Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments files 12/05/2025 regarding the objection of claims 7 and 10 to correct informalities have been fully considered and objection to claims 7 and 10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/05/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Perkins et al. (US 20190152349A1) have been fully considered but are moot due to amended claims 1 and 12.
3. With regards to amended independent claim 1, the applicant argues that Perkins do not teach a key device being integrated into an infotainment system or unlocking of one or more doors or flaps of a vehicle in a different manner based on if there is a communication connection to exactly one key device or with a plurality of key devices. The applicant also notes that Yetukuri (US 20190299814A1), Yusuf, (US 20170126680A1), Mohaupt (US20180029560A1), Michel (US20090212906A1), and Aniruddh (“Towards Next Generation Ultra-Wideband Technology”) have not been used to teach these limitations.
However, examiner argues that amended independent claim 1 has been amended and requires new search and consideration. Therefore, argument made against amended independent claim 1 are unpersuasive and moot.
4. Applicant argues that amended independent claim 12 is allowable for having been amended similarly to amended independent claim 1. However, examiner indicates, as state above, that applicant’s argument on amended independent claim 1 are unpersuasive and moot. Therefore, the applicant’s argument regarding amended independent claim 12 is also unpersuasive and moot.
5. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 12, examiner notes, as stated above, that the amendment requires further search and consideration. Thus, having been done that, found Michel et al. (US 20090212906A1) to teach the new limitations amended to the independent claims 1 and 12. Michel teaches a multi-channel entry system which allow for plurality of keys to communicate with a vehicle without collision of received data. Also, Michel teaches detection of manual entry, detect one or more authorized key FOBs within a vicinity of a vehicle, and open one or more doors that have been attempted to opened with authorized key FOBs within the vicinity of the vehicle. Therefore, Michel teaches at least one function of a vehicle where if one key is in communication with the vehicle, then, upon determining that the key is authorized, the vehicle will open one specific door that is operated to open, and if plurality of keys are in communication and determined to be authorized keys, then the vehicle will open plurality of doors that are being operated to open (see [0024], [0027] and [0029]).
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.
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.
6. Claims 1-3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US 20190152349 A1) in view of Michel et al. (US 20090212906A1).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins et al. teaches an apparatus for operating a vehicle (see [0013]-[0014] where it talks about computing system that includes a control for a vehicle.),
wherein the apparatus is configured to:
determine whether there is an authenticated communication connection to exactly one key device or to a plurality of key devices, wherein a key device comprises a digital key configured to authenticate the respective key device at the vehicle (see [0017]-[0018] and [0041] where they talk about nomadic devices that communicates with a vehicle by pairing through Bluetooth, i.e. verified connection through Bluetooth of vehicle and nomadic, or key, devices; see also [0025] where Near Field Communication, or NFC, are used for identifying nomadic devices that are compatible, which would indicate authorized nomadic devices are the only ones paired with the vehicle. Note also in claims 1 and 3 a controller is programmed to detect identifier associated with nomadic devices, which would indicate a verified identification and authorization of particular nomadic devices with the vehicle.).
Perkins does not teach:
operate at least one function of the vehicle in a first manner on the basis of determining that there is a communication connection to exactly one key device; and
operate at least one function of the vehicle in a second manner on the basis of determining that there is a communication connection to a plurality of key devices, where the first manner and the second manner are different;
wherein the at least one function of the vehicle comprises at least one of;
integration of a key device into an infotainment system of the vehicle; or
unlocking of one or more doors or flaps of the vehicle.
However, Michel does teach a multi-channel entry system which allow for plurality of keys to communicate with a vehicle without collision of received data, in which the system detects manual entry operation, detect one or more authorized key FOBs within a vicinity of a vehicle, and open one or more doors that have been operated to opened with authorized key FOBs within the vicinity of the vehicle. Therefore, Michel teaches at least one function of a vehicle where if one key is in communication with the vehicle, then, upon determining that the key is authorized, the vehicle will open one specific door that is operated to open, and if plurality of keys are in communication and determined to be authorized keys, then the vehicle will open plurality of doors that are being operated to open, i.e. different first and second manner of operating function of unlocking or one or more doors of the vehicle (see [0024], [0027] and [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a control of a vehicle through nomadic devices of Perkins by incorporating teaching of Michel such that the vehicle detects operation of door opening and open specific one or more doors that is/are being operated depending on whether or not one or more key devices are authorized.
The motivation to have a system that detects and authorize one or plurality of key devices to open specific operated one or more doors to open is that, as indicated by Michel, this would allow for prevention of collision of data output if there is more than one key devices and allow one or more authorized vehicle operators to enter a vehicle without having to fumble with their keys to manually open the vehicle door (see [0004]-[0005] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Perkins in view of Michel teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is configured to:
identify a number of key devices to which there is a communication connection (see [0046]-[0047] where nomadic devices communicate device identifiers to a vehicle. Also, it indicates that vehicle communication system is adapted to communicate with multiple of nomadic devices.); and
operate the at least one function of the vehicle on the basis of the determined number of key devices (see [0046]-[0047] where a processor of a vehicle is programmed to permit assignments of different identifiers and seating position for different identifiers, i.e. function of the vehicle depending on the key devices.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Perkins in view of Michel teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one function further comprises at least one of:
automatic adjustment of one or more seats of the vehicle (see [0043]-[0044] where a nomadic device stores vehicle configuration data, especially of seating position, and once the vehicle identifier matches a stored profile with a default seating position, the nomadic device will immediately send the default seating position to the vehicle to adjust the seat.); or
automatic adjustment of at least one of an air conditioning system or a seat heating system of the vehicle (see [0042] where it indicates that a preferred climate system temperature setting is applied to a seat position; see also [0043]-[0044] as shown above where the seat position will immediately be sent to the vehicle once nomadic device verifies the vehicle identifier.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Perkins in view of Michel teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
use the communication connection to a first key device to determine at least one of direction or position information in relation to a position at which the first key device is arranged or in relation to a direction from which the first key device approaches the vehicle (see [0050] where GPS data from nomadic devices determine approach direction); and
operate the at least one function of the vehicle on the basis of the at least one of direction or position information (see [0050] where GPS data from nomadic devices determine approach direction. This information is used to determine entry portal for different nomadic devices and detect when a door is opened or closed; see also [0051] where the entry portal helps bring customized seating position for each nomadic devices.).
Regarding claim 12, Perkins teaches a method for operating a vehicle (see [0013]-[0014] where it talks about computing system that includes a control for a vehicle.), comprising:
determining whether there is an authenticated communication connection to exactly one key device or to a plurality of key devices, wherein a key device comprises a digital key configured to authenticate the respective key device at the vehicle (see [0017]-[0018] and [0041] where they talk about nomadic devices that communicates with a vehicle by pairing through Bluetooth, i.e. verified connection through Bluetooth of vehicle and nomadic, or key, devices; see also [0025] where Near Field Communication, or NFC, are used for identifying nomadic devices that are compatible, which would indicate authorized nomadic devices are the only ones paired with the vehicle. Note also in claims 1 and 3 a controller is programmed to detect identifier associated with nomadic devices, which would indicate a verified identification and authorization of particular nomadic devices with the vehicle.).
Perkins does not teach:
operate at least one function of the vehicle in a first manner on the basis of determining that there is a communication connection to exactly one key device; and
operate at least one function of the vehicle in a second manner on the basis of determining that there is a communication connection to a plurality of key devices, where the first manner and the second manner are different;
wherein the at least one function of the vehicle comprises at least one of;
integration of a key device into an infotainment system of the vehicle; or
unlocking of one or more doors or flaps of the vehicle.
However, Michel does teach a multi-channel entry system which allow for plurality of keys to communicate with a vehicle without collision of received data, in which the system detects manual entry operation, detect one or more authorized key FOBs within a vicinity of a vehicle, and open one or more doors that have been operated to opened with authorized key FOBs within the vicinity of the vehicle. Therefore, Michel teaches at least one function of a vehicle where if one key is in communication with the vehicle, then, upon determining that the key is authorized, the vehicle will open one specific door that is operated to open, and if plurality of keys are in communication and determined to be authorized keys, then the vehicle will open plurality of doors that are being operated to open, i.e. different first and second manner of operating function of unlocking or one or more doors of the vehicle (see [0024], [0027] and [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a control of a vehicle through nomadic devices of Perkins by incorporating teaching of Michel such that the vehicle detects operation of door opening and open specific one or more doors that is/are being operated depending on whether or not one or more key devices are authorized.
The motivation to have a system that detects and authorize one or plurality of key devices to open specific operated one or more doors to open is that, as indicated by Michel, this would allow for prevention of collision of data output if there is more than one key devices and allow one or more authorized vehicle operators to enter a vehicle without having to fumble with their keys to manually open the vehicle door (see [0004]-[0005] and [0027]).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Yetukuri et al. (US 20190299814 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Perkins in view of Michel teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
determine whether or not there is a communication connection to more than two key devices (see [0046] where multiple occupants with nomadic devices can enter into a vehicle, i.e. plurality of key devices including more than two.); and
adjust one or more front seats of the vehicle on the basis of whether or not there is a communication connection to more than two key devices, wherein when there is a communication connection to more than two key devices, the apparatus is configured to position the one or more front seats (see [0046] where multiple occupants with nomadic devices can enter into a vehicle, i.e. plurality of key devices; see also [0047] where there are multiple nomadic devices in communicates with device identifiers. The device identifiers that are in communications with nomadic devices can be assigned to different seatings in a vehicle including front seats, and once seating location of devices are known, corresponding seating configurations can be transferred and performed.)
Modified Perkins in view of Michel does not teach when there is a communication connection to more than two key devices, the apparatus is configured to position the one or more front seats further forward than when there is a communication connection to two key devices or fewer.
However, Yetukuri et al. does teach a controller where it is determined on whether or not both front and rear seats are occupied. Once it is determined that there are indeed occupants in both front and rear seats, the controller will have a predetermined limit of how far the front seat can move rearward and if the front seat is in a position beyond the limit, then it is moved forward (see Fig. 2, [0038] and [0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a control of a vehicle through nomadic devices with authorization system to operate specific door depending on key devices of Perkins in view of Michel by incorporating teaching of Yetukuri such that when detecting multiple devices in multiple seatings, i.e. multiple occupants both front and rear, the front seat adjust to be further forward when beyond a certain limit.
The motivation to move front seats forward when there is multiple occupants and multiple devices is that, as indicated by Yetukuri, this would allow all passengers and diver have the most optimal space within a vehicle that reduces intrusion into rear seat compartment, which also protects the rear seat occupant in a rear impact collision (see [0038]).
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Yusuf et al. (US 20170126680 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Perkins in view of Michel teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
Modified Perkins in view of Michel does not teach wherein the apparatus is further configured to at least one of:
prevent an output of information from a first key device via a user interface of the vehicle when, in addition to the first key device, there is a communication connection to one or more further key devices; or
effect the output of information from the first key device via the user interface of the vehicle when, in addition to the first key device (110), there is no communication connection to a further key device.
However, Yusuf et al. does teach passenger presence data that uses short-range wireless communication module to detect other paired mobile communications devices that are present in the vehicle. When no passengers, i.e. no other paired devices, are present, a control device is entered into privacy off mode. When there is at least one passenger, i.e. other paired devices, present in the vehicle, the control device enter into privacy on mode where both visual and audio notifications are restricted, i.e. no messages displayed and no sound played (see [0066]-[0070]). Also, note that in paragraphs [0080]-[0081] it indicates that there is a priority device, i.e. first key device, whose privacy setting is implemented or not.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of a vehicle with nomadic devices with authorization system to operate specific door depending on key devices of Perkins in view of Michel by incorporating teaching of Yusuf such that a priority device will be restricted in displaying information, i.e. prevent information on a user interface, if there are other paired devices, and privacy mode off if there are no other paired devices.
The motivation to determine implementation of privacy mode depending on detection of multiple passengers, with multiple devices, is that, as indicated by Yusuf, this would allow prevention of automatically displaying or playing audio on vehicle interfaces and improve vehicle communications platform, that responds to privacy modes that determines presences of other devices and passengers, which would increase security and driver feel safe of their information (see [0009]-[0010]).
9. Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Michel in further view of “Uconnect 8.4A/8.4NAV Owner’s Manual Supplement”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Perkins in view of Michel teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
determine that there is an authenticated communication connection to a plurality of key devices (see [0046] where multiple occupants with nomadic devices can enter into a vehicle, i.e. plurality of key devices.);
Modified Perkins in view of Michel does not teach apparatus configured to determine priority information with respect to a relative priority of the different key devices with respect to each other, wherein the priority information is determined in particular on the basis of the digital keys of the individual key devices; and operate the at least one function of the vehicle on the basis of the priority information.
However, “Uconnect 8.4A/8.4NAV Owner’s Manual Supplement” teaches choosing a phone to be a favorite phone will make the phone with a highest priority, which is to indicate that this phone will take precedence over other paired phones within range and connect automatically with this phone, i.e. integration of a key device, in this case a phone, into an infotainment system of a vehicle (see [pg 101]-[pg 102]). Note also in [pg 101] that if no specific phone was chosen as the highest priority, then the latest paired phone will be automatically set as the highest priority device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a control of vehicle with multiple nomadic devices with authorization system to operate specific door depending on key devices of Perkins in view of Michel by incorporating teaching of Uconnect such that a wireless communication device would have been determined to have highest priority over all other devices within range so as to operate infotainment system of a vehicle.
The motivation to have a device with a highest priority is that, as indicated by Uconnect, this would allow a complete control of a vehicle infotainment system with one device without other devices having a hindrance (see [pg 100]-[pg 102]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Perkins in view of Michel in further view of “Uconnect 8.4A/8.4NAV Owner’s Manual Supplement” does teach the apparatus according to claim 7,
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
identify, on the basis of the priority information, a first key device as the key device with the highest relative priority from the plurality of key devices (see [pg 100] where Uconnect will recognize a phone, i.e. key device, that is the highest priority and the phone will take precedence over other paired devices. Also note on [pg 101] that if no specific phone was chosen as the highest priority, then the latest paired phone will be automatically set as the highest priority device.); and
operate the at least one function of the vehicle on the basis of the first key device, wherein the at least one function of the vehicle is operated on the basis of at least one of:
at least one of direction or position information for the first key device (110); or
a control command of the first key device for controlling the at least one function of the vehicle (see [pg 100] where Uconnect Phone will automatically connect with the highest priority paired phone. Note that in [pg 94]-[pg 95] Uconnect Phone is an infotainment system that controls messages and calls, as well as other audio system.).
10. Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Mohaupt et al. (US 20180029560 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins does teach the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
receive and verify the digital key of a key device; set up an authenticated communication connection to the key device when the digital key of the key device has been successfully verified (see [0017]-[0018] and [0041] where they talk about nomadic devices that communicates with a vehicle by pairing through Bluetooth, i.e. verified connection through Bluetooth of vehicle and nomadic, or key, devices; see also [0025] where Near Field Communication, or NFC, are used for identifying nomadic devices that are compatible, which would indicate authorized nomadic devices are the only ones paired with the vehicle. Note also in claims 1 and 3 a controller is programmed to detect identifier associated with nomadic devices, which would indicate a verified identification and authorization of particular nomadic devices with the vehicle.); and
Modified Perkins in view of Michel does not teach preventing an authenticated communication connection to the key device when digital key of the key device has not been successfully verified.
However, Mohaupt et al. teaches digital key value that has an identification of an authorized user. This is used to determine the validity of digital key to a vehicle and will prevent operation of the vehicle by deactivating control signal to an engine controller or a central vehicle controller (see [0056] and [0059]-[0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of a vehicle with nomadic devices with authorization system to operate specific door depending on key devices of Perkins in view of Michel by incorporating teaching of Mohaupt such that digital key value, such as values based on cryptographic method, is used to identify a user of the vehicle.
The motivation to use digital key value to verify and prevent authenticated communication connection to a device that has not been verified is that, as indicated by Mohaupt, this would allow for security and increase theft prevention (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Mohaupt does teach the apparatus according to claim 1 (see Perkins [0013]-[0014] and [0017]-[0018] as show above), wherein at least one of:
the communication connections to the one or more key devices each include at least one of a Bluetooth Low Energy, BLE, or an Ultra-wideband, UWB, communication connection; or the digital key is designed in accordance with a Car Connectivity Consortium, CCC, key standard (see Mohaupt [0020], [0082] and Fig. 3c where a vehicle that has Bluetooth Low Energy system with roof antenna and mentions mobile communication device having the same Bluetooth for communication connection.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a control of a vehicle with nomadic with authorization system to operate specific door depending on key devices of Perkins in view of Michel by incorporating teaching of Mohaupt such that the Bluetooth of nomadic devices utilizes Bluetooth Low Energy.
The motivation to implement Bluetooth Low Energy is that, as indicated by Mohaupt, this would allow for wider use as it is used by many current mobile devices, and Bluetooth Low Energy offers low current draw (see Mohaupt [0099]).
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Mohaupt in further view of Aniruddh et al. "Towards Next-Generation Ultra-Wideband Technology".
Regarding claim 11, the modified Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Mohaupt does teach the apparatus of claim 10 (see Mohaupt [0020], [0082], and Fig 3c as shown above),
The modified Perkins in view of Michel in further view of Mohaupt does not teach wherein the CCC key standard is the CCC Release 3
However, Aniruddh teaches the use of CCC Release 3 for improvement such as hands-free and location-aware keyless access (see Aniruddh [831]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of vehicle with nomadic devices with authorization system to operate specific door depending on key devices with BLE of Perkins in view of Michel and Mohaupt by incorporating teaching of Aniruddh such that nomadic devices uses Car Connectivity Consortium, CCC, in conjunction with Bluetooth Low Energy for secure and accurate distance between the devices and the vehicle.
The motivation to use CCC Release 3 is that, as indicated by Aniruddh, this would allow for better distance measurement and better security against wireless attacks and get better range for control (see Aniruddh [pg 831]).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Grover et al. (US 10123155B2), a system of having primary connected device that sends commands to a user interface and also allow for secondary connected device to have an authorization to command an application of the user interface if and when primary connected device permits.
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights