DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The application of Lee et al. for an “apparatus and method for controlling vehicle” filed October 23, 2023 has been examined.
This application claims foreign priority based on the application 10-2023-0068545, filed on May 26, 2023 in Korea. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a) – (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogino et al. (Pub. No. 2009/0096578).
Referring to Claim 1, Ogino et al. disclose an apparatus for controlling a vehicle (3) (page 2 paragraph 0015; see Figures 1 to 6), the apparatus comprising:
a communication device (32) (i.e. a transmitter/receiver 32 of the vehicle 3) configured to communicate with an authentication device (1) of the vehicle (3) (i.e. The master portable unit 1 has an identification code (ID code), which is specific to each vehicle V, and has a function in which when an identification code transmission request is issued from the vehicle-mounted device 3 in order to check an identification code, a frame storing the identification code is transmitted to the vehicle-mounted device 3) (page 2 paragraph 0025; see Figure 1); and
a processor (35) configured to search for the authentication device (1) inside of the vehicle (3) (i.e. the processor is checked whether the master portable unit 1 exists outside the vehicle compartment. This determination may be performed in the similar manner as the step 120 of FIG. 4. Here, when it is determined that the master portable unit exists inside the vehicle (NO), step 330 is executed.) (page 5 paragraph 0066; see Figure 6), and to prevent a guide message for authentication from being output when at least one authentication device (1 and/or sub-unit 2) is found inside the vehicle (3) (i.e. At step 330, it is checked whether the location of the sub-portable unit 2 is outside the vehicle compartment. This determination may also be performed in the similar manner as in step 130 of FIG. 4. Here, when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), the user is still inside the vehicle compartment or does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the home. Even if the unlock operation is performed in this state, it is unnecessary to perform the take-out warning or the like. Accordingly, in this case, the process is ended without change) (page 5 paragraph 0068; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 2, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor (35) is configured to search for the authentication device (1) inside of the vehicle (3) when determining that a state of a door (33a-33d) is changed while power is applied to the vehicle, and to output the guide message (370) (i.e. perform warning control) according to the authentication device used to apply the power, and whether the authentication device used to apply the power is registered in the vehicle when the authentication device (1) is not found inside the vehicle (i.e. when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning.) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 3, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the authentication device is not found inside of the vehicle (i.e. when it is determined at step 320 that the location of the master portable unit 2 is outside the vehicle compartment (YES), step 360 is executed to check whether the location of the sub-portable unit 2 is outside the vehicle compartment. This determination may be performed in the similar manner as in step 330) (page 5 paragraph 0066; see Figure 6), and to output a message informing that a smart key and a first digital key are not recognized when the first digital key is registered in the vehicle, and wherein the authentication device used to apply the power includes the smart key and the first digital key (i.e. it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 4, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the authentication device is not found inside of the vehicle (i.e. when it is determined at step 320 that the location of the master portable unit 2 is outside the vehicle compartment (YES), step 360 is executed to check whether the location of the sub-portable unit 2 is outside the vehicle compartment. This determination may be performed in the similar manner as in step 330) (page 5 paragraph 0066; see Figure 6), and output a message informing that the power is applied by using a second digital key (2) (i.e. a sub-unit) or a fingerprint when the authentication device used to apply the power includes the second digital key (2) or the fingerprint (i.e. it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 5, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to search for the authentication device inside of the vehicle when determining a remote start state and at least one of a door closed state of the vehicle, a brake pressed state, or a combination thereof (i.e. At step 310, it is checked whether the engine is in operation. This determination is performed by a well-known method, for example, information relating to the engine speed may be acquired from the engine ECU. Only when the engine is operating (YES), step 320 is executed) (page 5 paragraphs 0064-0065; see Figure 6), and to output the guide message according to the authentication device registered in the vehicle when the authentication device is not found inside the vehicle (i.e. when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning.) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 6, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to output a message informing that a smart key, a first digital key, a second digital key, or a fingerprint is required as an authentication device for maintaining engine running when it is determined that the authentication device is not found inside the vehicle, and the authentication device registered in the vehicle includes at least one of the first digital key, the second digital key or a combination thereof, and the fingerprint (i.e. when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 7, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to output a message informing that a smart key or a fingerprint is required as the authentication device for maintaining engine running when it is determined that the authentication device is not found inside the vehicle and the authentication device registered in the vehicle includes a fingerprint (i.e. when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 8, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to output a message informing that a smart key, a first digital key or a second digital key is required as an authentication device for maintaining engine running when it is determined that the authentication device is not found inside the vehicle, and the authentication device registered in the vehicle includes at least one of the first digital key, the second digital key or a combination thereof (i.e. when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 9, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to output a message informing that a smart key is required as the authentication device for maintaining engine running when it is determined that the authentication device is not found inside of the vehicle and the authentication device registered in the vehicle does not exist (i.e. when the sub-portable unit 2 exists inside the vehicle compartment or nowhere in the communicable areas of the antennas 31a to 31e (NO), it is presumed that the user holds the master portable unit 1 and goes out of the vehicle V in the state where the user does not use the sub-portable unit 2 leaving it in the vehicle compartment or in the home. Accordingly, the state is such that the user takes out the master portable unit 1 while leaving the engine operating. Since it is necessary to perform the take-out warning, step 370 is executed to perform the warning control. As a result, a signal instructing that the take-out warning is to be performed is outputted from the control unit 35 to the warning device 37, and the warning device 37 performs the take-out warning) (page 6 paragraph 0071; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 10, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the authentication device (1) communicating with the communication device (32) includes at least one of a smart key (1), a first digital key, a second digital key, or a combination thereof (page 2 paragraphs 0024-0025; see Figures 1 to 3).
Referring to Claim 11, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the communication device (32) is configured to communicate with the first digital key (1) through at least one of near field communication (NFC), Bluetooth low energy, ultra wideband (UWB) communication, or a combination thereof (i.e. the transmitter/receiver device 32 includes the antennas 31a to 31d that receive and transmit radio signals (i.e. a near field communication), and functions as an input/output unit that transmits a request signal, which is a frame indicating an identification code is transmission request to the master portable unit 1 through the antennas 31a to 31e, and receives a response signal, which is a frame storing the identification code and sent back from the master portable unit 1 through the antennas 31a to 31e) (page 2 paragraph 0029; see Figure 1).
Referring to claims 13-20, Ogino et al. disclose a method of controlling a vehicle, although different in scope from the claims 1-8, the claims 13-20 contains similar limitations in that the claims 1-8 already addressed above therefore claims 13-20 are also rejected for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1-8, respectively.
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al. (Pub. No. 2009/0096578) as applied to claim 10, and in view of Hazebrouck et al. (US# 10,685,515).
Referring to claim 12, Ogino et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 10, however, Ogino et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine that the second digital key is found inside of the vehicle when the second digital key is provided on a wireless charging device.
In the same field of endeavor of an access vehicle control system, Hazebrouck et al. teach that wherein the processor (120) is configured to determine that the second digital key (108) is found inside of the vehicle (100) when the second digital key (108) is provided on a
wireless charging device (i.e. the detection of mobile device 108 via charging connection may be used to determine that the mobile device is located inside vehicle 100) (column 6 lines 31 to 33; column 6 lines 58 to 60; see Figure 1) in order to factor other data and sources of information for passive start system of the vehicle.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for determine the location of the mobile device that is located inside the vehicle via the charging connection or the wireless charging pad taught by Hazebrouck et al. in the vehicle-mounted vehicle having a communicable area inside the vehicle compartment of the smart entry system of Ogino et al. because determining the location of the mobile device that is located inside the vehicle via the charging connection or the wireless charging pad would provide an alternative way to locate an easy, quick and accurate position of the wireless portable device in the smart entry system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
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).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685