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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on May 29, 2024. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 18-27 are currently pending. Claims 9 & 12-17 are cancelled. Claims 18-27 are new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. CN202111448154.3, filed on November 29, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 29, 2024 & July 9, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the term “grade” used in this instant application, there is no explicit definition in the claims nor specification. However, based on [0055] of the specification, the examiner will interpret “grade” to mean “permission levels” with respect to security.
The examiner notes that “an onboard display of a user interface” of Claims 7 & 23 are distinct from “a user interface” in the parent claims.
Specification
The use of the terms “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth”, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 8, 18-20, & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4, 18, & 20 recite …determining that the client mobile terminal is outside…the vehicle… however [0055] of the specification defines “outside” the vehicle as “within a predefined range” and “outside the predefined range”. It is uncertain which definition the claims are referring to. For examination on the merits, it will be interpreted as “within a predefined range”.
Claims 8 & 24 contain the trademarks/trade names “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless network protocols and short-range wireless technology, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 10 is directed to an electronic device (i.e. a system) which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing machine-executable instructions (i.e. a system) which is one of the statutory categories. Therefore, claims 1 and 10-11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control method, comprising:
detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle;
determining a location of the client mobile terminal relative to the vehicle and a client grade of the client mobile terminal; and
based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining a location of the client mobile terminal relative to the vehicle and a client grade of the client mobile terminal” in the context of this claim encompasses performing math to determine the location of one object to another and whether a security authentication meets a specific level. “based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user” encompasses performing an action based on whether something is true or not. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 10 & 11, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control method, comprising:
detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle;
determining a location of the client mobile terminal relative to the vehicle and a client grade of the client mobile terminal; and
based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular the “detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle” step amount to data collecting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); indicate that data gathering is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation “detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle” does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claims 10-11 are also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-8 & 18-27 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-8 & 18-27, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-8, 10-11, & 18-27 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109067747 A, to Luo et al., hereafter Luo.
Regarding Claim 1, as shown above, Luo discloses A vehicle control method, comprising: detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of a vehicle (Luo [0057], Examiner Note: Luo discloses when the user has the mobile terminal, determining if the distance from the vehicle to the user is greater or less than 50 meters);
determining a location of the client mobile terminal relative to the vehicle and a client grade of the client mobile terminal (Luo [0057], Examiner Note: Luo discloses when the user has the mobile terminal, determining if the distance from the vehicle to the user is greater or less than 50 meters. Luo further discloses a high level of security authentication (i.e. client grade) if the distance is larger than 50 meters, and a low level of security authentication (i.e. client grade) if the distance is less than 50 meters); and
based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user (Luo [0053], Examiner Note: Luo discloses being able to allow different commands based on the security authentication levels (i.e. notification to provide the user with an interface)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7, 10-11, 18-25, & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109067747 A, to Luo et al., hereafter Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0288796 A1, to Yuan.
Regarding Claim 2, Luo discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein, based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user comprises:
However, Luo does not specifically disclose in response to determining that the client mobile terminal is outside or inside the vehicle and that the client grade is a vehicle owner grade, sending a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide the user with a user interface for accessing an interface displaying an option menu related to the vehicle.
Yuan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that the client mobile terminal is outside or inside the vehicle and that the client grade is a vehicle owner grade, sending a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide the user with a user interface for accessing an interface displaying an option menu related to the vehicle (Yuan [0034] & [0062], Examiner Note: Yuan teaches determining if the primary owner (i.e. vehicle owner grade) is outside the vehicle, the primary owner may control the operation of vehicle (i.e. provide user with user interface) which includes human-machine interface configurations. [0066] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Yuan also includes a scenario where the user and primary owner are not the same person. Fig. 6 shows when a third-ranked owner makes a request, a higher rank owner must approve to give permission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the vehicle owner permissions of Yuan in order to allow the primary operator to allow or restrict certain occupants from certain control operations and information (Yuan [0008]).
Regarding Claim 3, Luo in view of Yuan teaches The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
However, the modification does not specifically teach receiving a query command or control command input by the user after the user accesses the interface displaying the option menu through the user interface; and based on the query command or the control command, providing relevant information obtained based on the query command to the client mobile terminal, or controlling the vehicle to perform a corresponding action according to the control command.
Yuan further teaches receiving a query command or control command input by the user after the user accesses the interface displaying the option menu through the user interface (Yuan [0066] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Yuan teaches the owner receiving a request (i.e. query command) to the owner via the mobile device); and based on the query command or the control command, providing relevant information obtained based on the query command to the client mobile terminal, or controlling the vehicle to perform a corresponding action according to the control command (Yuan [0066] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Yuan teaches the owner approving the request (i.e. corresponding action) via the mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the vehicle owner permissions of Yuan in order to allow the primary operator to allow or restrict certain occupants from certain control operations and information (Yuan [0008]).
Regarding Claim 4, Luo discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein, based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user comprises:
However, the Luo does not specifically disclose in response to determining that the client mobile terminal is outside the vehicle and that the client grade is not a vehicle owner grade, terminating communication with the client mobile terminal
Yuan teaches in response to determining that the client mobile terminal is outside the vehicle (Yuan [0062], Examiner Note: Yuan teaches determining if the primary owner (i.e. vehicle owner grade) is outside the vehicle, the primary owner may control the operation of vehicle) and that the client grade is not a vehicle owner grade , terminating communication with the client mobile terminal (Yuan [0066] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Yuan teaches that if a lesser owner (i.e. not a vehicle owner grade) requests permission to perform a task, 604, the next highest ranking owner, which could be the top owner (i.e. vehicle owner grade) could deny the request, 608, thereby ending the process (i.e. terminating communication)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the vehicle owner permissions of Yuan in order to allow the primary operator to allow or restrict certain occupants from certain control operations and information (Yuan [0008]).
Regarding Claim 5, Luo discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein, based on the determined location and client grade, determining whether to send a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide a user interface to the user comprises:
However, Luo does not specifically disclose in response to determining that the client mobile terminal is inside the vehicle and the client grade is the owner grade or the passenger grade, sending a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide the user with a user interface for accessing an interface displaying an option menu related to interior devices of the vehicle.
Yuan, directed to the same problem, teaches in response to determining that the client mobile terminal is inside the vehicle and the client grade is the owner grade or the passenger grade, sending a notification message to the client mobile terminal to allow the client mobile terminal to provide the user with a user interface for accessing an interface displaying an option menu related to interior devices of the vehicle (Yuan [0009] & [0061], Examiner Note: Yuan teaches a scenario in which the vehicle owner and a secondary owner (i.e. passenger grade) is within (i.e. inside) a vehicle and the primary owner (i.e. owner grade) is able to control the vehicle (i.e. access user interface) from a seat that is not the driver’s seat. The control of the vehicle may include starting the engine (i.e. interior devices of the vehicle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the vehicle owner permissions of Yuan in order to allow the primary operator to allow or restrict certain occupants from certain control operations and information (Yuan [0008]).
Regarding Claim 6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 3. Therefore, claim 6 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Luo in view of Yuan teaches The method according to claim 5, further comprising:
However, the modification does not specifically teach providing an onboard display of a user interface to the user through a display device of the vehicle; displaying an option menu related to interior devices of the vehicle in response to the user clicking the onboard display of the user interface; and based on the query command or control command input by the user on the interface displaying the option menu, feeding back to the user relevant information obtained based on the query command, or performing a corresponding action according to the control command.
Yuan further teaches providing an onboard display of a user interface to the user through a display device of the vehicle; displaying an option menu related to interior devices of the vehicle in response to the user clicking the onboard display of the user interface (Yuan [0049]-[0050] & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: Yuan teaches a display device, 310, which may be a touch display (i.e. clicking), where the display can provide activating or deactivating control system modes or navigation (i.e. option menu related to interior devices)); and based on the query command or control command input by the user on the interface displaying the option menu, feeding back to the user relevant information obtained based on the query command, or performing a corresponding action according to the control command (Yuan [0066] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Yuan further teaches when the request is approved by the vehicle owner, 618, the request is implemented by the vehicle’s computer system 104 (i.e. feeding back relevant information)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the vehicle owner permissions of Yuan in order to allow the primary operator to allow or restrict certain occupants from certain control operations and information (Yuan [0008]).
Regarding Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Yuan further teaches …at least one processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (Yuan [0029], Examiner Note: Yuan teaches a processor 106, a memory 108, and instructions 110)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the processor and memory of Yuan in order allow method instructions to be performed in a vehicle (Yuan [0029]).
Regarding Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 10, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 21, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 21 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 21 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 22 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 6. Therefore, claim 22 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 23, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 23 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 7. Therefore, claim 23 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 25, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 25 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 85. Therefore, claim 25 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 27, Luo in view of Yuan teaches The method of claim 2,
The modification teaches the claimed invention except wherein the option menu is one of an overlay menu and a multi-level menu. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a style of menu interface, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Claims 8 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109067747 A, to Luo et al., hereafter Luo and US 2016/0288796 A1, to Yuan as applied to claim 1 & 10 above, and further in view of US 2018/0370365 A1, to Lee et al., hereafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 8, Luo discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein detecting a client mobile terminal within a predefined distance range of the vehicle comprises:
However, Luo does not specifically disclose detecting the client mobile terminal within the predefined distance range of the vehicle based on near-field connection technology or Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) high- precision positioning technology, wherein the near-field connection technology includes one or more of Bluetooth connection technology, Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) connection technology, or Wi-Fi connection technology.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting the client mobile terminal within the predefined distance range of the vehicle based on near-field connection technology or Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) high- precision positioning technology, wherein the near-field connection technology includes one or more of Bluetooth connection technology, Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) connection technology, or Wi-Fi connection technology (Lee [0182]-[0186], Examiner Note: Lee teaches a communication apparatus, 400, which performs communication with an external device which may be a mobile terminal. The communication apparatus contains a short-range communications unit, 410, which supports short range communication using Bluetooth and Wi-fi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the short-range communication technology of Lee in order to allow communication between different kinds of devices such as mobile units and vehicles (Lee [0187]).
Regarding Claim 24, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 24 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 8. Therefore, claim 24 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109067747 A, to Luo et al., hereafter Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,912,591 B2, to Sekiyama et al., hereafter Sekiyama.
Regarding Claim 26, as shown above, Luo in view of Yuan discloses The method of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically disclose wherein detecting a location of the client mobile terminal comprises: detecting the location of the client mobile terminal relative to the vehicle based on GNSS high-precision positioning technology.
Sekiyama, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein detecting a location of the client mobile terminal comprises: detecting the location of the client mobile terminal relative to the vehicle based on GNSS high-precision positioning technology (Sekiyama Col. 4 Row 11-26, Examiner Note: Sekiyama teaches using GPS (i.e. a type of GNSS) to find the position of the mobile terminal as well as the vehicle having a navigation apparatus 12 which also determines the location of the vehicle. Col. 7 Rows 58-63, Examiner Note: The GPS information is used to determine the distance between the mobile terminal and vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the mobile terminal authorization method of Luo with the location determination method of Sekiyama in order to provide accurate location information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee, Jihye (US 2022/0135003 A1) discloses an authentication device for a user controlling a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights