RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5-January-2026 has been entered.
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 5-January-2026 with respect to application 18/358,664 filed 25-July-2023.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, 18 and 19.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
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(a)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC §112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Consider independent claim 1: the claim, as amended, recites in part:
“wherein the digital key is further configured to automatically transition to a logging state in response to the wireless signal from the wireless anchor being detected, and
wherein the digital key is configured to, in the logging state, be deactivated and automatically perform the logging of the detection of the wireless signal from the mobile device. (emphasis by Examiner).
The specification discloses:
[0047] Herein, if necessary, the digital key 110 may log what is detected in the vehicle's wireless signal, and an alarm or the like may be generated as needed. In addition, such log or alarm generation may be performed only in a state in which the digital key 110 is communicatively connected with the registered wireless anchor 120. [US 2024/0203223 A1].
The specification does not disclose a particular logging state as claimed; only that in certain embodiments that a received mobility device signal may be logged if the digital key is also receiving a wireless anchor signal.
Consider independent claim 10: This claim has been amended in similar fashion as for claim 1, and lacks written description support for the same reasons.
Consider claims 2-9 and 11-19: These claims are rejected at least because each depends from a rejected claim .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Consider independent claim 1: This claim recites in part: “….detection of the wireless signal from the mobile device.” [line 10], where there is no antecedent support for a mobile device, rendering the limitation and claim, indefinite. For the purpose of prior art examination, it will be assumed that “mobility device” was intended.
Consider claims 2-9: These claims are rejected, at least because each depends from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2018/0178758 A1), in view of Nagata et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0352206 A1), hereinafter Nagata.
Consider claim 1: An anti-theft system, Yamaguchi discloses a system and method for controlling access to a vehicle, and particularly to countering theft known as “relay attack” [Title; Abstract, Fig. 1, 14; Para. 0002-0008, 0010-0012], comprising:
a digital key configured to wirelessly control an operation of a mobility device; comprising a key (4) (digital key) and a vehicle (2) and vehicle mounted device (3) (mobility device) with which the key communicates [Fig. 1-3; Para. 0031-0032, 0048-0050]; and
a wireless anchor configured to generate a wireless signal, Yamaguchi discloses an embodiment (fourth) in which an interference wave generation device (9) (anchor) placed in a user’s home (5), and which communicates wirelessly with the key [Fig. 1, 11; Para. 0145-0146], and a different embodiment (fifth) in which the key is paired (Bluetooth) with a mobile phone (10) (anchor) wherein the key and mobile phone communicate when within an exemplary 1 to 3 meter proximity [Fig. 13; Para. 0152-0154].
wherein the digital key is configured to, based on the wireless signal being detected, be deactivated; and wherein, in the fourth embodiment, the interference signal prevents the digital key from communicating with the vehicle [Para. 0148-0150], and in the fifth embodiment a response to a vehicular request (wave A) by the key is suppressed when the key and mobile phone are in communication, and permitted when the key and mobile phone are not communicating [Fig. 13; Para. 0155-0159];
wherein the digital key is further configured to automatically transition to a logging state in response to the wireless signal from the wireless anchor being detected, [Fig. 13; Para. 0155-0159]; and
wherein the digital key is configured to, in the logging state, be deactivated and automatically perform the logging of the detection of the wireless signal from the mobile device [Fig. 13; Para. 0155-0159].
The fourth embodiment, therefore, prevents communication between the vehicle and key when the interference signal is present, but does not specifically disclose that key operation is deactivated, the fifth embodiment discloses deactivation of key transmission, but when the signal is not present, and allows vehicle-key communication when absent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, however to inhibit key to vehicle communication when an anchor signal is present as taught by the fourth embodiment of Yamaguchi and where key transmission is deactivated or allowed based on whether the anchor signal is received as taught by the fifth embodiment, be applied such that key transmission is deactivated when an anchor Bluetooth signal is detected, thus performing the function and effect of the fourth embodiment using fifth embodiment means.
Yamaguchi does not disclose logging of a relay attack such as would occur if a mobility device wireless signal were detected while the digital key receives a signal from the wireless anchor (and is therefore deactivated). This is suggested in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Nagata discloses an on-vehicle apparatus control device and associated portable machine [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0002; 0010-0014], and specifically that a condition in which a request signal is received by the portable unit while in a prohibition mode is considered illegal and is reported as illegal to the vehicle control unit where it may be recorded and/or stored (1a, 1b) [Fig. 1-3, 6; Para. 0014, 0109], and further embodiments in which the illegality recording portion may be at the portable device [Para. 0110].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to record incidences of illegal access attempt such as when a request signal is received by a portable unit when in an inactive mode as taught by Nagata, and applied to a system and method for controlling access to a vehicle, where such inactive mode is triggered when a wireless anchor signal is received, as taught by Yamaguchi, in order that a user may be informed that attempts are being made to surreptitiously gain access to a vehicle, and provide a measure of the timing and frequency of such attacks.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the digital key is configured to: register and store the wireless anchor, and based on the wireless signal from the registered wireless anchor being detected, be deactivated. Yamaguchi discloses that the key and mobile phone (fifth embodiment) are paired (registered) in advance, so as to communicate when within proximity limits [Para. 0153-0154].
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the wireless anchor is spaced apart from the mobility device by at least a predetermined distance.
Yamaguchi discloses two separate communication links; a first LF/UHF band protocol (radio wave A) which operates for communication up to 1-2 meters from the vehicle (range 101) [Fig. 1; Para. 0033-0034], and a separate Bluetooth™ link (radio wave B) set to operate at a longer distance with an exemplary tens of meters range (range 102) [Fig.1; Para. 0035], and further that a communication range between an anchor (mobile phone/fifth embodiment) may be set to 1-3 meters [Para. 0153], or to interfere with radio wave A and B communications when the key is within a home (fourth embodiment) [Para. 0150].
Yamaguchi also discloses the purpose of the invention is to prevent a relay attack in which a wave A communication is regenerated by a perpetrator at a distance from the vehicle greater than 101 range, but within the 102 wave B range. [Fig. 1, 14; Para. 0003-0008, 0010-0011].
Yamaguchi does not specify a particular minimum separation between an anchor device, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, therefore, that the anchor device is placed within the home, whereas the vehicle is present outside the home with at least a separation. It would further have been obvious, for the invention as described by Yamaguchi to operate, or have function, the separation between the vehicle and anchor must be greater that the range 101 limitation (1-2 meters). Should the distance be less, the anchor would prevent normal operation of the key-vehicle interface.
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 3: The anti-theft system of claim 3, wherein the wireless anchor is spaced further apart from the mobility device than a distance that allows the digital key to generate a signal responding to a wireless signal from the mobility device. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, references, citations and analysis as for claim 3, and as applied to claim 1.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the digital key is configured to, based on a wireless signal from the mobility device being detected, determine whether the wireless signal generated from the wireless anchor is detected. Yamaguchi discloses (fifth embodiment) a process wherein both conditions must be met (presence/absence of mobile phone/anchor signal) and (presence/absence of vehicle request signal (radio wave A) [Fig. 13] for key communication to be enabled/disabled [Fig. 13; Para. 0158-0159]. This is a simple Boolean process in which the simultaneous existence of two conditions is evaluated, wherein the order at which each is determined is arbitrary and has no effect on the result, and where only four alternative condition combinations exist. It would have been obvious to the artisan that a combination wherein key communication was inhibited unless both the anchor and vehicle signals were detected may be selected (See analysis for claim 1).
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 6: The anti-theft system of claim 6, wherein the digital key is configured to confirm whether the wireless signal generated from a pre-registered wireless anchor is detected. Yamaguchi discloses that the key and mobile phone (fifth embodiment) are paired (registered) in advance, so as to communicate when within proximity limits [Para. 0153-0154], and where the Bluetooth protocol requires this pairing for communication to occur (i.e., the establishment of communication confirms the previous pairing/registration).
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the digital key is configured to, based on the wireless signal generated from the wireless anchor being detected, be deactivated such that a signal for controlling the mobility device is not generated. Yamaguchi discloses that based on detection of the mobile telephone Bluetooth communication, or not, and on receipt of a wave A (LF) request from the vehicle, or not, a response, or transmission from the key is not made (deactivated) [Fig. 13; Para. 0155, 0157-0158].
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the deactivation of the digital key blocks the digital key from generating a signal responding to a wireless signal of the mobility device. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, citations and analysis, as for claim 8, and as applied to claim 1.
Consider claim 10: An anti-theft method, Yamaguchi discloses a system and method for controlling access to a vehicle, and particularly to countering theft known as “relay attack” [Title; Abstract, Fig. 1, 14; Para. 0002-0008, 0010-0012], comprising:
detecting, by a digital key, a wireless signal emitted from a mobility device to thereby control an operation of the mobility device; bidirectional communication (therefore detecting) by a key (4) (digital key) and a vehicle (2) with vehicle mounted device (3) (mobility device) for permitting predetermined vehicle actions [Fig. 1-3; Para. 0031-0032, 0048-0050];
detecting, by the digital key, a wireless anchor configured to generate a wireless signal; an embodiment (fourth) in which an interference wave generation device (9) (anchor) placed in a user’s home (5), and which communicates wirelessly with the key [Fig. 1, 11; Para. 0145-0146], and a different embodiment (fifth) in which the key is paired (Bluetooth) with a mobile phone (10) (anchor) wherein the key and mobile phone communicate when within an exemplary 1 to 3 meter proximity [Fig. 13; Para. 0152-0154];
deactivating, based on the wireless signal generated by the wireless anchor being detected by the digital key, the digital key; and wherein, in the fourth embodiment, the interference signal prevents the digital key from communicating with the vehicle [Para. 0148-0150], and in the fifth embodiment a response to a vehicular request (wave A) by the key is suppressed when the key and mobile phone are in communication, and permitted when the key and mobile phone are not communicating [Fig. 13; Para. 0155-0159]; and
logging by the digital key, the detection of the wireless signal from the mobility device while the digital key is deactivated; and
automatically transitioning to a logging state in response to the wireless signal from the wireless anchor being detected,
wherein, in the logging state, the digital key is deactivated and automatically performs the logging of the detection of the wireless signal from the mobility device.
The fourth embodiment, therefore, prevents communication between the vehicle and key when the interference signal is present, but does not specifically disclose that key operation is deactivated, the fifth embodiment discloses deactivation of key transmission, but when the signal is not present, and allows vehicle-key communication when present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, however to inhibit key to vehicle communication when an anchor signal is present as taught by the fourth embodiment of Yamaguchi and where key transmission is deactivated or allowed based on whether the anchor signal is received as taught by the fifth embodiment, be applied such that key transmission is deactivated when an anchor Bluetooth signal is detected, thus performing the function and effect of the fourth embodiment using fifth embodiment means.
Yamaguchi does not disclose logging of a relay attack such as would occur if a mobility device wireless signal were detected while the digital key receives a signal from the wireless anchor (and is therefore deactivated). This is suggested in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Nagata discloses an on-vehicle apparatus control device and associated portable machine [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0002; 0010-0014], and specifically that a condition in which a request signal is received by the portable unit while in a prohibition mode is considered illegal and is reported as illegal to the vehicle control unit where it may be recorded and/or stored (1a, 1b) [Fig. 1-3, 6; Para. 0014, 0109], and further embodiments in which the illegality recording portion may be on the portable device [Para. 0110].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to record incidences of illegal access attempt such as when a request signal is received by a portable unit when in an inactive mode as taught by Nagata, and applied to a system and method for controlling access to a vehicle, where such inactive mode is triggered when a wireless anchor signal is received, as taught by Yamaguchi, in order that a user may be informed that attempts are being made to surreptitiously gain access to a vehicle, and provide a measure of the timing and frequency of such attacks.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 10: The anti-theft method of claim 10, further comprising registering the wireless anchor to the digital key. Yamaguchi discloses that the key and mobile phone (fifth embodiment/wireless anchor) are paired (registered) in advance, so as to communicate when within proximity limits [Para. 0153-0154].
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 11: The anti-theft method of claim 11, wherein detecting the wireless anchor further includes detecting a wireless anchor registered to the digital key. Yamaguchi discloses that the key and mobile phone (fifth embodiment) are paired (registered) in advance, so as to communicate when within proximity limits [Para. 0153-0154], and where the Bluetooth protocol requires this pairing for communication to occur (i.e., the establishment of communication confirms the previous pairing/registration).
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 10: The anti-theft method of claim 10, wherein the wireless anchor is spaced apart from the mobility device by at least a predetermined distance.
Yamaguchi discloses two separate communication links; a first LF/UHF band protocol (radio wave A) which operates for communication up to 1-2 meters from the vehicle (range 101) [Fig. 1; Para. 0033-0034], and a separate Bluetooth™ link (radio wave B) set to operate at a longer distance with an exemplary tens of meters range (range 102) [Fig.1; Para. 0035], and further that a communication range between an anchor (mobile phone/fifth embodiment) may be set to 1-3 meters [Para. 0153], or to interfere with radio wave A and B communications when the key is within a home (fourth embodiment) [Para. 0150].
Yamaguchi also discloses the purpose of the invention is to prevent a relay attack in which a wave A communication is regenerated by a perpetrator at a distance from the vehicle greater than 101 range, but within the 102 wave B range. [Fig. 1, 14; Para. 0003-0008, 0010-0011].
Yamaguchi does not specify a particular minimum separation between an anchor device, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, therefore, that the anchor device is placed within the home, whereas the vehicle is present outside the home with at least a separation. It would further have been obvious, for the invention as described by Yamaguchi to operate, or have function, the separation between the vehicle and anchor must be greater that the range 101 limitation (1-2 meters). Should the distance be less, the anchor would prevent normal operation of the key-vehicle interface.
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 13: The anti-theft method of claim 13, wherein the wireless anchor is spaced further apart from the mobility device than a distance that allows the digital key to generate a signal responding to a wireless signal from the mobility device. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, references, citations and analysis as for claim 13, and as applied to claim 10.
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 10: The anti-theft method of claim 10, wherein deactivating the digital key includes blocking signal generation for controlling the mobility device. Yamaguchi discloses that based on detection of the mobile telephone Bluetooth communication, or not, and on receipt of a wave A (LF) request from the vehicle, or not, a response, or transmission from the key is not made (deactivated) [Fig. 13; Para. 0155, 0157-0158].
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 10: The anti-theft method of claim 10, wherein deactivating the digital key includes blocking the digital key from generating a signal responding to a wireless signal from the mobility device. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, citations and analysis, as for claim 16, and as applied to claim 10.
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the digital key is further configured to generate an alarm in response to the detection of the wireless signal from the mobility device. Nagata also discloses LED indicators (25a, 25b) on the portable device, and which may be illuminated in the case of a relay attack (such as an illegal condition in which a request signal is received by the portable unit while in a prohibition mode) (step 39), and where such notification may be considered broadly to be an alarm [Fig. 4; Para. 0098].
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft method of claim 10, further comprising generating an alarm in response to the detection of the wireless signal from the mobility device. This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 18, and as applied to claim 1.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2018/0178758 A1), and Nagata et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0352206 A1), hereinafter Nagata, further in view of Sakurada (United States Patent Application Publication # US 20210237684 A1), hereinafter Sakurada.
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1: The anti-theft system of claim 1, wherein the wireless anchor is configured to generate a wireless signal based on at least one communication method among Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication, ultra-wideband (UWB) communication, wireless internet network communication, or mobile communication network communication.
Yamaguchi discloses communication between the mobile phone (anchor) and key to be via Bluetooth™ [Para. 0153], but does not specifically disclose the low energy variant of this protocol. This is well known in analogous prior art however, and for example:
Sakurada discloses an electronic key device, system and method [Title; Abstract ; Fig. 1; Para. 0004-0006] and particularly use of the Bluetooth™ low energy (BLE) protocol for short range communication [Para. 0015, 0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to use a Bluetooth™ low energy protocol variant for short range communication as taught by Sakurada, applied to a system and method for controlling access to a vehicle as taught by Yamaguchi, where this variant requires less energy and extends battery life.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 10: The anti-theft method of claim 10, wherein the wireless anchor generates a wireless signal based on at least one communication method among Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication, ultra-wideband (UWB) communication, wireless internet network communication, or mobile communication network communication. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, references, citations and analysis as for claim 5, and as applied to claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5-January-2026 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 USC §112(a), as lacking written description support [Remarks: page 6]: Amendment of these claims obviate this rejection, but amendment of independent claims 1 and 10 introduces new grounds of rejection for these claims as presented in this Office action. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are also rejected, as depending from a rejected claim.
Consider remarks with respect to rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-19 under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi (US 2018/0178758 A1) and Nagata (US 2017/0352206 A1) [Remarks: page 6-8]:
Regarding independent claim 1 [page 6-7]: Applicant argument, in summary, is that neither Yamaguchi nor Nagata teaches or suggests: “wherein the digital key is further configured to automatically transition to a logging state in response to the wireless signal from the wireless anchor being detected”, or “wherein the digital key is configured to, in the logging state, be deactivated and automatically perform the logging of the detection of the wireless signal from the mobile device”, as recited in the amended claim. Yamaguchi discloses a deactivation mode, when an anchor signal is detected, in which the digital key transmission is suppressed. Yamaguchi does not, however disclose logging of activity in the deactivated state. The rejection relies on Nagata to teach this. Specifically, Nagata teaches an embodiment wherein when a request signal (signal from mobility device) is received by the portable unit (electronic key) while in a prohibition mode (equivalent to claimed logging mode, and Yamaguchi disabled mode) is considered illegal and is reported as illegal to the vehicle control unit where it may be recorded and/or stored, and further embodiments in which the illegality recording portion may be on the portable device. See citations and analysis in this Office action. Remarks with respect to the Nagata are piecemeal in nature; Yamaguchi already teaches that the disabled mode entered automatically based on received signals. The arguments are not persuasive for these reasons, and the prior art rejection is maintained.
Regarding independent claim 10 [page 8]: Similar amendments have been made to this claim as for claim 1, and the same arguments presented. These arguments are not persuasive and the rejection maintained for the s.me reason as presented for that claim.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claims 1 and 10. The rejection of these claims under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi and Nagata is also maintained, based on the continued rejection of their respective base claims, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Consider remarks with respect to rejection of claims 5 and 15 under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi, Nagata and Sakurada (US 20210237684 A1): No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claims 1 and 10. The rejection of these claims under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi, Nagata and Sakurada is also maintained, based on the continued rejection of their respective base claims, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kakiwaki (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2010/0013596 A1) disclosing an electronic key system, portable wireless device, and vehicle management method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on 11-8 EDT M, T, F.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on (571)270-73283114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 2684