DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered.
The amendment to Fig. 3 is accepted, and the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the rejections are overcome by the claim amendments, Examiner agrees that the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been overcome only in part, and new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been made, necessitated by the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 10 is maintained, as Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that receiving UWB anchor-detected ranging power and ranging distance information and determining the positioning coordinate of the vehicle key integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As set forth in the rejection below, receiving ranging power and distance information is insignificant extra-solution activity, and determining the positioning coordinate is part of the abstract idea itself and therefore cannot provide a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 line 7, “the data detected by the anchors” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 1 line 14, in “determining a positioning coordinate” it is unclear what the positioning coordinate is a coordinate of. Is it related to the “position of the digital key” recited in line 6?
As best understood, lines 7-15 appear to provide details of “detect a position of the digital key based on the plurality of anchors” as recited in line 6. Examiner recommends clarifying the relationship between lines 7-15 and line 6, for example using language such as “wherein detecting the position of the digital key comprises...” after “anchors” in line 6, and further clarifying how the “positioning coordinate” in line 14 relates to the previously recited “position of the digital key”.
Regarding claim 3 line 3, “the initialization step” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Basis for this step is provided in claim 2, however claim 3 is recited as depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6 and corresponding portions of claim 16, it is unclear what is meant by the following:
“Pmax” in Condition 2;
“A7” in Condition 2;
“Am1” and “Am2” in Condition 3;
“rmax anchor positioning logic” in Condition 5-1;
“two or more indoor and outdoor anchors are received, one or more outdoor anchors are received, and outdoor anchor rmax minus outdoor anchor rmin is greater than 600cm” in Condition 5-1 - it is unclear if “two or more indoor and outdoor anchors” requires at least two indoor and two outdoor anchors, or if one indoor and one outdoor anchor, or some other combination, would meet the language, and “outdoor anchor rmax” and “outdoor anchor rmin” have not been defined;
“two or more indoor and outdoor anchors are received, two or more outdoor anchors are received, outdoor anchor r2ndmax is not equal to rmin, and outdoor anchor r2ndmax minus rmin is greater than 600cm” in Condition 5-2 - it is unclear if “two or more indoor and outdoor anchors” requires at least two indoor and two outdoor anchors, or if one indoor and one outdoor anchor, or some other combination, would meet the language, and r2ndmax and rmin have not been defined.
Regarding claim 11 lines 8-9, it is unclear how a processor can perform UWB communication between a vehicle key and a plurality of anchors. According to para. [0064], it is the plurality of anchors that perform the UWB communication in response to an instruction from the processor. Examiner recommends amending for consistency with the specification.
Regarding claim 11 lines 11-12, “the received data detected by the anchors” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear how the “positioning coordinate of the vehicle key” recited in line 19 relates to the “position of the vehicle key” that is detected in line 10. As best understood, it appears that lines 11-20 are intended to provide details of the position detection recited in line 10. Examiner recommends clarifying the relationship between lines 11-20 and line 10, for example using language such as “wherein detecting the position of the digital key comprises...” after “anchors” in line 10, and further clarifying how the “positioning coordinate of the vehicle key” in line 19 relates to the previously recited “position of the digital key”.
Regarding claim 13 line 2, “the initialization step” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 12 would provide basis for this step.
Regarding claim 18 line 1, “The method of claim 14” lacks basis, as claim 14 has been cancelled.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 10 recites a method of detecting a vehicle key position and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 10 recites:
performing... positioning algorithm selection on the basis of the data detected by the at least one anchor configured to perform UWB communication with a vehicle key;
performing ... anchor consistency verification after performing the positioning algorithm selection;
performing ... cross-root calculation when the consistency verification is completed;
performing ... cross-root consistency verification after performing the cross-root calculation;
performing ... cross-root residual calculation after performing the cross-root consistency verification; and
performing ... a process of determining a positioning coordinate when the cross-root residual calculation is performed.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claim 10 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 10 further recites
(1) receiving... from at least one anchor configured to perform ultra-wideband (UWB) communication with a vehicle key, data detected by the at least one anchor, wherein the data includes ranging power information and ranging distance information; and
(2) the steps performed by a processor.
Regarding (1), receiving ranging power and ranging distance information is merely the insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering necessary data. The processor merely receives data from the at least one anchor.
Regarding (2), the processor comprises generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the processor merely performs generic computer functions.
The courts have found that insignificant extra solution activity and implementing the abstract idea using generic computer equipment do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g)). These elements therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim comprise data gathering and implementing the abstract idea using generic computer equipment. The courts have found that data gathering and generic computer equipment do not amount to significantly more, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05). These elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights