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 the Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 06/24/2026, wherein claims 1 and 11 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Idsinga and Firari fail to teach all limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. However, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of the references, rather than either reference individually. Idsinga teaches a wireless receiver, processing unit, software-controlled speed limiting, activation/deactivation signals, and a speed-limiting mode that remains active until a deactivating signal is received. The claims recite “one of a software and a personal identification number (PIN),” and therefore encompass the software alternative relied upon in Idsinga. Firari is relied upon for teaching restriction of the vehicle to a predetermined lower speed for theft prevention.
Applicant further argues that the combination would require replacing Idsinga’s processing unit and control logic with Firari’s manually activated switch. This does not accurately characterize the rejection. The proposed combination retains Idsinga’s speed-control architecture and applies Firari’s teaching of a lower theft-related vehicle speed. Thus, the modification would not render Idsinga unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Moreover, both references concern restricting vehicle operation/speed and address vehicle security. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Firari’s lower theft-related speed to Idsinga’s programmable speed-limiting system to provide an additional vehicle-security operating condition with predictable results.
Applicant’s additional discussion regarding factory-only activation, cloud retrieval of a vehicle-specific PIN, and VIN-based authorization is not persuasive to the extent such features are not recited in the claims and therefore cannot be imported from the specification.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Idsinga in view of Firari is maintained.
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 1-8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idsinga (US-7184873-B1) in view of Firari (US5486806A).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Idsinga discloses a system for a newly manufactured vehicle targeted for theft (Abstract: under BRI, claim still reads on any vehicle with speed-limiting module) comprising:
one of a wireless receiver and receiver-transceiver integrated into one of a powertrain electrical system, Electronic Control Unit (ECU), Motor Control Unit (MCU) (Figure 2, Col. 6, Lines 25-30: “It would also provide for increased security against thieves by disconnecting the accelerator until there is a valid recognized key tag 58”; Col. 5, Lines 1-10; Col. 6, Lines 13-30), and
vehicle speed sensors of the newly manufactured vehicle to configure the newly manufactured vehicle to a predetermined first vehicle speed (Col. 5, Lines 44-55); and
a speed command control device comprising one of a software and a personal identification number (PIN) integrated into the at least one of the wireless receiver and receiver-transceiver to be activated manually to turn ON the speed command control device of the one of the wireless receiver and receiver-transceiver by use of the one of the software and the PIN and remain ON indefinitely until the speed command control device is cleared (Col. 5, Lines 24-40, lines 45-60l Col. 6, Lines 1-10; Col. 7, Lines 25-40; Fig. 6; Col. 8, Lines 1-15, Col. 6, Lines 12-30; Under BRI, “integrated into” encompasses components physically housed within the same module (Fig. 1). The receiver 34 receives wireless commands and transmits activating, deactivating, and programming signals directly to the processing unit 30 which executes speed control logic. Therefore, the wireless receiver forms part of the integrated speed command control device; Note: The claim recites “one of a software and a PIN” and thus only requires either one of the software or the PIN, which is met my the teachings of Idsinga comprising the software).
However, Idsinga does not explicitly state to configure the newly manufactured vehicle to a predetermined second vehicle speed being lower than the predetermined first vehicle speed.
On the other hand, Firari teaches the newly manufactured vehicle to a predetermined second vehicle speed being lower than the predetermined first vehicle speed (Col. 2, Lines 15-55; Col. 4, Lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Idsinga reference with the teachings from the Firari reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides multiple predetermined speed limits, including a lower limit during theft, thereby improving safety without altering the fundamental operation of Idsinga’s device.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Idsinga discloses wherein the one of the wireless receiver and receiver- transceiver is turned ON at a vehicle manufacturer in a Vehicle Speed Ship Mode (VSSM) configuration (Col. 5 and 6, because VSSM is broadly interpreted as a configuration wherein the maximum allowable vehicle speed is limited and the speed restriction is only lifted upon authorized input, which is broadly interpreted to be covered by the x reference).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Idsinga discloses the newly manufactured vehicle cannot be driven to exceed the predetermined vehicle speed in the VSSM configuration (Col. 7, Lines 40-45: “FIG. 7 illustrates a method for preventing the speed of a vehicle to exceed a speed limit value by altering APP signals received by the engine control unit”).
However, Idsinga does not explicitly state a predetermined second speed.
On the other hand, Firari teaches a predetermined second speed (Col. 2, Lines 15-55; Col. 4, Lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Idsinga reference with the teachings from the Firari reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides multiple predetermined speed limits, including a lower limit during theft, thereby improving safety without altering the fundamental operation of Idsinga’s device.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Idsinga discloses the claimed invention except for that the predetermined vehicle speed is 35 miles per hour (MPH). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify the predetermined vehicle speed to 35 mph, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Idsinga discloses the speed command control device is calibrated to the predetermined vehicle speed (Col. 5, Lines 45-60; Col. 6, Lines 1-10).
However, Idsinga does not explicitly state a predetermined second speed.
On the other hand, Firari teaches a predetermined second speed (Col. 2, Lines 15-55; Col. 4, Lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Idsinga reference with the teachings from the Firari reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides multiple predetermined speed limits, including a lower limit during theft, thereby improving safety without altering the fundamental operation of Idsinga’s device.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Idsinga discloses wherein the software is calibratable for at least one of the vehicle speed and a motor torque (Col. 5, Lines 45-60; Col. 6, Lines 1-10).
However, Idsinga does not explicitly state a predetermined second speed.
On the other hand, Firari teaches a predetermined second speed (Col. 2, Lines 15-55; Col. 4, Lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Idsinga reference with the teachings from the Firari reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides multiple predetermined speed limits, including a lower limit during theft, thereby improving safety without altering the fundamental operation of Idsinga’s device.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Idsinga discloses wherein the speed command control device is cleared by the PIN (Note: Under BRI of the claim, and in reference to claims 1 and 11, the PIN is not a required feature herein because independent claims recite that only one of the software or the PIN are required to satisfy the teachings of the claims, accordingly, claims 7 and 17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from rejected independent claims).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Idsinga discloses the PIN is obtained from one of a Cloud and secure database (Note: Under BRI of the claim, and in reference to claims 1 and 11, the PIN is not a required feature herein because independent claims recite that only one of the software or the PIN are required to satisfy the teachings of the claims, accordingly, claims 7 and 17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from rejected independent claims).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, and 19-20 are allowed.
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 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 SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
