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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 12/04/2023 havingclaims 1-20 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Application filed on 11/17/2023 is a has PRO 63/498,964 04/28/2023 are acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/17/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS filed.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration filed on 11/17/2023 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 10-11, 14-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent US 11122159 B1 to Alsolami et al (hereinafter Alsolami) further view of US PG Pub US 20210158336 A1 to Shukla et al (hereinafter Shukla).
As per claim 1, Alsolami teaches a method comprising: receiving an signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer, the audio signal comprising a plurality of encoded data values (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, receiving a wakeup signal from a first wireless device associated with automobile comprises plurality of values associated key fobs ); determining, using a processing device of the second wireless device, if the received audio signal includes a valid wakeup code ( Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, determining based on the information by the second wireless device it’s a wakeup call if the received audio signal includes a valid wakeup code); and transitioning a transceiver of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, transitioning to wakeup mode based on the communication between first wireless device associated with automobile and second device in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal).
Shukla teaches receiving an audio signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer (para [0150][0174], fig. 1, receiving an audio signal from a first wireless mobile device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer). 20210158336
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of Alsolami by receiving an audio signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer as suggested by Shukla, this modification would benefit Alsolami for enabling a better electronic tracking mechanism for handheld devices in a automobile system.
As per claim 2, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless device is a head unit included in an automobile, and wherein the second wireless device is a key fob (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, first wireless device is a head unit included in an automobile, and wherein the second wireless device is a key fob ).
As per claim 3, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 1, Shukla teaches wherein the audio transducer is a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) microphone (para 0057], the transducer is electromechanical microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) microphone such as the door opening associated with wireless signal).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 4, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of encoded data values comprises a challenge code encoded via one or more audio encoding algorithms (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, plurality of information includes challenge code encoded via one or more audio encoding algorithms between automobile and keyfob). 20180326947
As per claim 7, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: transitioning a plurality of secure processing elements of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, transitioning a plurality of secure processing elements of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal) .
As per claim 9, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising: granting access to a vehicle associated with the first wireless device in response to completion of the secure ranging operation (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, granting access to a vehicle associated with the first wireless device in response to completion of the secure ranging operation).
As per claim 10, Alsolami teaches the system comprising: an transducer; a transceiver configured to be compatible with a wireless protocol (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, receiving a wakeup signal from a first wireless device associated with automobile comprises plurality of values associated key fobs ); and a processing device comprising processing elements configured to: receive an audio signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless including the processing device, the audio signal being received via the audio transducer and comprising a plurality of encoded data values ( Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, determining based on the information by the second wireless device it’s a wakeup call if the received audio signal includes a valid wakeup code); determine if the received audio signal includes a valid wakeup code; and transition the transceiver from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, transitioning to wakeup mode based on the communication between first wireless device associated with automobile and second device in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal).
Shukla teaches receiving an audio signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer (para [0150][0174], fig. 1, receiving an audio signal from a first wireless mobile device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 11, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the first wireless device is a head unit included in an automobile, and wherein the second wireless device is a key fob (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, first wireless device is a head unit included in an automobile, and wherein the second wireless device is a key fob).
As per claim 14, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the processing device is further configured to: transition a plurality of secure processing elements of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, transitioning a plurality of secure processing elements of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal) . .
As per claim 15, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the processing device is further configured to: perform a secure ranging operation with the first wireless device in accordance with a wireless protocol of the transceiver (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, granting access to a vehicle associated with the first wireless device in response to completion of the secure ranging operation)..
As per claim 16, Alsolami teaches the device comprising: processing elements configured to: receive an signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless including the processing elements, the audio signal being received via an audio transducer and comprising a plurality of encoded data values (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, receiving a wakeup signal from a first wireless device associated with automobile comprises plurality of values associated key fobs ); determine if the received audio signal includes a valid wakeup code ( Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, determining based on the information by the second wireless device it’s a wakeup call if the received audio signal includes a valid wakeup code); and transition a transceiver of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, transitioning to wakeup mode based on the communication between first wireless device associated with automobile and second device in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal).
Shukla teaches receiving an audio signal from a first wireless device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer (para [0150][0174], fig. 1, receiving an audio signal from a first wireless mobile device at a second wireless device via an audio transducer).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 17, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the first wireless device is a head unit included in an automobile, and wherein the second wireless device is a key fob (Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, first wireless device is a head unit included in an automobile, and wherein the second wireless device is a key fob )..
As per claim 19, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the plurality of encoded data values comprises a challenge code encoded via one or more audio encoding algorithms, and wherein the challenge code is generated based, at least in part, on a pairing token associated with the first wireless device and the second wireless device(Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, plurality of information includes challenge code encoded via one or more audio encoding algorithms between automobile and keyfob)..
As per claim 20, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the processing elements are further configured to: transition a plurality of secure processing elements of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal(Column 5, line 19-30, fig. 1b, transitioning a plurality of secure processing elements of the second wireless device from a sleep mode to a wake mode in response to determining that the audio signal includes a valid wakeup signal) .
5. Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 12-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsolami, Shukla further view of US PG Pub US 20180326947 A1 to Oesterling et al (hereinafter Oesterling).
As per claim 5, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 4, Oesterling teaches wherein the challenge code is generated based, at least in part, on a pairing token associated with the first wireless device and the second wireless device (para 0004-0005], paring key associated with first wireless device and the second wireless device). 20180326947
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of Alsolami by wherein the challenge code is generated based, at least in part, on a pairing token associated with the first wireless device and the second wireless device as suggested by Oesterling this modification would benefit Alsolami for enabling a secure data transaction for handheld devices in a automobile system.
As per claim 6, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 1, Oesterling teaches wherein the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver or an ultrawideband (UWB) transceiver (para 0075], transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver is for communication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 5.
As per claim 8, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: Oesterling teaches performing, using the transceiver, a secure ranging operation with the first wireless device in accordance with a wireless protocol of the transceiver (para 0004-0005], by using a secure mechanism a secure ranging operation with the first wireless device in accordance with a wireless protocol of the transceiver).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 5.
As per claim 12, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the audio transducer is a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) microphone (para 0057], the transducer is electromechanical microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) microphone such as the door opening associated with wireless signal)., Oesterling teaches wherein the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver or an ultrawideband (UWB) transceiver (para 0075], transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver is for communication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 5.
As per claim 13, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the system of claim 10, Oesterling teaches wherein the plurality of encoded data values comprises a challenge code encoded via one or more audio encoding algorithms, and wherein the challenge code is generated based, at least in part, on a pairing token associated with the first wireless device and the second wireless device (para 0004-0005], paring key associated with first wireless device and the second wireless device)..
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 5.
As per claim 18, Alsolami, Shukla teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the audio transducer is a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) microphone(para 0057], the transducer is electromechanical microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) microphone such as the door opening associated with wireless signal)., Oesterling teaches wherein the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver or an ultrawideband (UWB) transceiver (para 0075], transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver is for communication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 5.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20170323111 A1; US Patent Publication US 20180326947 A1, US Patent Publication US 20180285832 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights