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 following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 9/11/2025. Amendments received on 9/11/2025 have been entered. Claims 10-12 are newly added claims. Accordingly claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without “the vehicle 10 may for example transmit corresponding information within the second request signal to the vehicle key 20”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Claimed steps disclose “whether the Wi-Fi connections available to the mobile phone match at least in part with the Wi-Fi connections that are available for the object as well” but in order to determine that it is critical or essential that the mobile phone must receive wi-fi connections that are available for the object but is not included in the claim as disclosed in the specification (paragraphs [0019]).
Limitations “whether the mobile phone at least partially detects the same external devices in its proximity as the object” or “position intended for the object” or “a time when one of one or more authorized users typically uses or enters the object” or “position change of the mobile phone determined by the object” have the same issue since mobile phone does not have or did not receive information from/about the object, which are essential to perform the steps claimed in claim 7.
Claims 11 and 12 claim the similar limitations and are rejected in the same manner.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Fischer (US Pub 2022/0297636).
As of claims 1 and 9, AAPA discloses an access system having a first communication unit arranged in an object and a second communication unit arranged in a key associated with the object (see paragraph [0003] of the specification), wherein:
the first communication unit is configured to broadcast a first request signal, the second communication unit is configured to receive the first request signal and to send a first response signal to the first communication unit after receiving the first request signal (see paragraph [0003] “the object broadcasts one or more request signals at regular intervals or in response to defined triggering events (hence comprising a first communication unit), which have a specific range. If the key is within said range, it receives the request signals and sends corresponding response signals back to the object (hence the key comprises a second communication unit)”. AAPA further discloses that the object is configured to use the first response signal to check whether the key is a key associated with the object (If the key is recognized as being associated with the object based on the response signals, the latter will be unlocked; see paragraph [0003]).
However, AAPA does not disclose the remaining limitations of the claim.
Fischer discloses an access system (see paragraph [0028]) wherein a first communication unit of a vehicle (first device (DVC1)) is configured to send a request for a value to the second communication unit (via DVC1 transmitting a REQ-INFO 2 (value; see paragraph [0038]),
the second communication unit is configured to determine the value upon receipt of the request and send it to the first communication unit, wherein the value is an indicator of how high the probability is that the object is to be used by an authorized user (see paragraph [0039] “Upon reception of the request REQ_INFO2, the second device DVC2 collects the second information INFO2 on exposure of the second device DVC2 to electromagnetic waves, the second information on exposure INFO2 includes a list L2 of number N (N can be an integer comprised between 5 and 15) sources of electromagnetic waves S21, S22,,.., so the number of sources N is interpreted as a the claimed “value”),
the object is further configured to compare the value received from the second communication device with a defined threshold value, wherein the object is unlocked when the key is recognized as being associated with the object and the value is greater than or equal to the threshold value (In a step S7, the first device DVC1 determines a matching information (in other words: a similarity information) between the first information on exposure INFO1 and the second information on exposure INFO2. The matching or similarity score MATCH_SC represents a level of similarity between the first information on exposure INFO1 and the second information on exposure INFO2 (in other words: between the two lists L1, L2). The calculation S7 of the matching score MATCH_SC comprises determining a consistency information between the two lists of sources L1, L2 (i.e., between the two groups of source names or identifiers, possibly listed in order from the strongest one to the weakest one) and using the consistency information to determine the matching score MATCH_SC. In the system of Fischer DVC1 compiles a list L1 of electromagnetic sources around the DVC1, for example, 3 sources. DVC2 compiles a list L2 of electromagnetic sources around the DVC1, for example, 3 sources. When the DVC1 receives the list L2 it compares the L2 with L1, so if vehicle have 3 sources and the DVC1 has less than 3, it means the devices are not proximate to each other and DVC1 will not be unlocked. So, in the system of Fischer DVC2 not only sends a value but other information regarding the electromagnetic sources as well such as RSSI, name, identifier etc (see paragraphs [0009], [0044]-[0046]).
Fischer discloses that the DVC2 is a phone with an application installed thereon, via which the mobile phone is configured as a key for the object (see paragraph [0015]) and wherein the mobile phone determines the value taking into account a plurality of factors comprising at least three factors (see paragraph [0040], “The number N (number of detected sources) can be limited to a value that is experimentally considered as relevant to evaluate the proximity between the two devices DVC1 and DVC2. For example, N can be an integer comprised between 5 and 15”).
From the teaching of Fischer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of AAPA to include the function of requesting a value from a key device as taught by Fischer in order to determine proximity of the key device to the vehicle to deter relay attack (see paragraph [0004]).
As of claim 2, Fischer discloses that the first communication unit is configured to send the request for the value to the second communication unit when the key is recognized as being within a required range around the object (via first device DVC1 initiating the request for INFO 2 when the second device DVC2 is recognized as being within a required range around the vehicle; see paragraph [0028]-[0029]).
As of claim 3, Fischer discloses that the first communication unit is further configured to send a third request signal to the second communication unit when the value is less than the defined threshold value, wherein the third request signal contains a request for a user's consent (via transmitting a request for manually unlocking after detection of non-proximity; see paragraph [0054]).
As of claim 4, Fischer discloses that the second communication unit is further configured to send a third response signal to the first communication unit after receiving the third request signal, wherein the third response signal contains information about a decision by the user as to whether the object is to be unlocked, wherein the object is unlocked when the third response signal contains information that the user agrees to unlocking (via an application of locking/unlocking, running on the first device DVC2, that displays an unlock button to be clicked on, on a screen of the second device DVC2..
As of claim 5, Fischer discloses that the plurality of factors comprises at least five factors (see paragraph [0040], “The number N (number of detected sources) can be limited to a value that is experimentally considered as relevant to evaluate the proximity between the two devices DVC1 and DVC2. For example, N can be an integer comprised between 5 and 15”).
As of claim 8, Fischer discloses that the object is a vehicle, a building, or a barrier (via a vehicle; see fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9///25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding newly added limitation that the mobile phone determines the value taking into account a plurality of factors comprising at least three factors are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and 9 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686