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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchida (US 2017/0208430).
Referring to Claim 1, Tsuchida teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting, by an infotainment system of a vehicle, that a client electronic device has a connection to the infotainment system via a first type of wireless network (see paragraph 8 which shows the head unit/infotainment system detecting a smartphone in range and paragraph 5 which shows how a PAN network is used to detect smartphone in range without pairing);
detecting a signal strength value of the first type of wireless network connected between the client electronic device and the infotainment system (see paragraph 8 which shows the determining of RSSI between the head unit and smartphone);
determining that the signal strength value of the first type of wireless network connected between the client electronic device and the infotainment system exceeds a threshold value (see paragraph 8 which shows the determining of the second RSSI greater than a threshold value) by comparing only the detected signal strength value of the first type of wireless network to the threshold value (see paragraph 8 which shows first and second signals from the same type of wireless network as the first and second signals are simply communicated at different times to measure distance between the devices); and
establishing a connection between the client electronic device and the infotainment system via a second type of wireless network based upon, at least in part, the signal strength value the first type of wireless network connected between the client electronic device and the infotainment system exceeding the threshold value (see paragraph 8 which shows the initiation of pairing between the head unit and smartphone if the second RSSI is larger than a threshold value and paragraph 5 which show the pairing process using a BLE network).
Claims 8 and 15 have similar limitations as claim 1.
Referring to Claim 3, 10, and 17, Tsuchida also teaches the second type of wireless network has a weaker signal strength than the first type of wireless network (see paragraph 5 which shows the second type of network as a BLE network which operates using a weaker RSSI than a PAN network).
Referring to Claims 4, 11, and 18, Tsuchida also teaches the second type of wireless network operating on a different frequency band than the first type of wireless network (see paragraph 5 which shows the second type of network as a BLE network which is different than just a PAN network, which includes networks at different frequency bands than BLE).
Referring to Claims 5, 12, and 19, Tsuchida also teaches the signal strength value of the first type of wireless network as a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) (see paragraph 8 which shows RSSI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida in view of Ma et al. (US 2017/0088099).
Referring to Claims 2, 9, and 16, Tsuchida does not teach detecting that the client electronic device is connected to the infotainment system via the first type of wireless network occurs after a remote starting of the vehicle. Ma teaches detecting that the client electronic device is connected to the infotainment system via the first type of wireless network occurs after a remote starting of the vehicle (see paragraph 9 which shows the process of a smartphone starting a vehicle further noting that it is well known in the art for a smartphone to connect to an infotainment system after the start of the vehicle since most infotainment systems in the art are switched off and not operational when the engine is off). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Ma to the device of Tsuchida in order to increase the user friendliness of the device.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida in view of Van der Keere et al. (US 2021/0173532).
Referring to Claims 6 and 13, Tsuchida does not teach displaying a message indicating whether the client electronic device successfully connected to the infotainment system. Van der Keere teaches displaying a message indicating whether the client electronic device successfully connected to the infotainment system (see 224 and 228 of fig. 2 which shows the message of a connected device to the vehicle’s system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Van der Keere to the device of Tsuchida in order to better inform the user of device status.
Referring to Claims 7, 14, and 20, Van der Keere also teaches attempting to establish a second connection between a second client electronic device and the infotainment system via the first type of wireless network while the infotainment system is establishing the connection with the client electronic device via the second type of wireless network (see 216A-216D of fig. 2 which shows multiple devices connected to the vehicle system where a skilled artisan would be able to implement connecting multiple devices to the vehicle system of Tsuchida without affecting the operability of the device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Van der Keere to the device of Tsuchida in order to better inform the user of device status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that Tsuchida does not teach the independent claims as amended further arguing that Tsuchida teaches two separate signals with two separate signal strengths as opposed to comparing a singular signal strength value to a threshold value. However, the claim amendment reads “determining that the signal strength value of the first type of wireless network connected between the client electronic device and the infotainment system exceeds a threshold value by comparing only the detected signal strength value of the first type of wireless network to the threshold value”. This is not the same as requiring a singular signal. A first type of wireless network is not the same as a singular signal. This means that by showing two signals of the same type of network, the signals of Tsuchida still read on the claim as amended since the two signals are the same type of signals, just communicated at different times which results in different signal strengths due to movement of the devices. There are no specifics anywhere in the claims which state that there only must be one singular signal being compared to a threshold and even if that were the case, Tsuchida teaches only the second signal being compared to a threshold and not the first. Without any specifics requiring that only one signal RSSI is calculated, Tsuchida still teaches the independent claims as amended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights