RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 5-June-2026 with respect to application 18/358,664 filed 25-July-2023.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 10, and has cancelled claims 8 and 16.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-19 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 §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, 7, 9-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2018/0178758 A1), in view of Lee et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0037034 A1), hereinafter Lee.
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];
wherein the digital key is configured to, based on the wireless signal being detected and a communication-connected state with the wireless anchor being maintained, be deactivated such that a wireless signal for controlling the mobility device is not transmitted; and wherein, in the fourth embodiment, the interference signal prevents the digital key from communicating with the vehicle [Para. 0148-0150].
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 such that the key device is prevented from transmitting to the mobility device (vehicle). This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Lee discloses a mobile terminal (key) for controlling a vehicle, comprising a controller and communication unit capable of communication using a plurality of protocols [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0002, 0008-0010, 0031-0033], and a particular embodiment in which the mobile terminal (100) may establish communication with one or more external devices (1500a, 1500b) within a home (anchor devices), and while this communication is established, and a request signal is received from the vehicle (300), the controller(180) will not transmit a [vehicle] control signal (ignore the request signal) [Fig. 15; Para. 0249-0252].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, for a controller of a mobile terminal (key) to establish communication with one or more devices in a home (anchor devices), during the time such communication occurs, to refuse to transmit a control signal (response) in response to a request signal from a vehicle, as taught by Lee, 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 to prevent a relay attack when a user is at home and is unlikely to intend to control the vehicle.
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 may communicate using Bluetooth short range protocol, and are paired (registered) in advance, so as to communicate when within proximity limits [Para. 0153-0154].
Lee similarly discloses use of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi protocols (which are known to use a registration process) for communication with home devices [Fig. 1, 15; Para. 0033, 0047, 0249].
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 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).
Lee further discloses that the controller (180) may output notification to the user or generate an alarm if a request signal is received while the key device is communicating with the home (anchor) device[Fig. 15c; Para. 0252].
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).
Lee similarly discloses use of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi protocols (which are known to use a registration process) for communication with home devices [Fig. 1, 15; Para. 0033, 0047, 0249].
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.
Lee specifically discloses: “when a request signal associated with the vehicle is received while communication is established to communicate with an external device (1500a, 1500b), the controller (180) may not transmit a control signal associated with the vehicle (or ignore the request signal).” [Para. 0251].
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 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 a communication-connected state with the wireless anchor being maintained, the digital key such that a wireless signal for controlling the mobility device is not transmitted.; and wherein, in the fourth embodiment, the interference signal prevents the digital key from communicating with the vehicle [Para. 0148-0150].
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 such that the key device is prevented from transmitting to the mobility device (vehicle). This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Lee discloses a mobile terminal (key) for controlling a vehicle, comprising a controller and communication unit capable of communication using a plurality of protocols [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0002, 0008-0010, 0031-0033], and a particular embodiment in which the mobile terminal (100) may establish communication with one or more external devices (1500a, 1500b) within a home (anchor devices), and while this communication is established, and a request signal is received from the vehicle (300), the controller(180) will not transmit a [vehicle] control signal (ignore the request signal) [Fig. 15; Para. 0249-0252].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, for a controller of a mobile terminal (key) to establish communication with one or more devices in a home (anchor devices), during the time such communication occurs, to refuse to transmit a control signal (response) in response to a request signal from a vehicle, as taught by Lee, 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 to prevent a relay attack when a user is at home and is unlikely to intend to control the vehicle.
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 may communicate using Bluetooth short range protocol, and are paired (registered) in advance, so as to communicate when within proximity limits [Para. 0153-0154].
Lee similarly discloses use of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi protocols (which are known to use a registration process) for communication with home devices [Fig. 1, 15; Para. 0033, 0047, 0249].
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 and Lee both disclose use of Bluetooth protocol for communication with a home/anchor device (see discussion for claim 11) [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 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.
Lee specifically discloses: “when a request signal associated with the vehicle is received while communication is established to communicate with an external device (1500a, 1500b), the controller (180) may not transmit a control signal associated with the vehicle (or ignore the request signal).” [Para. 0251].
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.
Lee also discloses: “….the controller (180) can output notification information (500) indicating that there is an attempted theft of the vehicle through the output unit (150) or transmit a control command for controlling the vehicle (300) to output an alarm to the vehicle (300) through the communication unit (110).” [Fig. 15c; Para. 0252].
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 10: 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 10.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2018/0178758 A1), and Lee et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0037034 A1), hereinafter Lee, 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 as modified by Lee, 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-June-2026 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 USC §112(a) as lacking written description support [Remarks: Page 6]: Applicant amendment of claims 1 and 10 obviates this rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite [Remarks: Page 6]: Applicant amendment of claim 1 obviates this rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the 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: Applicant arguments, in summary are that none of the embodiments (specifically the 4th and 5th) taught be Yamaguchi teach the claimed operation as presently amended, that there is no motivation to combine the cited embodiments, and that Nagata also fails to teach these features. The arguments have been considered, but are rendered moot by a new rejection of the claim under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi and Lee (US 2019/0037034 A1), where the combination teaches the presently claimed limitations.
Regarding independent claim 10: This claim recites similar features and operation as for claim 1, and the same arguments for allowability have been presented. The arguments are also moot; this claim is now also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi and Lee.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9 and 18, depending from claim 1, and claims 11-4, 17 and 19, depending from claim 10: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of the respective base claims. These claims are now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi and Lee based on the new rejection of the base claims, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Regarding claims 8 ad 18: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot, they have been cancelled by the Applicant.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 15 under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi, Nagata and Sakurada (US 20210237684 A1) [Remarks: page 8]: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of the respective base claims. These claims are now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Yamaguchi, Lee and Sakurada based on the new rejection of the base claims, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. 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 2685
Prosecution Insights