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 .
Response to Arguments
It is noted that the claims have been amended to overcome the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 7 of Remarks, the applicant argues the combined teachings of Jin in view of Le fail to disclose the claimed limitations of independent claim 1. The crux of the applicant’s arguments is that Jin teaches the condition for providing booting/wake-up instruction is a shifting based on the user position and not shifting based on a user operation. As discussed on page 5 of the Office action dated 5/14/2025, the examiner states “Jin does not specifically disclose where the wake-up of the facial recognition processor linked to the vehicle unlocking system is in response to an unlocking command issued from the keyfob. In the same field of endeavor, Le discloses an occupant presence detection system where a wake-up sensor receives an unlocking signal from a vehicle keyfob which indicates the presence of the occupant near the vehicle. Subsequently, wake-up signals are provided to system components (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0015 and 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user initiated vehicle unlocking command via keyfob to start the vehicle wake-up process of Le to the authentication system of Jin, thereby requiring user input to a keyfob to indicate user proximity to the vehicle, motivation being to further require user intent to unlock the vehicle which accounts for the circumstance where the user is in proximity of the vehicle but does not intend to enter the vehicle. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would futher conserve system resources by avoiding false wake-up.” Le is relied upon for the disclosure of providing a booting/wake-up signal based on a user operation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combined teachings of Jin in view of Le results in a vehicle door unlocking system that provides booting/wake-up signaling based on user operation, motivation being to further require user intent to unlock the vehicle (via user operation) which accounts for the circumstance where the user is in proximity to the vehicle but does not intend to enter the vehicle. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would futher conserve system resources by avoiding false wake-up.
It is further noted that Jin discloses the newly added limitation “the standby mode being a state that the vehicle door has not yet been unlocked but capable of being unlocked by a recognition mechanism performed by the recognition portion” where the wake-up/booting signal is provided to the vehicle in order to prime the vehicle for operations and vehicle operation such as door unlocking is performed after facial recognition is performed/completed (Figure 7, Elements 203, 204, 205, 206 and Paragraphs 0234-0240). Therefore, the combined teachings of Jin in view of Le disclose the argued limitations of claim 1. The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
New claim 10 will be addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US PgPub 2023/0019720) and in view of Le et al. (hereafter Le)(US PgPub 2014/0316607).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses a vehicle door unlocking system, utilizing a communication terminal capable of communicating wirelessly with a vehicle to unlock a vehicle door (Figures 1, 4 and 7), comprising: a wireless communication device served as a receiving portion, receiving an unlocking command issued by an operation of a user (Figure 1, Element 2A, Figure 4, Element 140 and Paragraphs 0062, 0063, 0084 and 0087 where the keyfob provides vehicle commands to the vehicle based on user input); and a processing device served as a recognition portion, recognizing a position of the user relative to the vehicle (Figure 4, Element 130 and Paragraphs 0129, 0131, 0132 and 0143 where the controller determines position of the user relative to the vehicle), wherein when the receiving portion receives a signal issued from a position more than a first distance away from the vehicle, or when the receiving portion receives an unlocking command issued by a second operation of the user, the vehicle door unlocking system shifts to a standby mode, the standby mode being a state that the vehicle door has not yet been unlocked but capable of being unlocked by a recognition mechanism performed by the recognition portion (Figure 7, Elements 201, 202 and Paragraphs 0131, 0149, 0150, 0164 and 0229 where the vehicle determines that the user/user device is within a first distance (D1) of the vehicle and provides booting/wake-up instruction to a facial recognition processor linked to vehicle door unlocking. The wake-up state corresponds to a standby mode where the vehicle door has not yet been unlocked but is capable of being unlocked as the vehicle awaits confirming additional data/information), and when the recognition portion in the standby mode recognizes that the user enters a position within a second distance that is less than the first distance from the vehicle, the vehicle door is unlocked (Figure 7, Elements 203, 204, 205, 206 and Paragraphs 0234-0240 where facial recognition of the user is performed when the user is within a second distance to the vehicle. After successful authentication, the vehicle door is unlocked). Jin does not specifically disclose where the wake-up of the facial recognition processor linked to the vehicle unlocking system is in response to an unlocking command issued from the keyfob. In the same field of endeavor, Le discloses an occupant presence detection system where a wake-up sensor receives an unlocking signal from a vehicle keyfob which indicates the presence of the occupant near the vehicle. Subsequently, wake-up signals are provided to system components (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0015 and 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user initiated vehicle unlocking command via keyfob to start the vehicle wake-up process of Le to the authentication system of Jin, thereby requiring user input to a keyfob to indicate user proximity to the vehicle, motivation being to further require user intent to unlock the vehicle which accounts for the circumstance where the user is in proximity of the vehicle but does not intend to enter the vehicle. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would futher conserve system resources by avoiding false wake-up.
Regarding claim 2, Jin discloses wherein the recognition portion recognizes whether the user enters the position within the second distance from the vehicle according to a current position information of the communication terminal pre-registered in the vehicle, and when the recognition portion in the standby mode completes position recognition of the current position information of the communication terminal, the vehicle door is unlocked (Figure 7, Elements 203, 204, 205 206 and Paragraphs 0129, 0131, 0132, 0143 and 0234-0240 where facial recognition of the user is performed when the user is within a second distance to the vehicle. After successful authentication, the vehicle door is unlocked. User distance is tracked using received signal strength information).
Regarding claim 3, Jin discloses herein the recognition portion recognizes whether the user enters the position within the second distance from the vehicle according to facial recognition information of the user acquired by an external camera mounted on the vehicle, and when the recognition portion in the standby mode completes facial recognition of the user, the vehicle door is unlocked Figure 7, Elements 203, 204, 205 206 and Paragraphs 0234-0240 where facial recognition of the user is performed when the user is within a second distance to the vehicle. After successful authentication, the vehicle door is unlocked).
Regarding claims 4-6, Jin discloses wherein the first operation and the second operation of the user are performed by the communication terminal held by the user (Figure 1, Element 2A, Figure 4, Element 140 and Paragraphs 0062, 0063, 0084 and 0087 where the keyfob provides plural vehicle commands to the vehicle based on user input).
Regarding claims 7-9, Jin discloses wherein the vehicle door comprises a tailgate of the vehicle (Figure 2, Element 101c and Paragraphs 0052, 0053 and 0094 where the vehicle includes a tailgate).
Regarding claim 10, Jin discloses a vehicle door unlocking system, utilizing a communication terminal capable of communicating wirelessly with a vehicle to unlock a vehicle door (Figures 1, 4 and 7), comprising: a wireless communication device served as a receiving portion, receiving an unlocking command issued by an operation of a user (Figure 1, Element 2A, Figure 4, Element 140 and Paragraphs 0062, 0063, 0084 and 0087 where the keyfob provides vehicle commands to the vehicle based on user input); and a processing device served as a recognition portion, recognizing a position of the user relative to the vehicle (Figure 4, Element 130 and Paragraphs 0129, 0131, 0132 and 0143 where the controller determines position of the user relative to the vehicle), wherein when the receiving portion receives a signal issued from a position more than a first distance away from the vehicle, or when the receiving portion receives an unlocking command issued by a second operation of the user, the vehicle door unlocking system shifts to a standby mode, the first operation and the second operation being different operation modes (Figure 1, Element 2a, Figure 7, Elements 201, 202 and Paragraphs 0062, 0063, 0084, 0087, 0131, 0149, 0150, 0164 and 0229 where the vehicle determines that the user/user device is within a first distance (D1) of the vehicle and provides booting/wake-up instruction to a facial recognition processor linked to vehicle door unlocking. The wake-up state corresponds to a standby mode where the vehicle door has not yet been unlocked by capable of being unlocked as the vehicle awaits confirming additional data/information. The vehicle additionally receives user commands based on user input from the keyfob), and when the recognition portion in the standby mode recognizes that the user enters a position within a second distance that is less than the first distance from the vehicle, the vehicle door is unlocked (Figure 7, Elements 203, 204, 205, 206 and Paragraphs 0234-0240 where facial recognition of the user is performed when the user is within a second distance to the vehicle. After successful authentication, the vehicle door is unlocked). Jin does not specifically disclose where the wake-up of the facial recognition processor linked to the vehicle unlocking system is in response to an unlocking command issued from the keyfob. In the same field of endeavor, Le discloses an occupant presence detection system where a wake-up sensor receives an unlocking signal from a vehicle keyfob which indicates the presence of the occupant near the vehicle. Subsequently, wake-up signals are provided to system components (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0015 and 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user initiated vehicle unlocking command via keyfob to start the vehicle wake-up process of Le to the authentication system of Jin, thereby requiring user input (unlocking command) to a keyfob to indicate user proximity to the vehicle, motivation being to further require user intent to unlock the vehicle which accounts for the circumstance where the user is in proximity of the vehicle but does not intend to enter the vehicle. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would futher conserve system resources by avoiding false wake-up.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686