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 . Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn and claims 7-13 have been elected due to a Requirement for Restriction/Election. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (Claims 7-13) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
The method (Group I, claims 1-6) is not patentably distinct from the device (Group II, claims 7-13) because the extra transmission in the method step is not tied to any other method step and is therefore facially immaterial to the method. This is not found persuasive because, as recited in claim 1, the wireless impulses that are exchanged (from the hand-held unit to the vehicle, and from the vehicle to the hand-held unit) are transmitted in a manner offset by a time interval and the time interval is negotiated based on the strength of the capability of an energy source. Therefore, the extra transmission is not immaterial to the claims.
The method (Group I, claims 1-6) is not patentably distinct from the device (Group II, claims 7-13) because whether the processor is internal to the vehicle versus external to the vehicle is immaterial. This is not found persuasive because certain steps of the method would be performed differently if the computer/processor were internal to the vehicle versus if the computer/processor were internal to the hand-held unit. For example, if the computer/processer were internal to the vehicle, the strength of the energy source of the hand-held unit would need to be separately transmitted to the vehicle in order to negotiate the time interval. Therefore, this is also not immaterial to the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 7-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a motor vehicle” in multiple instances. It is unclear if both instances are referring to the same motor vehicle or a different one. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the second instance will be interpreted to read --the motor vehicle--.
Claim 7 recites “receive a series of wireless impulses transmitted from different positions on the motor vehicle in a manner offset by the time interval”.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 7 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a hand-held unit, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 7 recites the limitations of:
“A hand-held unit for communication with a motor vehicle, comprising: a wireless receiver; an energy source; and a processing device configured to: negotiate a time interval with a motor vehicle on the strength of a capability of the energy source of the hand-held unit, receive a series of wireless impulses transmitted from different positions on the motor vehicle in a manner offset by the time interval, and determine a location of the hand-held unit in relation to the motor vehicle on the basis of intervals of time between reception times of the wireless impulses at the hand-held unit.”
The limitations of negotiating a time interval and determining a location, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and also a mathematical process. That is, other than reciting “a processing device configured to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step of negotiating a time interval from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processing device configured to” language, negotiating a time interval in the context of the claim encompasses a person mentally deciding or selecting the frequency at which wireless impulses should be sent based on an observed level of the energy source. For example, a person could select impulses to be sent every 2 seconds when the energy source is fully charged, but select impulses to be sent every 10 seconds when the energy source falls below a certain level. The limitations of determining a location is a mathematical process that can be performed by triangulating the location of the unit based on the different transmitting/receiving times between different known points in the vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using a processing device to perform the recited steps. The processing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The wireless receiver and energy source are also recited at a high-level of generality. The limitations of receiving a series of wireless impulses is merely transmitting/receiving signals which has been held to be considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Claim 9 recites a buffer store, which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic capacitor or the like). Claim 11 recites a reset generator, which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic voltage detector or the like). Claim 12 recites a wireless interface, which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic wireless interface). (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. The limitations of receiving a series of wireless impulses is merely transmitting/receiving signals which has been held to be considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 7 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 8-13 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra (US 2015/0296348 A1) in view of Smith (US 2015/0230055 A1) and Laifenfeld (US 2016/0320469 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ghabra discloses a hand-held unit for communication with a motor vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0017] – wireless device 12… vehicle 18), comprising: a wireless receiver (see at least Fig. 2, [0022] – transmitter/receiver 32); an energy source (see at least Fig. 2, [0023] – battery 36); and a processing device (see at least Fig. 2, [0022] – microcontroller 30) configured to: negotiate a time interval with a motor vehicle, receive a series of wireless impulses transmitted from different positions on the motor vehicle in a manner offset by the time interval (see at least Figs. 4-6, [0035-0040, 0046-0047] – to determine the location of the wireless device 12 with respect to the vehicle 18, wireless device 12 transmits a polling signal periodically to base stations 14 and 16 and then receives signals with time stamps).
Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose negotiate a time interval on the strength of a capability of the energy source of the hand-held unit.
Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: negotiate a time interval on the strength of a capability of the energy source of the hand-held unit (see at least Fig. 6F, [0111-0112] – the mobile device may detect/determine that the amount of power remaining in the mobile device battery is below a predetermined threshold, the mobile device may transmit a signal or otherwise inform grouped mobile devices of the detected low battery condition, initiate operations to converse power, such as by turn off its radio and/or reducing its participation in exchanging information with grouped mobile devices, the mobile device and/or the informed grouped mobile devices may adjust the update intervals with respect to the mobile device to reduce the load on the mobile device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Smith into the invention of Ghabra with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing battery consumption when the device has a low battery condition (Smith – [0111]).
Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose determine (by the processing device of the hand-held unit) a location of the hand-held unit in relation to the motor vehicle on the basis of intervals of time between reception times of the wireless impulses at the hand-held unit.
However, Ghabra does disclose determine (by the vehicle) a location of the hand-held unit in relation to the motor vehicle on the basis of intervals of time between reception times of the wireless impulses at the hand-held unit (see at least Figs. 4-6, [0035-0040, 0046-0047] – to determine the location of the wireless device 12 with respect to the vehicle 18, wireless device 12 transmits a polling signal periodically to base stations 14 and 16 and then receives signals with time stamps).
Therefore, in this aspect the different between Ghabra and the claim is that Ghabra makes the determination at the vehicle, not the processing device of the hand-held unit.
Laifenfeld, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determine (by the processing device of the hand-held unit) a location of the hand-held unit in relation to the motor vehicle (see at least [0028-0029] - The key fob 41 can measure the performance characteristics of the received short-range wireless signals and then either calculate its position relative to the vehicle 10 or transmit the data for each received signal back to the vehicle 10 where location calculations can be carried out.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Laifenfeld into the invention of Ghabra with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Laifenfeld teaches either making the determination of location of the hand-held unit at the hand-held unit or at the vehicle, this demonstrates that the determination step could be implemented at the hand-held unit to yield predictable results. This would increase processing speed because the hand-held unit doesn’t have to send the signal characteristics/measurements to the vehicle for processing and can perform self-contained processing.
Regarding claim 8, Ghabra discloses wherein the receiver is activated only if the arrival of a wireless impulse is expected (see at least [0047, 0051] – wireless device 12 is configured to turn off for a time period), and wherein a voltage of the energy source is reduced while the receiver is activated (see at least [0023, 0047, 0051] – battery 36 powers the microcontroller 30 and the transceiver 32… wireless device 12 when monitoring for the receipt of a response signal).
Regarding claim 10, Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the time interval is extended if a voltage of the energy source drops below a predetermined threshold value during activation of the wireless receiver.
Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the time interval is extended if a voltage of the energy source drops below a predetermined threshold value during activation of the wireless receiver (see at least Fig. 6F, [0111-0112] – the mobile device may detect/determine that the amount of power remaining in the mobile device battery is below a predetermined threshold, the mobile device may transmit a signal or otherwise inform grouped mobile devices of the detected low battery condition, initiate operations to converse power, such as by turn off its radio and/or reducing its participation in exchanging information with grouped mobile devices, the mobile device and/or the informed grouped mobile devices may adjust the update intervals with respect to the mobile device to reduce the load on the mobile device).
The motivation to combine Ghabra and Smith is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a reset generator configured to put the processing device into a predetermined state if the voltage drops below the predetermined threshold value.
Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a reset generator configured to put the processing device into a predetermined state if the voltage drops below the predetermined threshold value (see at least Fig. 6F, [0111-0112] – the mobile device may detect/determine that the amount of power remaining in the mobile device battery is below a predetermined threshold, the mobile device may transmit a signal or otherwise inform grouped mobile devices of the detected low battery condition, initiate operations to converse power, such as by turn off its radio and/or reducing its participation in exchanging information with grouped mobile devices, the mobile device and/or the informed grouped mobile devices may adjust the update intervals with respect to the mobile device to reduce the load on the mobile device).
The motivation to combine Ghabra and Smith is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra in view of Smith, Laifenfeld, and Hein (US 2008/0252432 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the energy source comprises a buffer store in order to briefly provide an increased electric current.
Hein, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the energy source comprises a buffer store in order to briefly provide an increased electric current (see at least Fig. 3, [0023-0024] – Remote control 22 includes battery 64 and energy harvest component 92. Electrical energy generated by harvest component 92 is stored in capacitor 94. Regulator 96 regulates the voltage output from battery 64 as supplied to battery-only bus 98. Regulator 100 regulates the voltage stored in capacitor 94 as supplied to switched bus 102.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hein into the invention of Ghabra with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of extending the battery life and increasing the usefulness of the remote device (Hein – [0006]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra in view of Smith, Laifenfeld, and DeLong (US 2024/0080765 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a further wireless interface for communication with the motor vehicle.
DeLong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a further wireless interface for communication with the motor vehicle (see at least Fig. 2, [0027, 0044] – The portable device 104 may communicate with the vehicle TCU 114 by using wireless transceivers… BLE transceiver 222… UWB transceiver 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of DeLong into the invention of Ghabra with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of minimizing power consumption of the key fob (DeLong – [0015, 0059]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra in view of Smith, Laifenfeld, and Amadi (US 2022/0172530 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ghabra discloses wherein the hand-held unit is configured to request a predetermined function of the motor vehicle (see at least [0018-0019] - lock and unlock the vehicle 18 in response to command signals as provided by the wireless device 12).
Ghabra does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the hand-held unit is configured to carry out a bilateral authentication with the motor vehicle.
Amadi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the hand-held unit is configured to carry out a bilateral authentication with the motor vehicle (see at least [0009, 0021] - a two-way authentication protocol that validates the physical presence and temporal state of the key fob or mobile phone relative to the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Amadi into the invention of Ghabra with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a more secure authentication protocol by validating an unlocking session and protecting against relay attacks (Amadi – [0009, 0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Plattner (US 2019/0355196 A1) is directed to a method for verifying a prescribed maximum physical distance of a radio key in relation to a motor vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669