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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/30/2025.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the non-final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. New claim rejections have been made below with a new prior art Ilieva (US PGPub 2022/0250582).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10, 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (Us PGPub 2022/0198849) in view of Kim (US PGPub 2011/0109432) and in further view of Ilieva (US PGPub 2022/0250582).
With respect to claim 1: Oh teaches an apparatus for controlling a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
at least one sensor configured to acquire information related to a door and information related to a seat [Oh ¶ 0047 and 0048]; and
a processor configured to unlock the door by a mechanical key, determine the door as being open based on the information related to the door [Oh ¶ 0021], and determining an occupant seated as being sensed at a driver seat, based on the information related to the seat [Oh ¶ 0048].
Oh does not teach apply power to an immobilizer coil to recognize a key fob that includes the mechanical key.
However, Kim does teach apply power to an immobilizer coil to recognize a key fob that includes the mechanical key [Kim ¶ 0033, "integrated antenna module"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kim into the invention of Oh to not only include using a door and seat sensor to determine someone being in the driver’s seat and the door as unlocked as Oh discloses but to also use an immobilizer coil to apply power to a key fob as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kim into Oh to improve the efficiency and convenience of the authentication and initiation of an emergency start of a vehicle [Kim ¶ 0026].
Oh as modified by Kim do not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: output a message for verification of the occupant as a vehicle owner when the verification of the vehicle owner is not completed through a terminal; determine that the vehicle owner is verified upon receiving a message indicating authentication is complete from the terminal; and transmit a message related to theft of the vehicle, and determine that verification of the vehicle owner is completed upon receiving a response, through the terminal, to the message related to the theft of the vehicle.
However, in a related field of invention, Ilieva does teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
output a message for verification of the occupant as a vehicle owner when the verification of the vehicle owner is not completed through a terminal [Ilieva ¶ 0036 “For example, in a first instance a first user may be missing the user's device, and may use a second user's device to access the vehicle 100. If there is a security measure missing from the access request, this may result in an alarm state (e.g., the first user cannot verify a biometric or other security measure on the second user's device). This may also result in a message to a primary owner, who may know of the attempted use and approve of the use, and who can cancel the alarm state and verify the attempted use.”];
determine that the vehicle owner is verified upon receiving a message indicating authentication is complete from the terminal [Ilieva ¶ 0042 “If any one of the devices receiving the message requests a cancellation of the alarm at 313, sending a message back to the cloud 121, the process 131 can send an instruction to the vehicle 100 to cancel the alarm at 315.”]; and
transmit a message related to theft of the vehicle [Ilieva ¶ 0039 “In this example, the process 123 receives an alert at 301 from the vehicle 100, indicating that there is an alarm state. This message can come from the alarm system 109 or the security process 111.”], and determine that verification of the vehicle owner is completed upon receiving a response, through the terminal, to the message related to the theft of the vehicle [Ilieva ¶ 0041 “If the device is not known (if none of the devices are known), the process 129 may send the message to a primary device at 309 and/or any other devices designated for reporting. The message may include one or more options to, for example, cancel an alarm, disable a vehicle, contact the authorities, etc.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ilieva into the invention of Oh as modified by Kim to not only include using a door and seat sensor to determine someone being in the driver’s seat and the door as unlocked and use an immobilizer coil to apply power to a key fob as Oh and Kim discloses but to also use a verification message to verify the vehicle owner and a theft message as taught by Ilieva with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ilieva into Oh and Kim to improve the efficiency and convenience of owner authentication.
With respect to claim 3: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1. Oh further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: output an announcement message for an emergency start [Oh ¶ 58, "emergency start guide pop-up"], when the occupant seated is sensed at the driver seat [Oh ¶ 0048]. The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
With respect to claim 4: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a start button is input, when the key fob is determined as being recognized, as power is applied to the immobilizer coil [Kim ¶ 0072]. The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
With respect to claim 6: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 4. Kim further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: control to start an engine, when the start button is determined as being input [Kim ¶ 0072]. The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
With respect to claim 10: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches a vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 1 [Kim ¶ 0003]. The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
With respect to claims 11, 13-14, and 16: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 1, 3-4, and 6. The method taught/disclosed in claims 11, 13-14, and 16 can clearly perform on the system of claims 1, 3-4, and 6. Therefore, claims 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2, 7-9, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kim in view of Ilieva and further in view of Wagner (DE 102007021229).
With respect to claim 2: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1. Oh, Kim, and Ilieva do not teach wherein the mechanical key is provided in the key fob, and configured to be inserted into a key inserting hole of the vehicle and then turned, such that the door is unlocked.
However, Wagner does teach wherein the mechanical key is provided in the key fob, and configured to be inserted into a key inserting hole of the vehicle and then turned, such that the door is unlocked [Wagner ¶ 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wagner into the invention of Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to not only include using a mechanical key to unlock the door as Oh, Kim, and Ilieva discloses but to also have the mechanical key inside the key fob as taught by Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wagner into Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to improve the useability of the emergency start system.
With respect to claim 7: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1. Oh, Kim, and Ilieva do not teach wherein the processor is configured to: output a theft warning for the vehicle, when the door is determined as being unlocked by the mechanical key and then opened, and transmit a message related to the theft to at least one of the terminal or a server.
However, Wagner does teach wherein the processor is configured to: output a theft warning for the vehicle [Wagner ¶ 0013], when the door is determined as being unlocked by the mechanical key and then opened, and transmit a message related to the theft to at least one of the terminal or a server [Wagner ¶ 0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wagner into the invention of Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to not only include detecting when a mechanical key is used to unlock the door as Oh, Kim, and Ilieva discloses but to also output a theft warning and transmit a theft message as taught by Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wagner into Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to improve the useability of the emergency start system.
With respect to claim 8: Oh, Kim, Ilieva, and Wagner teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 7. Wagner further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether verification of a vehicle owner is completed within a specific time, after the message related to the theft is transmitted [Wagner ¶ 0020]. The motivation above in the rejection of claim 7 applies here.
With respect to claim 9: Oh, Kim, Ilieva, and Wagner teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 8. Wagner further teaches determine whether an engine of the vehicle is started, depending on whether the verification of the vehicle owner is completed [Wagner ¶ 0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wagner into the invention of Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to not only include detecting when a mechanical key is used to unlock the door as Oh, Kim, and Ilieva discloses but to also allow the starting of an engine after verification as taught by Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wagner into Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to improve the useability and security of the emergency start system.
With respect to claims 12 and 17-19: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 2 and 7-9. The method taught/disclosed in claims 12 and 17-19 can clearly perform on the system of claims 2 and 7-9. Therefore, claims 12 and 17-19 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kim in view of Ilieva and further in view of Mendoza-Vega (US PGPub 2021/0095756).
With respect to claim 5: Oh, Kim, and Ilieva teach all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 4. However, Oh, Kim, and Ilieva do not teach wherein the start button is provided in an electronic Shift by Wire (SBW) lever in a column type, which is provided at one side of a steering wheel.
However, Mendoza-Vega does teach wherein the start button is provided in an electronic Shift by Wire (SBW) lever in a column type, which is provided at one side of a steering wheel [Mendoza-Vega ¶ 0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mendoza-Vega into the invention of Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to not only include a start button as Oh, Kim, and Ilieva discloses but to also include an electronic Shift by Wire lever as taught by Mendoza-Vega with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Mendoza-Vega into Oh, Kim, and Ilieva to improve usability of the vehicle controls.
With respect to claim 15: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 5. The method taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform on the system of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666