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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, but are not persuasive. These rejections are accordingly maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Examiner previously rejected the following language as being vague and indefinite: “while the wireless connection remains established … determining an interval of time between activations of the wireless connection; and activating the wireless connection at the interval of time,” (Office Action dated 6/1/2026, pg. 3). More specifically, in their Remarks dated 3/20/2026, Applicant attempts to distinguish the characterization of the language of claim 1 by asserting that “Ayed describes being disconnected and then re-connected which cannot reasonably be understood as an interval of time between activations of a wireless connection while that wireless connection is established,” (Remarks dated 3/20/2026 at pg. 5). Ayed, however, describes the connection, inter alia, as a dormant/sleep/sniff/park/hold/low-power mode, see e.g. at least ¶ 71, 113-114, 130, Fig. 9, and relate text, periodically listening after authentication to determine if the connection should become active or otherwise when not actively exchanging data). It is unclear, therefore, what type of “connection” Applicant is intending to refer to in their claim language, and more specifically, what constitutes “established” and “activate/activation.” In other words, it is unclear what meaning Applicant intends to convey by the language “activations of the wireless connection” and “activating the wireless connection,” “while the wireless connection remains established.”
In their Remarks dated 8/13/2026, Applicant asserts that:
“The phrase: establishing a wireless connection, refers plainly to a state in which the wireless connection between the hand-held unit and the motor vehicle is established.
The phrase: while the wireless connection remains established, refers plainly to a state in which the hand-held unit and the motor vehicle remain in wireless connection with each other-i.e., the wireless connection is not dropped.
The phrase: activating the wireless connection refers to the wireless connection being brought from a low-power non-transmitting state into a data transmitting state,” (Remarks dated 8/13/2026 at pg. 4).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A method for controlling a safety function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
establishing a wireless connection between a hand-held unit and the motor vehicle; and
while the wireless connection remains established:
determining a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection;
determining an interval of time between activations of the wireless connection, wherein the interval of time is determined based on the volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection; and
activating the wireless connection at the interval of time so as to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Generally Unclear: The expression “while the wireless connection remains established … determining an interval of time between activations of the wireless connection; and activating the wireless connection at the interval of time” as used in the claim is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, in their remarks, Applicant recites that “Ayed describes being disconnected and then re-connected which cannot reasonably be understood as an interval of time between activations of a wireless connection while that wireless connection is established,” (Remarks at pg. 5). Ayed, however, describes the connection, inter alia, as a dormant/sleep/sniff/park/hold/low-power mode, see e.g. at least ¶ 71, 113-114, 130, Fig. 9, and relate text, periodically listening after authentication to determine if the connection should become active or otherwise when not actively exchanging data). It is unclear, therefore, what type of “connection” Applicant is intending to refer to in their claim language, and more specifically, what constitutes “established” and “activate/activation.” In other words, it is unclear what meaning Applicant intends to convey by the language “activations of the wireless connection” and “activating the wireless connection,” “while the wireless connection remains established.”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A method for controlling a safety function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
establishing a wireless connection between a hand-held unit and the motor vehicle; and
determining a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection;
determining an interval of time
activating an operation at the interval of time so as to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection."
Claims 2-11 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 12 recites: "A hand-held unit for controlling a safety function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a wireless transceiver; and
a processing device configured to:
establish a wireless connection to the motor vehicle via the wireless transceiver, and
while the wireless connection remains established:
determine a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection,
determine an interval of time between activations of the wireless connection, wherein the interval of time is determined based on the volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection, and
activate the wireless connection at the interval of time so as to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A hand-held unit for controlling a safety function of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a wireless transceiver; and
a processing device configured to:
establish a wireless connection to the motor vehicle via the wireless transceiver, and
determine a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection,
determine an interval of time
activate an operation at the interval of time so as to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection.”
Claim 13 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher (DE 102018004072 A1. For purposes of this examination, Examiner will refer to the English language translation of this reference provided with this Office Action) in view of Ayed (US 2013/0298208 A1), and further in view of Buzzalino (US 2024/0205707 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Becher discloses a method for controlling a safety function of a motor vehicle (see e.g. at least Abstract), comprising:
establishing a wireless connection between a hand-held unit and the motor vehicle (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 20, Fig. 1-3, and related text);
Additionally, Ayed teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Becher including namely: determining a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection (see e.g. at least ¶ 71, 113-114, 130, Fig. 9, and related text, entering dormant state, i.e. sleep/sniff/park/hold/low-power mode, after authentication to listen periodically to determine if it should become active or otherwise when not actively exchanging data).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Becher by determining a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection as taught by Ayed in order to assure low power consumption and extend battery life while maintaining secure communication connection (Ayed: Abstract, ¶ 113, 130).
Additionally, Buzzalino teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Becher including namely: determining an interval of time, wherein the interval of time is determined based on the volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection (see e.g. at least ¶ 70, 72, Fig. 10, 12, and related text); and
activating an operation at the interval of time to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Becher by determining an interval of time, wherein the interval of time is determined based on the volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection; and activating an operation at the interval of time to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection as taught by Buzzalino in order to ensure that drivers have accurate information and provide offline data back to the system to provide confirmation as soon as possible after reestablishing connection (Buzzalino: ¶ 67).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Becher teaches that the activation is carried out by the hand-held unit (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 62, 108, 114, 130, Fig. 1A-4, and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Becher teaches that the safety function aboard the motor vehicle is controllable only by using a hand-held unit (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Becher teaches that the interval of time is coordinated between the hand-held unit and the motor vehicle (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 71, 113-114, 130).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Becher teaches:
determining a probability of a volume of data to be transmitted, wherein the interval of time is shortened as the probability increases (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 71, 113-114, 130).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Becher teaches that the probability is determined based on a movement of the hand-held unit with respect to the motor vehicle (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 64, 117, 119, Fig. 6-8, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Becher teaches that the probability is determined based on a movement of the motor vehicle (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 64, 117, 119, Fig. 6-8, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Becher teaches that it is determined whether the hand-held unit is being moved by a running person, and the probability is determined based on a movement of the running person (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 33, 64, 67, 108, 117, 119, Fig. 6-8, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Becher teaches that the probability is determined based on a distance between the hand-held unit and the motor vehicle (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 67, 105, 108, 112).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Becher teaches that the probability is determined based on a state of the motor vehicle (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 66-67, 105, 108, 112).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Becher teaches that the interval of time is determined based on a capability of an energy store of the hand-held unit (Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 66-67, 105, 108).
Regarding claim 12, Becher discloses a hand-held unit for controlling a safety function of a motor vehicle (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-3, and related text), comprising:
a wireless transceiver (e.g. at least transmitter/receiver 9, see e.g. at least Fig. 1-3, and related text); and
a processing device (e.g. at least mobile device 5, 5’, smartphone, see e.g. at least ¶ 29, Fig. 1-3, and related text) configured to:
establish a wireless connection to the motor vehicle via the wireless transceiver (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 20, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Additionally, Ayed teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Becher including namely: determining a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection (see e.g. at least ¶ 71, 113-114, 130, Fig. 9, and related text, entering dormant state, i.e. sleep/sniff/park/hold/low-power mode, after authentication to listen periodically to determine if it should become active or otherwise when not actively exchanging data).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Becher by determining a volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection as taught by Ayed in order to assure low power consumption and extend battery life while maintaining secure communication connection (Ayed: Abstract, ¶ 113, 130).
Additionally, Buzzalino teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Becher including namely: determining an interval of time, wherein the interval of time is determined based on the volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection (see e.g. at least ¶ 70, 72, Fig. 10, 12, and related text); and
activating an operation at the interval of time to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Becher by determining an interval of time, wherein the interval of time is determined based on the volume of data to be transmitted via the wireless connection; and activating an operation at the interval of time to transmit the volume of data via the wireless connection as taught by Buzzalino in order to ensure that drivers have accurate information and provide offline data back to the system to provide confirmation as soon as possible after reestablishing connection (Buzzalino: ¶ 67).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Becher teaches an electrical energy store configured to provide a predetermined amount of energy (e.g. at least battery, power store 24, Ayed: see e.g. at least ¶ 59, 110, Fig. 1A-2B, and related text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights