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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made.
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, 5-10, 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rathi et al. (hereafter Rathi)(US PgPub 2021/0339704) and in view of Ling et al. (hereafter Ling)(US PgPub 2023/0111327).
Regarding claim 1, Rathi discloses a method for vehicle access and remote control (Figures 8 and
14B), comprising: establishing a wireless communication link with a wireless vehicle access system (VAS)
device for a vehicle; authenticating the wireless VAS device (Figure 14B, Element 1462 and Paragraphs
0045, 0088, 0091, 0119, 0132 and 0133 where the mobile device of the user is authenticated by the
vehicle system when in communication range); recognizing a hand gesture password performed by a
user of the authenticated wireless VAS device; authenticating the hand gesture password based on a
user profile associated with the authenticated wireless VAS device (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0046, 0076
and 0081 where the vehicle senses user gestures corresponding to a password that is authenticated by
the vehicle); recognizing a hand gesture command performed by the user of the authenticated wireless
VAS device (Figure 8, Element 821 and Paragraphs 0046, 0059, 0061, 0079, 0080 and 0081 where user
hand gestures are detected that correspond to vehicle commands); and executing a vehicle control
command associated with the hand gesture command (Figure 8, Element 829 and Paragraphs 0046 and
0080 where a vehicle command is executed such as door unlocking /opening). Rathi does not
specifically disclose where the hand gestures in Figure 8, Step 809 correspond to the disclosed hand
gesture password that is determined based on a confidence measure value and that subsequent hand gestures corresponding to vehicle commands are detected only after the initial hand gesture password is authenticated. In the same field of endeavor, Ling discloses a vehicle access system where a user profile is authenticated by detecting a series of hand gestures (password) that are determined to be within a specified threshold tolerance (Figures, 9, 10, 12 and Paragraphs 0026, 0122 and 0124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user profile hand gesture (password) vehicle authentication of Ling to the vehicle system of Rathi, thereby authenticating the user using hand gesture passwords within a threshold tolerance before performing subsequent command hand gestures, motivation being to authenticate a user corresponding to a trusted user profile before allowing additional vehicle control which increases vehicle system security. Furthermore, such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Rathi discloses wherein the hand gesture password includes a sequence of
hand gestures (see rejection for claim 1 and Figure 8, Element 809 and Paragraphs 0046, 0076 and 0081
where the vehicle senses a sequence of user gestures corresponding to a password that is authenticated
by the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Rathi discloses wherein the sequence of hand gestures is performed by one
hand (Figure 8, Element 809 and Paragraphs 0046, 0076 and 0081 where the vehicle senses a sequence
of user gestures from one hand corresponding to a password that is authenticated by the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Rathi discloses wherein the sequence of hand gestures includes two circles sequentially formed in opposite directions (Paragraphs 0059, 0061, 0066, 0067, 0076 and 0081 where
variable user defined gestures are detected, such as circles and the like, while the user is spelling out a
gesture based password).
Regarding claim 8, Rathi discloses wherein establishing the wireless communication link is
performed within a device detection zone (DDZ) (Figure 14B, Element 1462 and Paragraphs 0045, 0088,
0091, 0118, 0119, 0132 and 0133 where the mobile device of the user is authenticated by the vehicle system when in a communication zone).
Regarding claim 9, Rathi discloses wherein recognizing the hand gesture password is performed
within a hand gesture detection zone (HGDZ) (Figure 8, Element 821 and Paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0059,
0060, 0061, 0079, 0080 and 0081 where user hand gestures are detected that correspond to vehicle
commands. Cameras are used to detect user gestures in a gesture detection zone).
Regarding claim 10, Rathi discloses wherein a near vehicle zone (NVZ) immediately surrounds the vehicle, the HGDZ surrounds the NVZ, and the DDZ surrounds the HGDZ (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0039, 0045, 0046, 0059, 0060, 0061, 0076, 0079, 0080, 0081 and 0084 where the vehicle system includes plural detection zones that detect user interaction with various user sensing devices).
Regarding claim 13, Rathi discloses wherein the vehicle control command includes: lowering a
suspension height, raising the suspension height, at least partially lowering one or more windows, at
least partially raising one or more windows, turning on one or more interior cabin lights, turning off one
or more interior cabin lights, turning on a cabin heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system,
turning off the cabin HVAC system, turning on one or more exterior lights, turning off one or more
exterior lights, locking at least one door, unlocking at least one door, opening a trunk, remote engine
starting, arming a security system, disarming the security system, and activating a security system alarm
(Figure 8, Element 829 and Paragraphs 0046 and 0080 where a vehicle command is executed such as
door unlocking).
Regarding claim 14, Rathi discloses wherein the vehicle control command includes: starting
charging when coupled to a charging station, stopping charging when coupled to the charging station,
setting a charging limit when coupled to the charging station, turning on a thermal management system
(TMS), turning off the TMS, and opening a frunk (Paragraphs 0025 and 0124 where vehicle
compartments, such as a trunk or frunk, are unlocked).
Apparatus claims 15, 17 and 18 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of
using same as claimed in claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14. Therefore apparatus claims 15, 17 and 18
correspond to method claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14, and are rejected for the same reasons of
obviousness as used above. It is noted that Rathi discloses the use of plural cameras in the vehicle
system (Paragraphs 0039 and 0045).
Claims 2, 3, 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi in view
of Ling as applied to claims 1, 5-10, 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Buttolo et al.
(hereafter Buttolo) (US PgPub 2024/0280984).
Regarding claims 2-4, Rathi and Ling do not specifically disclose sending, over the wireless
communication link, a first haptic command to the authenticated wireless VAS device in response to
authenticating the hand gesture password, sending, over the wireless communication link, a second
haptic command to the authenticated wireless VAS device in response to recognizing the hand gesture
command, wherein the first haptic command and the second haptic command are different vibration
commands. In the same field of endeavor, Buttolo discloses a vehicle system where a user device is
provided with different haptic feedback levels/types based on variables in the vehicle system (Figures
1A-1B and Paragraphs 0015, 0024 and 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the variable haptic feedback to a mobile device in a vehicle system of
Buttolo to the vehicle system of Rathi and Ling, motivation being to provide the user with
different haptic feedback types for successful hand gesture authentication which allows a user to
confirm successful authentication by the vehicle which increases system workflow efficiency.
Apparatus claim 16 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as
claimed in claims 2-4. Therefore apparatus claim 16 corresponds to method claims 2-4 and is rejected
for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 11, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi in
view of Ling as applied to claims 1, 5-10, 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Hirao (US
PgPub 2021/0264691).
Regarding claim 11, Rathi and Ling do not specifically disclose wherein the DDZ and the
HGDZ are determined by a Bluetooth received signal strength indicator (RSSI) from the wireless VAS
device. In the same field of endeavor, Hirao discloses a vehicle system where a location of mobile device
of a user is determined using BLE RSSI from the mobile device (Paragraphs 0051, 0052, 0053, 0057,
0059, 0079, 0080, 0084 and 0132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the mobile device locating using BLE RSSI of Hirao to the vehicle system
of Rathi and Ling, motivation being to accurately detect user mobile device location relative to the
vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Rathi and Ling do not specifically disclose wherein the DDZ and the
HGDZ are determined by an ultra wide band (UWB) signal Time-of-Flight (ToF) measured between the
wireless VAS device and the vehicle. Int he same field of endeavor, Hirao discloses a vehicle system
where a location of mobile device of a user is determined using UWB ToF between the mobile device and the vehicle (Paragraphs 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the mobile device locating using UWB ToF of Hirao to the vehicle
system of Rathi and Ling, motivation being to accurately detect user mobile device location
relative to the vehicle.
Apparatus claims 19-20 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same
as claimed in claims 11-12. Therefore apparatus claims 19-20 correspond to method claims 11-12 and
are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights