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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-20 are pending for examination. Claims 3 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 1, 7, and 18 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed October 10, 2025, with respect to the rejections of the claim under 35 USC § 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented in view of the currently amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penilla et al [US 20160129883 A1] in view of Green [US 20180072263 A1].
As for claim 1, Penilla discloses a vehicle security system (see Abstract) comprising:
a mobile application (paragraphs 0050-0051 0068-0070, and 0085);
a sensor (paragraphs 0016, and 0064-0065);
a camera (paragraphs 0064-0065, 0080, and 0113);
a cloud database (paragraphs 0116-0119 and 0125); and
wherein the mobile application is configured to allow a user to remotely lock and unlock the vehicle, and operate a vehicle alarm (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0095 and 0101).
Penilla does not specifically disclose that the mobile application is configured to allow a user to remotely prevent the vehicle from driving. In an analogous art, Green discloses that it was known for a mobile device to include a mobile application that allows a user to remote prevent a vehicle from driving (paragraphs 0008, 0009, and 0020). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Penilla to include the remote disabling features of Green. The modification would have been obvious because it would have given the vehicle owner more control over the vehicle in an alarm/emergency event. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for remotely controlling a vehicle via a mobile application that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
As for claim 2, the sensor is comprised of a motion sensor (paragraph 0065).
As for claims 4-5 the claims are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. The user has access to camera and sensor data via a mobile application on their smartphone and/or other Internet device.
Claim 7 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also, Penilla, paragraph 0102 for the teaching of security measures for providing access to the mobile application. Examiner takes official notice that multi-step verification was a known security measure at the time of filing the instant application. As such, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan having Penilla and Green on hand to modify the invention to include known security methods for securing the mobile application, such as the use of multi-step verification. The skilled artisan would have good reason to pursue known security options that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
As for claim 9, the mobile application records a travel information of the vehicle (paragraphs 0086-0087).
As for claim 10, the mobile application controls a function of the camera (Figs. 8B and 10D).
As for claim 11, the camera records a video that is stored on the cloud database (paragraphs 0121-0125).
Claim 12 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 9-11 above.
As for claim 13, the mobile application creates an alert (Figs 10B, 10C, 10D).
As for claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 8-12 above. See also, Penilla, paragraph 0102 for the teaching of encryption. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan having Penilla and Green on hand to modify the invention to include known security methods for securing the mobile application, such as the use of encryption key codes.
Claims 6, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla et al in view of Green, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Morrison et al [US 10821938 B1].
As for claim 6, while Penilla discloses a vehicle security system comprising a plurality of types of sensors, Penilla is silent on the use of a glass break sensor. In an analogous art for vehicle security, Morrison discloses that it was known in the art to detect glass break in a vehicle (column 23, line 63 – column 24, line 5). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Penilla in view of Green to include a glass break sensor as suggested by Morrison. The combination would have been obvious because it would have provided means for indicating/determining vehicle theft or attempted theft as taught in Penilla paragraph 0146).
As for claims 13-17, Penilla discloses that the camera and/or recording devices can be triggered upon any trigger condition occurring (paragraph 0069). These trigger conditions can also cause the system to create an alert (paragraph 0070).
Claims 19-20 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 2 and 13-17 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685