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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on September 15, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of United States Patent No. 11,711,738 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been 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.
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.
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 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palin et al(US 2013/0281021 A1) in view of Hagl(US 2012/0286927 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Palin ‘021 teaches, a vehicle( [0026], [0027] and Fig. 1, vehicle 109(structure))comprising: a plurality of access nodes including a first access node and a second access node( [0026], [0034] and Fig. 1, vehicle 109 comprising access point 107a-107c); and a stack node coupled to the first and second access nodes, the stack node including a stack node controller configured to([0026], [0034] , [0046], and Figs. 1-2, the access platform which may be integrated into the vehicle 109 comprising a communication stack(Bluetooth stack) for controlling the connections to AP): implement a communication stack to facilitate a connection with a vehicle key[(0026], [0027], [0034] , [0046], and Figs. 1-2, the access platform which may be integrated into the vehicle 109 comprising a communication stack(Bluetooth stack) for communicating via access nodes 107a-c with UE101 that is configured as key to unlock the vehicle’s door); communicate with the vehicle key using a first wireless communication link between the first access node and the vehicle key([0029], [0032], and Figs. 1-2, access point 107a communicating with the UE(key)), communicate with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link(([0029], [0032], and Figs. 1-2, communicating with the UE using access points 107b).
Palin ‘021 does not explicitly teach, in response to determining that a quality of a second wireless communication link between the second access node and the vehicle is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link between the first access node and the vehicle key, communicate with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link.
Hagl ‘927 teaches, in response to determining that a quality of a second wireless communication link between the second access node and the vehicle is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link between the first access node and the vehicle key([0034], [0036], [0038] and Figs. 1, 2,5, Hagl ‘927 has multiple wireless links(LF channels from antenna 20-1, 20-2, 20-3), evaluates each channel quality by detecting channels with valid wake pattern, measuring RSSI and ignoring noisy channels, and dynamically selecting the best channel for communication), communicate with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link ([0034], [0038]- [0039] and Figs. 1, 2, 5, selecting a channel with better signal quality (i.e. based on valid wake pattern, strong RSSI and less noise) uses the selected channel for subsequent vehicle to vehicle key communications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Hagl ‘927, since such modification would provide a passive entry system to prevent unauthorized access to a vehicle, building, or other type of secured location, as suggested by Hagl ‘927 ([0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein communicating with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link comprises communicating with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link instead of the first wireless communication link([0029], [0032], and Figs. 1-2, communicating via access point 107b instead of access point 107a).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein the plurality of access nodes comprises a third access node, wherein the stack node is coupled to the third access node( [0026], [0034] and Fig. 1, vehicle 109 comprising access points 107a, 107b and 107c).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein an instance of the communication stack used to communicate with the vehicle key using the first access node is the same instance as the communication stack used to communicate with the vehicle key using the second access node([0026], [0034] , [0046], and Figs. 1-2, the access platform which may be integrated into the vehicle 109 comprising a communication stack(Bluetooth stack) for controlling the connections to AP).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein the first access node does not implement the communication stack, and wherein the second access node does not implement the communication stack ([0026], [0034] , [0046], and Figs. 1-2, the access platform which may be integrated into the vehicle 109 comprising a communication stack(Bluetooth stack) for controlling the connections to AP).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein the plurality of access nodes are deployed around the vehicle ([0026], [0034] and Fig. 1, vehicle 109 comprising access point 107a-107c around the vehicle 109).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein the quality of the first wireless communication link is based on a signal to Interference plus noise ratio (SINR) level associated with the first wireless communication link ([0026], [0034], [0046], and Figs. 1-2, quality of link based on measurement of SINR by the access point 107a).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations, Palin ‘021 further teaches, wherein the quality of the first wireless communication link is based on a value measured by the first access node([0026], [0034] , [0046], and Figs. 1-2, quality of link based on measurement of SINR by the access point 107a).
Regarding claim 21, Palin ‘021 teaches, a method comprising: implementing, by a stack node, a communication stack to facilitate a connection with a vehicle key([0026], [0034], [0046], and Figs. 1-2, vehicle 109 comprising access point 107a-107c, the access platform which may be integrated into the vehicle 109 comprising a communication stack(Bluetooth stack) for controlling the connections to AP); communicating, by the stack node with the vehicle key using a first wireless communication link between a first access node and the vehicle key([0029], [0032], and Figs. 1-2, access point 107a communicating with the UE(key)); communicate with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link(([0029], [0032], and Figs. 1-2, communicating with the UE using access points 107b).
Palin ‘021 does not explicitly teach, in response to determining that a quality of a second wireless communication link between a second access node and the vehicle key is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link between the first access node and the vehicle key, communicating, by the stack node with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link.
Hagl ‘927 teaches, in response to determining that a quality of a second wireless communication link between a second access node and the vehicle key is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link between the first access node and the vehicle key ([0034], [0036], [0038] and Figs. 1, 2,5, Hagl ‘927 has multiple wireless links(LF channels from antenna 20-1, 20-2, 20-3), evaluates each channel quality by detecting channels with valid wake pattern, measuring RSSI and ignoring noisy channels, and dynamically selecting the best channel for communication),communicating, by the stack node with the vehicle key using the second wireless communication link ([0034], [0038]-[0039] and Figs. 1, 2, 5, selecting a channel with better signal quality (i.e. based on valid wake pattern , strong RSSI and less noise) uses the selected channel for subsequent vehicle to vehicle key communications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Hagl ‘927, since such modification would provide a passive entry system to prevent unauthorized access to a vehicle, building, or other type of secured location, as suggested by Hagl ‘927 ([0002]-[0005]).
Claims 10-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Srivastava et al(US 2020/0221359 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the communication stack is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication stack, the stack node controller is a BLE controller, and the stack node further comprises a BLE host.
Srivastava ‘359 teaches, wherein the communication stack is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication stack stack([0038], 0047], [0051] and Figs. 1-2, the Bluetooth protocol stack comprising controller and host stacks for providing communication with device 110), the stack node controller is a BLE controller, and the stack node further comprises a BLE host([0047], [0051] and Figs. 1-2, the Bluetooth protocol stack comprising controller and host stacks for providing communication with device 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Srivastava ‘359, since such modification would provide improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support handover of one or more logical transport channels, as suggested by Srivastava ‘359([0002]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the communication stack is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication stack, wherein the stack node controller is configured to implement a link layer of the BLE communication stack, and wherein the first access node is configured to implement a physical layer of the BLE communication stack.
Srivastava ‘359 teaches, wherein the communication stack is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication stack, wherein the stack node controller is configured to implement a link layer of the BLE communication stack, ([0078], [0081] and Figs. 2, 5-6, control stack of the Bluetooth protocol stack managing communication links) and wherein the first access node is configured to implement a physical layer of the BLE communication stack([0088] and Fig. 5-6, physical layer connections being managed by Bluetooth communication stack).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Srivastava ‘359, since such modification would provide improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support handover of one or more logical transport channels, as suggested by Srivastava ‘359([0002]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein determining that the quality of the second wireless communication link is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link comprises: determining that the quality of the first wireless communication link is below a threshold; and determining that the quality of the second wireless communication link is above the threshold.
Srivastava ‘359 teaches, wherein determining that the quality of the second wireless communication link is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link comprises: determining that the quality of the first wireless communication link is below a threshold([0053], [0054] and Figs. 1-2, controller stack receiving information indicating that the signal quality of a connection via first/primary paired device 115 is below threshold) ; and determining that the quality of the second wireless communication link is above the threshold([0054], [0055], determining that communication quality via the secondary/second paired device 115 is greater than a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Srivastava ‘359, since such modification would provide improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support handover of one or more logical transport channels, as suggested by Srivastava ‘359([0002]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the stack node and the first access node are integrated in a first integrated circuit.
Srivastava ‘359 teaches, wherein the stack node and the first access node are integrated in a first integrated circuit ([0038], [0047] and Figs. 1-2, first/primary paired device 115 configured as an access node to communicate with device 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Srivastava ‘359, since such modification would provide improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support handover of one or more logical transport channels, as suggested by Srivastava ‘359([0002]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the quality of the first wireless communication link is based on a value measured by the stack node based on a signal provided by the first access node.
Srivastava ‘359 teaches, wherein the quality of the first wireless communication link is based on a value measured by the stack node based on a signal provided by the first access node ([0054], [0055], [0064] and Figs. 1-2, stack determining that communication quality via the secondary/second paired device 115 is greater than a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Srivastava ‘359, since such modification would provide improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support handover of one or more logical transport channels, as suggested by Srivastava ‘359([0002]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the stack node controller is configured to search for an access node of the plurality of access nodes when the quality of the first wireless communication link drops below a threshold, and wherein the stack node controller is configured to determine that the quality of the second wireless communication link is greater than a quality of the first wireless communication link in response to the searching.
Srivastava ‘359 teaches, wherein the stack node controller is configured to search for an access node of the plurality of access nodes when the quality of the first wireless communication link drops below a threshold, and wherein the stack node controller is configured to determine that the quality of the second wireless communication link is greater than a quality of the first wireless communication link in response to the searching( [0060], [0061], [0064] and Fig. 2, controller stack in response to determining that communication quality via the secondary/second paired device 115 is greater than a threshold determine to handover connection from the first paired device 115 to the second paired device and communicate with remote device 110 via second paired device 115 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of Srivastava ‘359, since such modification would provide improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support handover of one or more logical transport channels, as suggested by Srivastava ‘359([0002]).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 as applied to claims above, and further in view of King et al(US 9085281 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the stack node controller is configured to receive periodic indications of the quality of the second wireless communication link, and wherein determining the quality of the second wireless communication link comprises determining the quality of the second wireless communication link based on the received periodic indications.
King ‘281 teaches, wherein the stack node controller is configured to receive periodic indications of the quality of the second wireless communication link(col 4 lines 30-67, measuring RSSI (channel quality) on periodic bases), and wherein determining the quality of the second wireless communication link comprises determining the quality of the second wireless communication link based on the received periodic indications(col 4 lines 30-67, measuring channel quality of the second channel on periodic bases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of King ‘281, since such modification would provide an advantage of utilizing multiple communication channels between a portable communication device and an electronic control module to avoid interference by other RF devices that operating within a same operating range of a single communication channel while minimizing the power required to operate the receiving unit of the electronic communication module , as suggested by King ‘281(col 2 lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Palin ‘021 and Hagl ‘927 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein determining that the quality of the second wireless communication link is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link comprises determining that a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of the second wireless communication link is greater than an RSSI value of the first wireless communication link.
King ‘281 teaches, wherein determining that the quality of the second wireless communication link is greater than the quality of the first wireless communication link comprises determining that a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of the second wireless communication link is greater than an RSSI value of the first wireless communication link(col 4 lines 30-67, comparing the RSSI measurement of each channel and selecting the second channel when the RSSI value of second channel is greater than the first channel ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Palin ‘021 by incorporating the teaching of King ‘281, since such modification would provide an advantage of utilizing multiple communication channels between a portable communication device and an electronic control module to avoid interference by other RF devices that operating within a same operating range of a single communication channel while minimizing the power required to operate the receiving unit of the electronic communication module , as suggested by King ‘281(col 2 lines 6-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474