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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KAMIYA (JP2013147912A).
Re Claim 1. KAMIYA discloses (abstract) an information processing device mounted to a vehicle, the information processing device comprising at least one processor and memory that stores a restriction settings information relating to a specification of restrictions of functions, the restriction settings information being determined for each command for locking the vehicle [0011-0014], the at least one processor configured to:
control a plurality of functions of the vehicle based on an electronic key function [0013], in accordance with a communication between a smartphone providing the electronic key function and the vehicle (FIG.1); and
specify a restriction of a control ([0051] i.e. defined as based on location of key or other factors, such as “if the electronic key 14 is present in the vehicle interior, automatic lock control is activated and all the vehicle doors are automatically locked…”) using the electronic key function, among the plurality of functions of the vehicle (i.e. locking and unlocking), based on the restriction settings information,
wherein the restriction settings information includes a specification (various restriction settings information/data must be stored for all the different lock functions as described below) that corresponds to a locking operation performed when a user boards the vehicle (if the opening of the vehicle door is not detected within a predetermined time after the unlocking (i.e. upon a boarding process by user), the system can automatically lock the unlocked vehicle door...), or a locking operation performed when the user disembarks from the vehicle (if the electronic key 14 is present in the vehicle interior (i.e. during an disembarking process of user), automatic lock control is activated and all the vehicle doors are automatically locked…).
[0038]
406 Therefore, according to the vehicle door lock system 10 of this embodiment, after the vehicle
door is unlocked, a person who is about to get into the vehicle or who is about to get off the
vehicle closes the vehicle door within the auto-locking time. Since all the vehicle doors are
automatically locked when the vehicle is not opened and the vehicle is not boarded or
alighted, it is possible to prevent the vehicle doors from being unlocked continuously for a
long period of time, thereby ensuring high security. be able to.
[0049]
534 On the other hand, if it is determined in step 110 that the valid electronic key 14 does not
exist inside the vehicle, it means that the valid electronic key 14 exists outside the vehicle,
and it is detected that the vehicle door is open due to the failure of the courtesy switch 40.
Since it can be determined that the wireless door lock in step 106 was performed in
accordance with the wireless operation of the electronic key 14 outside the vehicle,
execution of the above lock prevention control is permitted (step 112).
540 Also, when it is determined in step 106 that the vehicle door is not wirelessly locked,
execution of the above lock prevention control is permitted (step 112). In this case, when the
electronic key 14 is present in the vehicle interior thereafter, automatic locking of all vehicle
doors based on non-detection of door opening after unlocking of the vehicle doors is
prohibited.
[0051]
560 Therefore, for example, when the vehicle door is wirelessly locked using the electronic key 14
in the vehicle interior so that the vehicle occupant can take a rest in the vehicle interior
without leaving the vehicle interior after switching from the ignition on to the ignition on.,
thereafter, the execution of the anti-confinement control is prohibited.
564 Therefore, even if the vehicle door is unlocked by the vehicle occupant accidentally operating
the unlock button of the regular electronic key 14 in the vehicle interior, any vehicle door
will be opened within the auto-lock establishment time thereafter. If the door is not unlocked,
even if the electronic key 14 is present in the vehicle interior, automatic lock control is
activated and all the vehicle doors are automatically locked, thereby avoiding continued
unlocking of the vehicle doors over a long period of time. It is possible to ensure high
security.
[0052]
574 Further, for example, in a situation where there are a plurality of authorized electronic keys
14 corresponding to the in-vehicle device 12 of a compatible vehicle, the vehicle occupant
leaves one electronic key 14 in the vehicle interior after switching the vehicle from ignition
on to ignition on. If the vehicle door is still opened and another electronic key 14 is taken out
of the vehicle and the vehicle door is wirelessly locked, execution of the lock-in prevention
control is prohibited thereafter.
580 Therefore, even if the vehicle doors are unlocked wirelessly or smartly using one electronic
key 14 after that, if none of the vehicle doors are opened within the auto-lock establishment
time after that, the electronic key 14 is unlocked. is present in the vehicle interior, the autolock
control is activated and all the vehicle doors are automatically locked, so that at least
one electronic key 14 out of a plurality of regular electronic keys 14 is left in the vehicle
interior. It is possible to avoid prohibition of automatic locking after unlocking the vehicle
door, thereby ensuring high security.
[0054]
598 In the above-described embodiment, the body ECU 18 detects the opening/closing of the
vehicle door based on the state of the courtesy switch 40, so that the "open/close detection
means" described in the scope of claims can detect the code from the electronic key 14. By
unlocking the vehicle door when the unlocking condition of the vehicle door is satisfied
based on the signal (specifically, the instruction signal from the verification ECU 16), the
"door unlocking means" described in the scope of claims is activated. After unlocking the
vehicle door, when opening of the vehicle door is not detected using the courtesy switch 40
within the auto-lock establishment time, by executing auto lock control for automatically
locking the vehicle door. The described "automatic door lock means" prohibits the execution
of the above auto-lock control when the electronic key 14 is present in the vehicle after the
vehicle door is unlocked (that is, when the vehicle door is not detected to be open). The
"automatic door lock prohibiting means" described in the claims by executing the
confinement prevention control (prohibiting automatic locking) executes the processing of
steps 108 and 110 in the routine shown in FIG. By executing the processing of step 104 by
the "key presence determining means" described in the scope, the "confinement prevention
control execution prohibiting means" described in the claims is realized.
Re claim 6, rejected same as for claim 1.
Re claim 11, rejected same as for claim 1.
Re claims 16-18. KAMIYA discloses wherein the command for locking corresponds to a locking operation performed when a user boards the vehicle or a locking operation performed when a user disembarks from the vehicle. (as defined above)
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIYA (JP2013147912A) in view of JEFFERIES et al. (US 8768565 B2).
Re claim 2, 7 and 12. However, KAMIYA fails to explicitly disclose:
the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the smartphone to display the restriction settings information related to a subset of the functions restricted in accordance with a lock trigger causing locking of a door of the vehicle, among the plurality of functions of the vehicle.
JEFFERIES teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a vehicle rental system, wherein users are registered along with profile data (i.e. user registration data), for use with a specific vehicle under specific conditions (i.e. reservation date/time) for a limited time period.
JEFFERIES further teaches a smartphone display (FIG.8) is used to display relevant information for a user, once a user finishes using a vehicle, wherein the display shows available subset of functions 801-805, during a process of vehicle drop off, which are all functions with are allowed for a specific user using a vehicle. Once vehicle is returned to a drop off position, user can select to finish a checkout, ending a vehicle reservation period, which then triggers an automatic locking of vehicle doors (FIG.9 – steps 1016-1018). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the smart phone used by user (FIG.8) would operate to receive a display of restriction settings information (i.e. user reservation data) from another device, once a checkout process is being processed (c.17, l.42-48) such that the display shows a vehicle reservation checkout is complete and a receipt is received (i.e. implicitly could also be displayed on a smart phone), which in turn triggers a door locking function.
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 smartphone display as taught by JEFFERIES in order to provide the means for a user to be informed of a rental vehicle process once such rental is coming to an end time.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIYA (JP2013147912A) in view of HOWARTER et al. (US 20100167691 A1).
Re claim 3. However, KAMIYA fails to explicitly disclose:
the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine whether or not the smartphone is located in a cabin of the vehicle; and
in a case in which the smartphone is determined to be located in the cabin of the vehicle, cause the smartphone to display the information.
HOWARTER teaches (abstract) in a same field of invention (FIG.1), a vehicle system using a communication method between a smartphone 102 and a locating device within the vehicle 104 to [0016, 0020, 0023, 0043] determine whether or not smartphone is located within cabin of vehicle [0016] and in case smartphone is found to be located within cabin of vehicle, cause smartphone to display information (FIG.4 [0038] – information relevant to operating vehicle functions – such as limiting smartphone usage during operation of vehicle for safety purposes) (FIG.1A).
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 smartphone location to determine when to display information on the smartphone based on need as for safety purposes as taught by HOWARTER in order to obtain a means to provide improved safety for users using the vehicle.
Re claim 5. However, KAMIYA fails to explicitly disclose:
the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to use a communication result between the smartphone and a communication device on board the vehicle to determine whether or not the smartphone is located in a cabin of the vehicle.
HOWARTER teaches (as discussed above for claim 3) the concept of using a communication result ([0018-0019] i.e. signal strength and triangulation) between smartphone and a communicate device ([0018-0019] i.e. sensors) on board the vehicle to determine whether or not the smartphone is located in a cabin of the vehicle.
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 communication result between the smartphone and a communication device on board the vehicle to determine location of smartphone as taught by HOWARTER in order to properly determine location of smartphone.
Re claims 8 and 13. Rejected as for claim 3.
Re claims 10 and 15. Rejected as for claim 5.
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIYA (JP2013147912A) in view of HERMANN (US 20180120411 A1).
Re claim 4, 9 and 14. However, KAMIYA fails to explicitly disclose:
the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the plurality of functions of the vehicle based on an electronic key function, in accordance with a communication by Bluetooth between the smartphone and the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that various communication protocols exist at the time of the filing of the invention, which include Bluetooth, for short range wireless communication between devices such as smartphones.
HERMANN teaches (abstract) in a same field of invention (FIG.1) the concept of using Bluetooth communication between smartphone and vehicle communication modules [0018-0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a communication by Bluetooth between the smartphone and the vehicle as taught by HERMANN in order to obtain a proper means of wireless communication to configure control of the plurality of functions, given that Bluetooth communication protocol is commonly used among vehicles and portable communication devices (i.e. fob, key, smartphones, etc.).
Conclusion
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 1/27/2026