NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III with claims 17-20 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the portable device" in body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Its current interpretation (i.e. portable device being the terminal device) is further explained below.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASEGAWA et al. (US 20220030384 A1) in view of BOBAY et al. (US 20190061692 A1)
Re claim 17. HASEGAWA discloses (abstract) a system for locking a closure (FIG.1), the system [0030] comprising:
a lock (FIG.1-2 – i.e. vehicle control system 10 includes lock mechanism 82) adapted for mounting adjacent the closure [0042] (FIG.1 - vehicle control system 10 located nearest driver side door), the lock being actuatable to shift between locked and unlocked positions [0045] (i.e. door locks is able to shift between locked and unlocked positions due to door lock/unlock requests), the lock comprising a processor 20 that is configured via executable instructions to perform a method (i.e. FIG.8-12) comprising:
receiving a wireless command [0045, 0061-0062] from a trusted device 100 (i.e. trusted device considered any mobile terminal carried by user capable of communication with vehicle systems – given that the meaning of trusted device has not been further claimed) in a proximity range of the lock to enable a proximity mode (interpreted as mode where mobile terminal 100 is determined to be within predetermined distance areas – given that proximity mode is not further defined);
enabling the proximity mode (FIG.8-11 – steps S4-S10);
while the proximity mode is enabled, wirelessly receiving a command to shift the lock between the locked and unlocked positions or vice versa via the application [0010, 0038, 0045, 0060-0063, 0086]; and
[0086] In step S57 in FIG. 11, the position measurement control unit 24 measures a position of the mobile terminal 100 with respect to the vehicle 1 by using the first position measuring unit 21. In the subsequent step S58, the position measurement control unit 24 determines whether the position of the mobile terminal 100, which is measured by the first position measuring unit 21, is at a door unlocking position set within the first area Ar1 or not. The door unlocking position is set in a range within a predetermined distance from the vehicle 1 within the first area Ar1.
[0087] In step S59, the user approach handling unit 27 operates the door lock mechanism 82 and thus unlocks the doors of the vehicle 1.
shifting the lock between the locked and unlocked positions or vice versa in response to the received command [0086-0087];
the system further comprising one or more trusted devices 100 (FIG.1), each of the one or more trusted devices 100 comprising:
a processor (i.e. mobile terminals require at least one processor to process mobile terminal functions including communication);
a non-transitory memory (i.e. mobile terminals require at least one memory to properly process data); and
executable instructions (i.e. mobile terminal 100 operates as an electronic key for lock/unlock functions of vehicle door) stored in the memory for causing the trusted device to perform a method comprising:
connecting wirelessly to the lock (FIG.1-2);
sending the command to the lock wirelessly via the application to cause the lock to enable the proximity mode. ([0034, 0068] given that two wireless commands are claimed, the command received to enable proximity mode is interpreted to be sent by mobile terminal during step S4 wherein a BLE communication is commenced, i.e. when wireless communication by BLE is established at position D2 of mobile terminal and thereby allows position measurement control unit 24 to measure a position of the mobile terminal 100 through the first position measuring unit 21)
However, HASEGAWA fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the proximity range is selectable by a user of the trusted device via an application.
BOBAY teaches (abstract) in same field of invention (FIG.1-6), wherein vehicle functions are performed based on proximity of mobile device to such vehicle, and wherein a user can select a specific proximity range by way of software application.
[0043] Based on the location coordinates of the vehicle owner's mobile device 16, the central server 22 determines whether the distance separating the mobile device 16 and the vehicle monitoring device 12 is greater than a proximity threshold distance 24, such as depicted in FIG. 1 (step 118). In a preferred embodiment, the proximity threshold distance 24 is user-selectable using the vehicle monitoring software application 33. In most cases, the proximity threshold distance 24 will be set to a relatively small distance, such as 20-30 feet. If the distance separating the vehicle owner's mobile device 16 and the vehicle monitoring device 12 is less than the proximity threshold distance 24 (as shown in FIG. 1), no alerts are issued and vehicle monitoring continues (step 108). If the distance separating the mobile device 16 and the vehicle monitoring device 12 is greater than the proximity threshold distance 24 (as shown in FIG. 2), the central server 22 generates an alert message that is sent via the wide area data communication network 20 and the wireless data communication system 18 to the mobile device 16 (step 120). The alert message, which may be a text message or email message, preferably includes information indicating the nature of the detected event and the time at which the event occurred. After the alert message is sent, vehicle monitoring continues (step 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adding the function of the proximity range being selected by a user via an application as taught by BOBAY in order to provide a means for a vehicle owner or user to select a specific proximity range based on safety needs.
Re claim 18. However, HASEGAWA fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 17, wherein the trusted device is configured to send the wireless command to the lock to cause the lock to enable the proximity mode if the trusted device detects that the trusted device is within the proximity range.
BOBAY further teaches [0008] wherein the trusted device (i.e. smartphone) is configured to send a wireless command to the lock to cause the lock to enable the proximity mode (i.e. during a pairing process of smartphone and vehicle within a proper distance) if the trusted device detects that the trusted device is within the proximity range (i.e. proximity is detected based on comparing the GPS location of the vehicle monitoring device to the GPS location of the smartphone).
[0008] Preferred embodiments of the system described herein include a vehicle monitoring device installed in the vehicle that tracks and reports vehicle activities to a central server. Each specific event is recorded at the central server in association with a specific event code indicating the type of event that has occurred. The vehicle monitoring device may be an after-market device installed by the vehicle owner or a car dealer, or the device may be an OEM unit such as used in General Motor's OnStar′ system. The system includes a software application that the vehicle owner installs on his/her smartphone or other mobile device. Using the smartphone application, the system detects the proximity of the vehicle owner's smartphone to the vehicle monitoring device and arms or disarms the automatic alert messaging function based on the detected proximity. In a preferred embodiment, proximity is detected based on comparing the GPS location of the vehicle monitoring device to the GPS location of the smartphone. Proximity may also be detected based on determining whether the smartphone is paired with the vehicle's Bluetooth system.
The prior art of BOBAY also teaches the known technique of using a proximity range detected by a mobile terminal to perform other functions, including arming/disarming operations for vehicle security. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a mobile terminal proximity detection to determine when certain operating modes are appropriate would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the security of the vehicle system, given that the mobile terminal would only perform subsequent vehicle functions (such as determining locking/unlocking functions) based on appropriate proximity.
Re claim 19. HASEGAWA discloses (as best understood from broadest reasonable interpretation) the system of claim 18, wherein the portable device 100 (in combination with any antenna device 23) is configured to detect that the trusted device is within the proximity range using a measured signal strength of a signal received from the lock. [0012, 0052]
Re claim 20. HASEGAWA discloses [0032, 0086] the system of claim 17, wherein the trusted device comprises a smartphone configured to execute the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 Form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 10/28/2025