, Kwon discloses wherein the aperture closure member is a tailgate for access to a load space of the vehicle. (Abstract; 0066-0068: discloses a tailgate handle that is deployed to allow the tailgate to be open to access the back of the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Aerts et al since it would have provided the benefit of facilitating the opening and closing of the tailgate and improving its appearance without deterioration (0012, 0010)
Claim(s) 32 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Lickfelt (US 20120092129, 2012)
As per dependent claim 32, the cited art fails to determining the location of the authorized device comprises triangulating the position of the authorized device in dependence on the transmission and/or receipt of one or more wireless signals. However, Lickfelt discloses determine the signal strength of the respective fob signal received from the fob to determine a location of the fob by triangulation (0017)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Lickfelt since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of more accurate and timely localizations, or determinations of positions and/or distances of the key fob relative to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helligrath in further view of Saiki et al in further view of Casamassima et al (US 20210302536, EFD 3/26/2020)
As per dependent claim 37, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more controller is configured to determine the location of the authorized device in relation to the vehicle using ultra-wide band transceivers disposed on the vehicle and on the authorized device. However, Casamassima et al discloses the vehicle and key fob both have UWB transceivers where the vehicle and key fob communicate using the UWB transceivers to determine the location of the key fob (0021-0023)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Casamassima et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing spatial awareness and relative positioning with accuracy among the UWB apparatuses (0023)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 17, in regards to the objection to the Abstract/specification, in summary Applicant states the abstract has been amended to be in narrative form and is now between 50 and 150 words and request withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, the Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims slightly reworded. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
On page 18, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 16 and 30, Applicant states the claims have been amended to only recite the second alternative "a transmission rate of the polling signal is increased in dependence on a determination that a vehicle reference velocity has decreased to less than a first velocity threshold." Applicant argues that the second alternative has not been rejected over the cited prior art. In summary, it appears the Applicant argues that no cited art teaches the second alternative. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner respectively states Applicant’s remarks failed to explicitly argue how exactly the language of the claim (limitation) patentably distinguishes itself from Helligrath in further view of Saiki. Therefore, after consideration of Applicants arguments of the independent claims 16 and 30, the Examiner respectfully states Applicant’s remarks, towards this subject matter, are not persuasive to overcome Helligrath in further view of Saiki and respectfully direct the Applicant to the rejection explained above for the reasons why the claim(s) remains rejected under Helligrath in further view of Saiki.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights