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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This FINAL action is in response to amendment filed on 03/16/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are amended.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
"electronic control unit a processor" should have a semicolon after "unit" (pg. 1, lines 31-32)
"the scan signals bay be emitted" should read " the scan signals [[bay]] may be emitted"(pg. 2, line 33)
"the second rate bay be" should read "the second rate [[bay]] may be" (pg. 3, line 3)
"on receipt of s range request signal" should read "on receipt of [[s]] a range request signal" (pg. 4, line 13-14)
"the signal output 120" should read "the signal output [[120]] 108" (pg. 7, line 23)
"the range data 102" should read "the range data [[102]] 120" (pg. 7, line 27)
"where the signal scan signal comprises" should read "where the single scan signal comprises" (pg. 9, line 32)
"a scan =signal" should read "a scan signal" (pg. 14, line 37)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"wherein the electronic control unit configured to…" should read "wherein the electronic control unit is configured to…" (claim 1, line 23)
"A vehicle comprising a control system according to claim 1" should read "A vehicle comprising [[a]] the control system according to claim 1" (claim 16)
The semicolon at the end of "1500 ms;" should be replaced with a period. (claim 18)
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 4, 13, 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 20190202445 A1 Lavoie; Erick Michael et al. (hereinafter Lavoie ‘445), in view of US 20190308614 A1 LAVOIE ERICK MICHAEL et al. (hereinafter Lavoie '614), further in view of US 10870411 B1 Schafer; Gregory E et al. (hereinafter Schafer).
Regarding claim 1, Lavoie ‘445 discloses: A control system for a vehicle, the control system being adapted to determine a range from the vehicle to a portable control device associated with the vehicle when performing an autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0115] When the key fob 144 is within the threshold distance, the processor enables autonomous parking),
the control system comprising one or more controllers (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0084] the body control module 134 includes a processor or controller 1304), the control system comprising:
a scan output configured to send an instruction signal to trigger emission of a scan signal from a remote access system of the vehicle (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0051] the body control module 134 is communicatively coupled to a remote keyless entry system 142 that receives signals from a key fob 144 to control functions of the vehicle 100. The remote keyless entry system 142 sends polling signals);
a scan input configured to receive a scan input signal derived from a scan response signal originating from the portable control device in response to the scan signal (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0072] the boundary monitor 146 instructs the key fob 144 to send its signal strength measurement of the polling signals);
a processor (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0112] a processor); and
a memory storing computer executable instructions therein which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0112] machine readable instructions stored in memory (such as the memory 1306 of FIG. 13 above) that comprise one or more programs that, when executed by a processor (such as the processor 1304 of FIG. 13 above), cause the vehicle 100 to implement the example boundary monitor 146 and/or, more generally, the example body control module 134):
in dependence on the necessity of the range request (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0099] at block 2002, the boundary monitor 146 estimates the distance from the vehicle 100 to the mobile device 138 within a region of probability 706. At block 2004, the boundary monitor determines whether the region of probability 706 is within a threshold distance (e.g., within the boundary 702) of the vehicle 100. When the region of probability 706 is within the boundary 702, the method continues at block 2006 and [0100] At block 2006, the boundary monitor 146 activates the key fob polling at an initial polling interval);
in dependence on the scan response signal, determine range data indicative of the range from the vehicle to the portable control device (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0100] At block 2008, the boundary monitor 146 estimates the distance from the vehicle 100 to the key fob 144); and
wherein the polling rate varies in dependence on a state of the autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0038] the RePA system may change the polling interval as a function of vehicle velocity relative to the mobile device. For example, the increase in the polling interval may be greater the faster the relative speed of the vehicle); and
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to:
in dependence on receipt of a user request, output the range request signal (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0089] When the mobile device 138 has sent a park or un-park request… tracks the location of the mobile device);
and in dependence on the range data, output a vehicle control signal to another control system of the vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0060] in response to bringing the mobile device within range of the proximity sensors… automatically starts the engine of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via the powertrain control module 132, etc.)).
Lavoie ‘445 does not teach: a signal input configured to receive a range request signal from an electronic control unit of the vehicle; a signal output for transmitting data to the electronic control unit; and cause the signal output to output the range data to the electronic control unit.
However, Lavoie ‘614 teaches: a signal input configured to receive a range request signal from an electronic control unit of the vehicle (see Lavoie ‘614 at least [0074] At block 604, the RePA controller 140 determines whether the communication module 126 of the vehicle 100 has received an activation request from a mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 104 of the user 102) to activate remote park-assist for the vehicle 100);
a signal output for transmitting data to the electronic control unit (see Lavoie ‘614 at least [0048] The ECUs 204 communicate and exchange information via a vehicle data bus (e.g., the vehicle data bus 206). Additionally, the ECUs 204 may communicate properties (e.g., status of the ECUs 204, sensor readings, control state, error and diagnostic codes, etc.) to and/or receive requests from each other).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445 to include the communication between a vehicle ECU such as remote parking assistance and the portable device ranging system of Lavoie ‘614. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because range determination using the key fob provides more accurate distance information for the remote parking assistance ECU than relying solely on the mobile device ranging, as suggested by Lavoie ‘614 (see Lavoie ‘614 at least [0064] RePA controller 140 determines the distance between the user 102 and the vehicle 100 based upon the low-frequency communication of the key fob 106 rather than the wireless communication of the mobile device 104, because calculating a distance based upon RSSI of low-frequency communication is more accurate than calculating a distance based upon RSSI of BLE, Wi-Fi, and/or super-high frequency communication).
Lavoie ‘445 and Lavoie ‘614 do not teach: cause the signal output to output the range data to the electronic control unit.
However, Schafer teaches: cause the signal output to output the range data to the electronic control unit (Schafer at least [col. 11, lines 32-37] the control module 30 typically does not include the RF transceiver 40, but rather accesses a fob detector (such as an RF transceiver) associated with the keyless ignition of the vehicle V, such as by communicating with the controller area network (CAN) 70 of the vehicle V, and various electronic control units (ECUs) on the CAN 70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445 and Lavoie ‘614 to include the separated vehicle systems of control module, transceiver, and ECU of Schafer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this communication system allows for determination of whether or not an authorized key fob is identified within the vehicle even as an aftermarket solution to be added onto vehicles such as emergency response vehicles for increased safety, as suggested by Schafer (see Schafer at least [col. 6, lines 63-67] This is highly desirable in the emergency response sectors of Fire and Law Enforcement, as well as others, providing safety when the driver is absent from the driver seat, but lack of interference with car function when the driver is present).
Regarding claim 2, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The control system of claim 1 wherein the polling rate is higher while the vehicle is in motion than when the vehicle is stationary (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0038] the RePA system may change the polling interval as a function of vehicle velocity relative to the mobile device. For example, the increase in the polling interval may be greater the faster the relative speed of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The control system of claim 2, wherein the polling rate while the vehicle is stationary is between 400ms and 1500ms (see Schafer at least [col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 6] To detect fob presence, in one embodiment, the vehicle based RF transceiver sends out an RF signal periodically (e.g. once every second). The fob will detect the RF signal “call” and return an RF signal “reply” that the RF transceiver detects. Presence of the fob is thus confirmed. If the fob does not detect the “call” or the RF transceiver does not detect the “reply” then the fob is considered by the system to be “absent” and (if the car is running and in Park) the lockdown mode is initiated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer to include the regular polling of the key fob while the vehicle is stopped of Schafer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because checking for the presence of the key fob near the vehicle while the vehicle is idling determines whether or not the vehicle user is nearby and thus whether or not the automatic vehicle lockdown procedure should be initiated, as suggested by Schafer (see Schafer at least [col. 1, lines 38-41] The invention here described provides a fully automatic and passive way for these vehicles to be “locked down” or prevented from being driven when the authorized driver leaves the vehicle running but unattended).
Regarding claim 13, Lavoie ‘445 discloses: A method for determining a range from a vehicle to a portable control device associated with the vehicle when performing an autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0115] When the key fob 144 is within the threshold distance, the processor enables autonomous parking), comprising:
on necessity of the range request (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0099] at block 2002, the boundary monitor 146 estimates the distance from the vehicle 100 to the mobile device 138 within a region of probability 706. At block 2004, the boundary monitor determines whether the region of probability 706 is within a threshold distance (e.g., within the boundary 702) of the vehicle 100. When the region of probability 706 is within the boundary 702, the method continues at block 2006 and [0100] At block 2006, the boundary monitor 146 activates the key fob polling at an initial polling interval and [0051] The remote keyless entry system 142 sends polling signals);
receiving a scan response signal originating from the portable control device in response to the scan signal (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0072] the boundary monitor 146 instructs the key fob 144 to send its signal strength measurement of the polling signals);
in dependence on the scan response signal, determining range data indicative of the range from the vehicle to the portable control device (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0100] At block 2008, the boundary monitor 146 estimates the distance from the vehicle 100 to the key fob 144); and
wherein the polling rate varies in dependence on a state of the autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0038] the RePA system may change the polling interval as a function of vehicle velocity relative to the mobile device. For example, the increase in the polling interval may be greater the faster the relative speed of the vehicle);
in dependence on receipt of a user request, outputting, by the electronic control unit, the range request signal (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0089] When the mobile device 138 has sent a park or un-park request… tracks the location of the mobile device); and
in dependence on the range data, outputting, by the electronic control unit, a vehicle control signal to another control system of the vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0060] in response to bringing the mobile device within range of the proximity sensors… automatically starts the engine of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via the powertrain control module 132, etc.)).
Lavoie ‘445 does not teach: receiving a range request signal from an electronic control unit of the vehicle; and outputting the range data to the electronic control unit.
However, Lavoie ‘614 teaches: receiving a range request signal from an electronic control unit of the vehicle (see Lavoie ‘614 at least [0074] At block 604, the RePA controller 140 determines whether the communication module 126 of the vehicle 100 has received an activation request from a mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 104 of the user 102) to activate remote park-assist for the vehicle 100).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination method disclosed by Lavoie ‘445 to include the communication between a vehicle ECU such as remote parking assistance and the portable device ranging system of Lavoie ‘614. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because range determination using the key fob provides more accurate distance information for the remote parking assistance ECU than relying solely on the mobile device ranging, as suggested by Lavoie ‘614 (see Lavoie ‘614 at least [0064] RePA controller 140 determines the distance between the user 102 and the vehicle 100 based upon the low-frequency communication of the key fob 106 rather than the wireless communication of the mobile device 104, because calculating a distance based upon RSSI of low-frequency communication is more accurate than calculating a distance based upon RSSI of BLE, Wi-Fi, and/or super-high frequency communication).
Lavoie ‘445 and Lavoie ‘614 do not teach: outputting the range data to the electronic control unit.
However, Schafer teaches: outputting the range data to the electronic control unit (Schafer at least [col. 11, lines 32-37] the control module 30 typically does not include the RF transceiver 40, but rather accesses a fob detector (such as an RF transceiver) associated with the keyless ignition of the vehicle V, such as by communicating with the controller area network (CAN) 70 of the vehicle V, and various electronic control units (ECUs) on the CAN 70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination method disclosed by Lavoie ‘445 and Lavoie ‘614 to include the separated vehicle systems of control module, transceiver, and ECU of Schafer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this communication system allows for determination of whether or not an authorized key fob is identified within the vehicle even as an aftermarket solution to be added onto vehicles such as emergency response vehicles for increased safety, as suggested by Schafer (see Schafer at least [col. 6, lines 63-67] This is highly desirable in the emergency response sectors of Fire and Law Enforcement, as well as others, providing safety when the driver is absent from the driver seat, but lack of interference with car function when the driver is present).
Regarding claim 15, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The electronic control unit of claim 13 wherein the range data may indicate that the portable control device is outside the vehicle and within a predetermined range thereof, outside of the predetermined range, or inside the vehicle (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0039] the RePA system activates polling of the key fob and determines the location of the key fob using localization. When the key fob is within the boundary, the RePA system determines the mobile device is within the boundary).
Regarding claim 16, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: A vehicle comprising the control system according to claim 1 (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0021] The example vehicle 100 includes… a body control module (BCM) 134).
Regarding claim 17, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: A non-transitory, computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a computer, are arranged to perform the method according to claim 13 (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0085] The memory 1306 is computer readable media on which one or more sets of instructions, such as the software for operating the methods of the present disclosure can be embedded and [0086] The terms “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “tangible computer-readable medium” also include any tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by a processor or that cause a system to perform any one or more of the methods or operations disclosed herein).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie ‘445, in view of Lavoie ‘614, further in view of Schafer, and further in view of JP 2019062417 A TAKANASHI HIDENORI (hereinafter Takanashi).
Regarding claim 3, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The control system of claim 2.
Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer do not teach: wherein the polling rate while the vehicle is in motion is between 150ms and 350ms.
However, Takanashi teaches: wherein the polling rate while the vehicle is in motion is between 150ms and 350ms (see Takanashi at least [pg. 8, para. 5, beginning with “As described above”] while the vehicle continues to move forward, that is, until the function button is pressed again, the in-vehicle device 1 and the portable device 3 periodically communicate the position confirmation of the portable device 3. As shown in FIG. 5, the communication of position confirmation is performed, for example, in a cycle of 200 ms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer to include the regular cyclical communication between portable device and vehicle of Takanashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this periodical communication allows for frequent confirmation of the location of the user who possesses the portable device, as suggested by Takanashi (see Takanashi at least [pg. 11, para. 11, beginning with “By periodically performing”] By periodically performing communication between the in-vehicle device 1 and the portable device 3, it is possible to periodically confirm that the user is in the vicinity of the vehicle while operating the vehicle according to the operation of the user. Safety can be improved).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie ‘445, in view of Lavoie ‘614, further in view of Schafer, further in view of US 20210009111 A1 KANG; Dong Hoon (hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 5, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The control system of claim 1.
Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer do not teach: wherein the autonomous manoeuvre has five potential states: a standby state, start-up state, a manoeuvring state, an interrupted state, and a finishing state.
However, Kang teaches: wherein the autonomous manoeuvre has five potential states: a standby state (see Kang at least [0162] In the standby mode), start-up state (see Kang at least [0170] the ready mode), a manoeuvring state (see Kang at least [0163] the driving mode), an interrupted state (see Kang at least [0165] the emergency stop mode), and a finishing state (see Kang at least [0066] In step (7), the automated valet parking procedure is finished).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer to include the various autonomous parking stages of Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because automating complex vehicle maneuvering processes such as parking minimizes accidents related to the maneuver, as suggested by Kang (see Kang at least [0058] it is possible to lower a probability that the vehicle improperly operates during automated valet parking, thereby preventing the vehicle from experiencing an in-parking lot accident).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie ‘445, in view of Lavoie ‘614, further in view of Schafer, further in view of Kang, and further in view of US 20200294325 A1 Mueller-Lerwe; Armin et al. (hereinafter Mueller-Lerwe).
Regarding claim 6, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, Schafer, and Kang disclose: The control system of claim 5.
Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, Schafer, and Kang do not teach: wherein in the standby state no action is taken in relation to determining the range to the portable control device.
However, Mueller-Lerwe teaches: wherein in the standby state no action is taken in relation to determining the range to the portable control device (see Mueller-Lerwe at least [0043] The communication module 118 does not send signals to the mobile device when remote parking is inactive).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, Schafer, and Kang to include the refraining of communicating with the portable device while autonomous systems are not active of Mueller-Lerwe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so reduces unnecessary communication between the vehicle and the portable device, as suggested by Mueller-Lerwe (see Mueller-Lerwe at least [0043] to reduce an amount of communication signals being sent between the vehicle 100 and the mobile device).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie ‘445, in view of Lavoie ‘614, further in view of Schafer, further in view of RU2673329C2 SHPAL Robert et al. (hereinafter Shpal).
Regarding claim 12, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The control system of claim 1.
Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer do not teach: wherein the range request signal comprises configuration data for configuring the scan signal and wherein the configuration data comprises rate data for the polling rate of the scan signals.
However, Shpal teaches: wherein the range request signal comprises configuration data for configuring the scan signal and wherein the configuration data comprises rate data for the polling rate of the scan signals (see Shpal at least [pg. 9, para. 1, beginning with “When the corresponding”] When the corresponding control signal is transmitted by the wireless transmitter 56 to the wireless receiver 57 in order to start the engine, the control signal also acts as an initiating signal sent by the wireless receiver 57 to the control logic unit 53 to initiate an approach standby mode. As a result, the control logic unit 53 increases the interrogation frequency of the transmitter 54).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer to include the configuration of polling rate resulting from vehicle operation requests of Shpal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because request signals signify the impending approach of a user to the vehicle, and as such should motivate a change in polling rate in order to detect the user’s presence or proximity, as suggested by Shpal (see Shpal at least [pg. 4, para. 2, beginning with “The present invention”] To detect an increased likelihood of the user approaching the vehicle and subsequently increasing the pulse repetition rate issued by the short-range detector (at least for a certain period of time), various user actions of the remote device are monitored).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie ‘445, in view of Bianchi.
Regarding claim 14¸ Lavoie ‘445 discloses: An electronic control unit for a vehicle (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0041] The example vehicle 100 includes… a body control module (BCM) 134), the electronic control unit configured to control a vehicle when performing an autonomous vehicle manoeuvre (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0115] When the key fob 144 is within the threshold distance, the processor enables autonomous parking), the electronic control unit comprising one or more controllers (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0084] the body control module 134 includes a processor or controller 1304), and comprising
a status input for receiving vehicle status data (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0050] The powertrain control module 132 monitors sensors (such as fuel injection sensors, wheel speed sensors, exhaust sensors, etc.)… The powertrain control module 132 sends messages via a vehicle data bus (e.g., via the vehicle data bus 1302 of FIG. 13) regarding the state of the engine (e.g., running, idling, stopped, etc.));
a ranging communications channel for requesting and receiving range data in dependence on receipt of a user request, the range data being indicative of a range from the vehicle to a portable control device associated with the vehicle (see Lavoie ’445 at least [0100] At block 2008, the boundary monitor 146 estimates the distance from the vehicle 100 to the key fob 144 and [0087] The vehicle data bus 1302 communicatively couples the on-board communication module 130, the powertrain control module 132, the body control module 134, and/or the active safety module 136, etc. and [0089] When the mobile device 138 has sent a park or un-park request… tracks the location of the mobile device);
an output for sending a vehicle control signal to another control system of the vehicle in dependence on the range data to control an autonomous manoeuvre of the vehicle (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0115] In some examples, the vehicle 100 includes first and second wireless modules 104 and 142 and a processor (e.g., the processor 1304 of FIG. 13 above). The processor calculates trajectories of the vehicle 100 and a mobile device 138 and estimates a location of the mobile device 138. When the mobile device 138 is within a threshold distance of the vehicle 100, the processor polls a key fob 144 at an interval based on a comparison of the trajectories and estimates a location of the key fob 144. When the key fob 144 is within the threshold distance, the processor enables autonomous parking and [0060] in response to bringing the mobile device within range of the proximity sensors… automatically starts the engine of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via the powertrain control module 132, etc.));
a processor (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0115] a processor (e.g., the processor 1304 of FIG. 13 above));
a memory storing computer executable instructions therein which, when executed by the processor (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0112] machine readable instructions stored in memory (such as the memory 1306 of FIG. 13 above) that comprise one or more programs that, when executed by a processor (such as the processor 1304 of FIG. 13 above), cause the vehicle 100 to implement the example boundary monitor 146 and/or, more generally, the example body control module 134), when performing an autonomous vehicle manoeuvre cause the processor to:
in dependence on the vehicle status data indicating that the vehicle is moving, request to receive the range data at a second rate, where the second rate is higher than the first rate (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0038] the RePA system may change the polling interval as a function of vehicle velocity relative to the mobile device. For example, the increase in the polling interval may be greater the faster the relative speed of the vehicle).
Lavoie ‘445 does not teach: in dependence on the vehicle status data indicating that the vehicle is stationary, request to receive the range data at a first rate.
However, Bianchi teaches: in dependence on the vehicle status data indicating that the vehicle is stationary, request to receive the range data at a first rate (see Bianchi at least [0020] if the vehicle 104 is stopped and the device 102 is inside the vehicle 104, the device 102 continues to advertise at a low rate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination unit disclosed by Lavoie ‘445 to include the vehicle motion-dependent modification of data communication rates of Bianchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because motion of the portable device indicating the device’s position relative to the vehicle can be determined by low rate data gathering while the vehicle is stationary, as suggested by Bianchi (see Bianchi at least [0020] to enable timely detection of the location of the device 102 if the device 102 moves outside of the vehicle 10).
Regarding claim 20, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: A vehicle comprising the electronic control system of claim 14 (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0021] The example vehicle 100 includes… a body control module (BCM) 134).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie ‘445, in view of Lavoie ‘614, further in view of Schafer, further in view of Takanashi.
Regarding claim 18, Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer disclose: The control system according to claim 2, wherein the polling rate while the vehicle is stationary is between 400ms and 1500ms (see Schafer at least [col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 6] To detect fob presence, in one embodiment, the vehicle based RF transceiver sends out an RF signal periodically (e.g. once every second). The fob will detect the RF signal “call” and return an RF signal “reply” that the RF transceiver detects. Presence of the fob is thus confirmed. If the fob does not detect the “call” or the RF transceiver does not detect the “reply” then the fob is considered by the system to be “absent” and (if the car is running and in Park) the lockdown mode is initiated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer to include the regular polling of the key fob while the vehicle is stopped of Schafer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because checking for the presence of the key fob near the vehicle while the vehicle is idling determines whether or not the vehicle user is nearby and thus whether or not the automatic vehicle lockdown procedure should be initiated, as suggested by Schafer (see Schafer at least [col. 1, lines 38-41] The invention here described provides a fully automatic and passive way for these vehicles to be “locked down” or prevented from being driven when the authorized driver leaves the vehicle running but unattended).
Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer do not teach: wherein the polling rate while the vehicle is in motion is between 150ms and 350ms.
However, Takanashi teaches: wherein: the polling rate while the vehicle is in motion is between 150ms and 350ms (see Takanashi at least [pg. 8, para. 5, beginning with “As described above”] while the vehicle continues to move forward, that is, until the function button is pressed again, the in-vehicle device 1 and the portable device 3 periodically communicate the position confirmation of the portable device 3. As shown in FIG. 5, the communication of position confirmation is performed, for example, in a cycle of 200 ms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable device distance determination system disclosed by Lavoie ‘445, Lavoie ‘614, and Schafer to include the regular cyclical communication between portable device and vehicle of Takanashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this periodical communication allows for frequent confirmation of the location of the user who possesses the portable device, as suggested by Takanashi (see Takanashi at least [pg. 11, para. 11, beginning with “By periodically performing”] By periodically performing communication between the in-vehicle device 1 and the portable device 3, it is possible to periodically confirm that the user is in the vicinity of the vehicle while operating the vehicle according to the operation of the user. Safety can be improved).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Claims 8-11 and 19 depend on claim 7. As such, upon incorporation of the content of claim 7 into independent claims, dependent claims 8-11 and 19 will also be considered allowable due to their dependency on an allowable claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The identified claim(s) include the limitation "… wherein the scan signals are emitted at a first rate in the start-up state, the first rate being between 400 ms and 1500 ms …" which the examiner notes distinguishes itself over the prior art by reciting the specific range of polling rates to be emitted during the start-up state of the autonomous vehicle maneuver. The prior art discloses adjusting polling rates of signals between vehicles and portable devices based on the distance between the vehicle and the portable device (see Lavoie ‘445 at least [0038] When the region of probability is within the RePA boundary and the distance between the vehicle and the mobile device is decreasing, the RePA system decreases or suspends the interval of polling of the key fob). However, the prior art fails to disclose the dependency on the polling rate of a specific state of the autonomous maneuver, beyond simply the stationary or mobile status of the vehicle... Thus, even in combination, the prior art would not yield the invention as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendments to the abstract overcome the objections to the abstract.
Objections to informalities within the specification remain as detailed in the non-final rejection and reiterated in this final rejection.
Applicant's amendments overcome each of the original objections to the claim(s), except for that of claim 16. Additional claim objections are necessary upon examination of the amendments (see Claim Objections above).
Applicant's amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection for claim(s) 20.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claim(s) 1 (remarks pages 10-12), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claim(s) 1, the applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) applicant argues, "In order to advance… The claims define… In contrast… Lavoie’s RePA…" (from remarks page 10-11)
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The incorporation of reference Schafer to supplement the missing elements of Lavoie’s system renders the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. While Lavoie’s system discloses the various functions of the remote vehicle ranging device, it may lack the different hardware elements recited in the claimed invention. However, Schafer’s system discloses a system set up in such a way that the steps performed by Lavoie’s system could be implemented in such a system and would be obvious to combine. The arrangement in Schafer of an aftermarket control module added to an existing vehicle provides the result explained in the remarks of providing the ranging service using one or more existing vehicle computer parts to carry out the method. This type of arrangement allows newer technology to be retroactively installed into older vehicles, increasing safety for drivers of such vehicles.
(B) applicant argues, "In the event… Claims 5-11… The Examiner… There is no…" (from remarks page 11-12)
As to point (B), Examiner partially agrees and respectfully partially disagrees. Regarding claim 5, the detail of the specific states of the maneuver of the autonomous vehicle does not provide an inventive element that is unique or non-obvious from the art. Regarding claim 6, the recitation of no action being taken while in a standby state would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art due to the evidence provided in the art rejections and additionally due to the understanding seen in other art that a standby state is generally considered a waiting or holding or default state in which it is unlikely that the engaging, active steps of a process will occur. As such, claims 5 and 6 and the art cited are still considered obvious. However, Examiner agrees that the incorporation of the specific polling rate range related to the start-up state provides an inventive element that is considered to be allowable subject matter, as detailed above (see Allowable Subject Matter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2026014473 A1 KATO, KENJI adjusts frequency of polling based on distance between an in-vehicle device and a key fob
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 ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
10/1/26
