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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11, and b14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDAI et al. (US 9963108 B2) in view of OBATA et al. (US 20150254913 A1) further in view of BACHHUBER et al. (US 5517189 A).
Re claim 1. NISHIDAI discloses (abstract) a vehicle control device (FIG.1-2) comprising:
a vehicle V having a vehicle body and a locking unit 15 having a locked state, and an unlock permissible state (interpreted as a potential unlocking performed), the vehicle being locked when the locking unit is in the locked state, the unlock permissible state being a state in which the vehicle is capable of being unlocked or is unlocked (c.2, l.45-48; c.10, l.11-13);
an electronic signal transmission unit 12 (both operating in a similar fashion to that of the claimed invention) mounted on the vehicle body;
an electronic portable device (either key 2/5 or smartphone 3/4) in wireless communication with the electronic signal transmission unit (FIG.2-3, 6-7, 9),
the electronic signal transmission unit detecting a location (c.13, l.2-5 – UHF communication includes distance information in set distance data, although set distance itself could be determined by vehicle control apparatus 1 by receiving signal strength from smartphone 4) of the electronic portable device with respect to the vehicle body (e.g. by way of sending LF signals by LF transmitter 12 (FIG.7 – S103) and receiving signals (FIG.7 – S104) by UHF receiver 13 – both transmitter and receiver are required for proper communication operation as similarly required by claimed invention in instant Application’s - FIG.3 [0034] – these elements operate in the same manner for the same purpose); and
an electronic controller 1 having a wireless communicator 13 programmed to receive electronic signals (NOTE: given that electronic signals are not defined to be wireless themselves, electronic controller could use communicator to receive electronic signals in any form including wirelessly and the claim limitation is not clear that either the controller or the communicator receive such signals, nor does it clear from the specification that this was the intended interpretation) (e.g. FIG.3 – steps S206-S104 – LF signals are transmitted by LF transmitter for the purpose of signal strength measurement to compute distance data and transfer this distance data back to UHF receiver – similar operation as shown by instant Application) transmitted by the electronic signal transmission unit (NOTE: arranged structures and functions of transmitter and receiver for example, operate in the same manner as the claimed invention’s transmitter and receiver (based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the figures and specification – in particular Applicant’s specification [0015, 0034, 0036] which clearly discloses that wireless communicator itself could include a transmitter and receiver cooperating to communicate with an electronic portable device, wherein ‘…wireless communicator can further include a receiver (e.g., an ultra high frequency receiver) that receives signals (e.g., ultra high signals) transmitted from the electronic portable device…’ [0034] – it is interpreted that this is the intended claim interpretation of the claim), with transmission of signals for distance measurements and receiving distance communication signals from either key or smartphone – FIG.3 – regarding the location of the electronic portable device with respect to the vehicle body (e.g. distance helps determine position which is then used to command/control user/vehicle operations),
the electronic controller (FIG.2) further having a computer readable medium 11 storing a threshold detection range between the electronic portable device and the vehicle body (c.8, l.53-54),
the electronic controller (c.6, l.23-30 – as shown in FIG.2 – a controller is arranged to control various functions including door lock apparatus – under broadest reasonable interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller is implicitly controller all functions performed by elements 11-16) being programmed to control the locking unit to be in the unlock permissible state when the electronic portable device is determined to be within the threshold detection range (c.1, l.21-24; c.2, l.45-46; c.5, l.39-53; c.6, l.38-40 – given that a distance threshold can be customized for unlocking – it is interpreted that an unlocking permissible state is performed when a user reaches within an accepted distance threshold),
the electronic controller being further programmed to update the threshold detection range (c.2, l.44-54) to a customized detection range (FIG.1B – e.g. based on user’s wish) upon determining that the locking unit is in an unlock permissible state (c.5, l.54 – c.6, l.8).
(c.5, l.54 – c.6, l.8)
(22) When the WE distance threshold is customized, the user P starts the application for customization by operating the smartphone 3 at a position relatively far from the vehicle V, and selects WE distance setting from a menu displayed on a screen. By doing so, the vehicle control apparatus 1 periodically transmits a signal Q for distance measurement. Thereafter, when the user P approaches the vehicle V, carrying the electronic key 2 and the smartphone 3, and reaches a position where the doors are to be unlocked, the user P performs an operation to set the distance on the screen of the smartphone 3. By doing so, the electronic key 2 measures the strength of the signal Q received from the vehicle control apparatus 1, and a distance Y between the electronic key 2 and the vehicle V calculated based on the strength of the signal Q is stored, as a WE distance threshold, in the vehicle control apparatus 1 or in the electronic key 2. By this, the WE distance threshold that meets the user P's wish is set, and WE operation based on the distance threshold is performed thereafter. Namely, the doors of the vehicle V are automatically unlocked at a point in time when the user P has approached a position away by the distance Y from the vehicle V.
However, NISHIDAI arguably fails to explicitly disclose:
the electronic signal transmission unit detecting a location of the electronic portable device with respect to the vehicle body.
OBATA teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention, a vehicle control device (FIG.1) comprising:
a vehicle C having a vehicle body and a locking unit 16 having a locked state [0045], and an unlock permissible state (interpreted as a potential unlocking performed), the vehicle being locked when the locking unit is in the locked state, the unlock permissible state being a state in which the vehicle is capable of being unlocked or is unlocked [0032];
an electronic signal transmission unit 12 mounted on the vehicle body; (FIG.1)
an electronic portable device 11 in wireless communication with the electronic signal transmission unit [0034], the electronic signal transmission unit (e.g. authentication/position detection device 12 – which provides position information to a controller 15 [0035]) detecting a location of the electronic portable device with respect to the vehicle body [0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using an electronic signal transmission unit as taught by OBATA as a position detection device to provide the required distance information in order to properly determine a position of a portable device as required by NISHIDAI.
However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA arguably fails to explicitly disclose (emphasis added to limitations not clearly disclosed):
automatically update the threshold detection range to a customized detection range upon determining that the locking unit is in an unintentional unlock permissible state (interpreted as any state when unlocking is possible).
BACHHUBER teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention (FIG.1) a vehicle locking/unlocking operation (FIG.2 – c.6, l.26-38), wherein a distance range (e.g. range for unlocking function) is automatically updated/changed (c.3, l.10-16, 26-40; c.7, l.63; c.8, l.6-7) based on monitoring received signals (based on power or field strength). BACHHUBER performs the automatic update upon determining that locking could be in an unintentionally unlocked permissible state (c.2, l.37-52 – e.g. preventing unreliable unlocked state due to range being too great, thereby allowing unlocking from farther away and potentially allowing a theft or burglary event) for the purpose of preventing excessive ranges of transmitter (c.1, l.16-23). Furthermore, BACHHUBER teaches (FIG.2) receiving signal strength parameters thru receiver E so that a monitoring unit V works in conjunction with other elements in FIG.2 to determine a distance parameter (c.3, l.10-39 – e.g. receiver determines mean value to adjust a range after an UNLOCK signal is received from a key, to thereby adjust the range for unlocking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the transmitter and receiver of NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA as taught by BACHHUBER using a commonly known function of using signal strengths to determine a location of a portable device and automatically update a customized detection range when vehicle is in a potential unlocking state as taught by BACHHUBER in order to more accurately determine a location and prevent potential theft/burglary, due to an unlocking function being allowed when portable device and vehicle are further away from each other.
Re claim 2. NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER (c.8, l.20-24; c.10, l.16-25, l.34-37; c.12, l.38-44) disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to determine that the locking unit is in the unintentional unlock permissible state upon determining that the locking unit is in the unlock permissible state for a threshold period of time.
Re claim 3. NISHIDAI (c.13, l.47-52) as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER (c.4, l.20-21, l.30-32; c.12, l.1-6) disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein the electronic controller is further programmed to control the locking unit into the locked state upon updating the threshold detection range to the customized detection range after the threshold period of time.
Re claim 5. NISHIDAI (FIG.4A-4G) as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 3, further comprising a smartphone 3 in wireless communication with the wireless communicator of the electronic controller to receive a notification message regarding the threshold detection range being updated to the customized detection range upon determining a next instance of the vehicle starting (e.g. a vehicle function starting such as starting vehicle setting customization).
Re claim 11. NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to determine the customized detection range based on the location of the electronic portable device such that the electronic portable device is not within the customized detection range during updating (given that the function of updating includes changing range based on user wishes and a determination of an appropriate or inappropriate range of further functions such as locking/unlocking – customizing of detection range could be performed when a location of portable device is moving beyond such detection range).
Re claim 14. NISHIDAI (FIG.4A-4G) as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER (c.5, l.7-15, l.47-54) disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller determines that the electronic portable device is within the threshold detection range and updates to the customized detection range such that the electronic portable device is outside of the customized detection range (given that both teach the ability to set the range to any desired or needed range – BACHHUBER for instance, teaches that the receiver stores in memory a specific sensitivity values for different transmitters (keys) such that the actual detection range would vary depending on different keys used by a user).
Re claim 15. NISHIDAI (FIG.4A-4G) as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 14, wherein a maximum area of the customized detection range is less than a maximum area of the threshold detection range (given that custom range could vary based on user wish, a customized detection range could be less than a maximum area of an actual or former threshold detection range – this is obtained by the combined teachings).
Re claim 16. NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER (e.g. different threshold detection ranges could be determined based on different transmitter/keys potentially being used by users) disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 15, wherein the threshold detection range includes a first threshold and a second threshold (e.g. different ranges/sensitivities could be applied and stored in memory for the purpose of operating with different transmitters/keys – a commonly known practice for shared vehicles), the first threshold being a home range (given that this range is not further defined, any range including one where the transmitter/key is closest or closer to a vehicle could be considered a home range) when the vehicle is located at home and the second threshold being a non-home range when the vehicle is not located at home (given that this range is not further defined, any range including one where the transmitter/key is furthest or further away from a vehicle could be considered a non-home range, wherein such range is larger than the home range), the home range and the non-home range being different (given that these claimed ranges are defined as being different, either range could be larger than the other, as explained previously, e.g. home range could be smaller than non-home OR vice versa).
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) could be inclined to set different ranges with a home range being a larger or further away distance range, while a non-home range could be set to a smaller or closer distance range to the vehicle, to prevent potential theft, etc. as suggested by BACHHUBER.
Furthermore, the prior art of BACHHUBER also teaches the known technique of reducing directly or indirectly the sensitivity, thereby decreasing a potential unlocking distance range to prevent potential vehicle theft/burglary caused by unwanted vehicle access. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of having different ranges (e.g. home versus non-home ranges) would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the security of the vehicle.
Re claim 17. NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER (as for claim 2) disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 16, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to determine that the locking unit is in the unintentional unlock permissible state upon determining that the locking unit is in the unlock permissible state for a threshold period of time.
Re claim 18. NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER (as for claim 3) disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 17, wherein the electronic controller is further programmed to control the locking unit into the locked state upon updating the threshold detection range to the customized detection range after the threshold period of time.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDAI et al. (US 9963108 B2) in view of OBATA et al. (US 20150254913 A1) further in view of BACHHUBER et al. (US 5517189 A) further in view of NAWOJ (US 20200226584 A1).
Re claim 4. However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 3, further comprising a display mounted in an interior of the vehicle body, the electronic controller being further programmed to control the display to display a notification message regarding the threshold detection range being updated to the customized detection range upon determining a next instance of the vehicle starting.
NAWOJ teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention vehicle with a built-in electronic display inside the vehicle for displaying information, and a smartphone which also displays information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adding a display mounted to an interior of vehicle as suggested by NAWOJ in order to properly display relevant information, such as notification regarding threshold detection range updates.
Re claim 10. NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER disclose the vehicle control device according to claim 4, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to determine the customized detection range based on the location of the electronic portable device such that the electronic portable device is not within the customized detection range during updating (given that the function of updating includes changing range based on user wishes and a determination of an appropriate or inappropriate range of further functions such as locking/unlocking – customizing of detection range could be performed when a location of portable device is moving beyond such detection range).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDAI et al. (US 9963108 B2) in view of OBATA et al. (US 20150254913 A1), in view of BACHHUBER et al. (US 5517189 A), further in view of NAWOJ (US 20200226584 A1) and further in view of LINDEN et al. (US 20180236972 A1).
Re claim 6. However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER and NAWOJ fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 4, wherein the electronic portable device includes any one of a group consisting of an electronic key, a smartphone and an electronic card.
LINDEN teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention, remote entry device may be selected from the group consisting of: a key fob, a smart key, a key card, a cellular telephone or smartphone configured with a phone-as-a-key function, a Bluetooth®-activated and vehicle-recognized cellular telephone, a Bluetooth®-activated and vehicle-recognized smartphone, etc.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of trying any of these taught devices. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to substitute for any device, given that all these devices can be carried by a user and could be used by such user for the same end results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDAI et al. (US 9963108 B2) in view of OBATA et al. (US 20150254913 A1) in view of BACHHUBER et al. (US 5517189 A) further in view of LINDEN et al. (US 20180236972 A1).
Re claim 7. However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the electronic portable device includes any one of a group consisting of an electronic key, a smartphone and an electronic card.
LINDEN teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention, remote entry device may be selected from the group consisting of: a key fob, a smart key, a key card, a cellular telephone or smartphone configured with a phone-as-a-key function, a Bluetooth®-activated and vehicle-recognized cellular telephone, a Bluetooth®-activated and vehicle-recognized smartphone, etc.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of trying any of these taught devices. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to substitute for any device, given that all these devices can be carried by a user and could be used by such user for the same end results.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDAI et al. (US 9963108 B2) in view of OBATA et al. (US 20150254913 A1) in view of BACHHUBER et al. (US 5517189 A) in view of NAWOJ (US 20200226584 A1) further in view of NEUHOFF (US 20190143942 A1).
Re claim 8. However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER and NAWOJ fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 4, wherein the electronic signal transmission unit includes a plurality of antennas mounted on different locations of the vehicle body.
NEUHOFF teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, using plurality of antennas (FIG.2) mount on different locations of vehicle body, to communicate with low frequency signals as used in a passive access system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of antennas as taught by NEUHOFF in order to improve accuracy due to improved signal strength detection.
Re claim 12. However, However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER and NAWOJ fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 8, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to selectively control the plurality of low frequency antennas to update the customized detection range.
NEUHOFF teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, using controller (control device) (FIG.3) to selectively control [0062] the plurality of low frequency antennas as needed based on signal strength received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of antennas as taught by NEUHOFF in order to improve accuracy due to improved signal strength detection.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDAI et al. (US 9963108 B2) in view of OBATA et al. (US 20150254913 A1) in view of BACHHUBER et al. (US 5517189 A) further in view of NEUHOFF (US 20190143942 A1).
Re claim 9. However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the electronic signal transmission unit includes a plurality of antennas mounted on different locations of the vehicle body.
NEUHOFF teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, using plurality of antennas (FIG.2) mount on different locations of vehicle body, to communicate with low frequency signals as used in a passive access system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of antennas as taught by NEUHOFF in order to improve accuracy due to improved signal strength detection.
Re claim 13. However, NISHIDAI as modified by OBATA and BACHHUBER fails to explicitly disclose:
the vehicle control device according to claim 9, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to selectively control the plurality of antennas to update the customized detection range.
NEUHOFF teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, using controller (control device) (FIG.3) to selectively control [0062] the plurality of low frequency antennas as needed based on signal strength received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of antennas as taught by NEUHOFF in order to improve accuracy due to improved signal strength detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 1/7/2026