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.
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) 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatz et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0148448 A1; hereinafter Blatz) in view of OWEN et al. (Pub NO. WO 2017/220313 A1; hereinafter Owen; translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Blatz teaches a method of controlling one or more radiating components in a vehicle to be executed by at least one processor in real-time (See [0005]-[0008]), the method comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensing units located in the vehicle (receiving data from sensor unit LF antennas inside vehicle; See [0014]-[0020]),
one or more indications related to a three-dimensional (3D) emission vector of a magnetic field generated by the one or more radiating components of the vehicle (See [0014]-[0020]);
calculating a magnetic field for at least one location in the vehicle (signal A1 represents for one vehicle at one location; See [0029]), based on the 3D emission vector at the at least one location (signal VxA1/VyA1 is calculated from 3D emission vector from vehicle; See [0029]); and
Blatz teaches using key or key fob will not transmit an authentication code to the vehicle, thereby preventing relay attacks is to altering one or more operation parameters (See [0042]-[0048]) from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field (See [0042]-[0048]),
However Blatz is silent about altering one or more operation parameters of at least one radiating component from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field
Owen teaches regarding controlling vehicle speed (See abstract) altering one or more operation parameters of at least one radiating component from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field (See page 6, lines 10-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Blatz by altering one or more operation parameters of at least one radiating component from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field, as taught by Owen in order to control the rise and fall of the wheel to reduce or remove the effects of an out of balance wheel (Owen; page 6, Lines 5-7).
Regarding Claim 2, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz is silent about wherein altering the one or more operation parameters results in reduction of the magnetic field in the at least one location.
Owen teaches regarding controlling vehicle speed (See abstract) comprises altering the one or more operation parameters results in reduction of the magnetic field in the at least one location (See page 6, lines 10-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Blatz by using altering the one or more operation parameters results in reduction of the magnetic field in the at least one location, as taught by Owen in order to control the rise and fall of the wheel to reduce or remove the effects of an out of balance wheel (Owen; page 6, Lines 5-7).
Regarding Claim 3, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches further comprising identifying if an intensity of the calculated magnetic field, at the at least one location is higher than a threshold value (See [0046]); and wherein altering the one or more operation parameters is also based on the identification (See [0046]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 4, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches wherein the 3D emission vector comprises 3 magnetic field values in orthogonal directions (See [0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches wherein the one or more indications related to emission vectors of the EM field are received from a plurality of sensing units assembled at the closest assembling location to each radiating component (See [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding Claim 6, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 5. Blatz further teaches wherein each sensing unit comprises: 3 EM sensors, assembled orthogonal to each other, each configured to measure EM field in a specific direction (3 EM sensors; EA1, EA2, EA3; See [0039]).
Regarding Claim 7, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 5. Blatz further teaches wherein each sensing unit comprises a single EM sensor configured to measure a 3D EM field (each sensor EA1 measure 3D field; See [0014]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches wherein the one or more indications related to emission vectors of the EM field are received from calculations using the operation parameters of at least some of the radiating components (See [0045]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 9, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 8. Blatz further teaches further comprising: receiving, from the vehicle’s processor, for one or more radiating components (See [0003]-[0004]), the operation parameters; calculating the indications related to the 3D emission vectors of EM field based on the received operation parameters (See [0045]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches wherein the at least one location is inside an area of interest, and wherein the area of interest is at least one of: a passenger’s cabin (See [0003]-[0004]), a cockpit and at least one vehicle’s computer.
Regarding Claim 11, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches wherein the radiating components are at least some of: the vehicle’s electric motor (vehicle includes motor; See [0003]-[0004]), the vehicle’s battery (vehicle includes battery; See [0003]-[0004]), the vehicle’s electric wires (vehicle includes wires; See [0003]-[0004]), at least one of the vehicle’s computers (vehicle includes computer; See [0003]-[0004]), the vehicle’s power inventers, the vehicle’s relay switches and the vehicle’s radiofrequency (RF) components.
Regarding Claim 12, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 3. Blatz is silent about wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of: regulatory requirements, manufacturers decision and fleet management decision.
Owen teaches regarding controlling vehicle speed (See abstract) wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of: regulatory requirements (See page 6), manufacturers decision and fleet management decision.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Blatz by using the threshold value is determined based on at least one of: regulatory requirements, as taught by Owen in order to control the rise and fall of the wheel to reduce or remove the effects of an out of balance wheel (Owen; page 6, Lines 5-7).
Regarding Claim 14, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz further teaches wherein altering the operation parameters of the at least one radiating component comprises at least one of, altering the current supplied to the component, altering the current charging a battery, and shutting down the component (not to allow access by key fob is shutting down component See [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 15, Blatz teaches a system for in-vehicle magnetic field detection, in real-time (See [0005]-[0008]), the system comprising: one or more sensing units, located in a vehicle,
configured to measure indications related to three-dimensional (3D) emission vectors of magnetic fields;
a memory to store thereon instruction (See [0039]-[0041]); and
a processor configured to (See [0039]-[0041]):
receive from the one or more sensing units, one or more indications related to a three-dimensional (3D) emission vector of a magnetic field (See [0014]-[0020]) generated by the one or more radiating components of the vehicle (receiving data from sensor unit LF antennas inside vehicle; See [0014]-[0020]);
calculate a magnetic field for at least one location in the vehicle (signal A1 represents for one vehicle at one location; See [0029]), based on the 3D emission vector at the at least one location (signal VxA1/VyA1 is calculated from 3D emission vector from vehicle; See [0029]); and
Blatz teaches using key or key fob will not transmit an authentication code to the vehicle, thereby preventing relay attacks is to altering one or more operation parameters (See [0042]-[0048]) from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field (See [0042]-[0048]),
However Blatz is silent about alter one or more operation parameters of at least one radiating component from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field.
Owen teaches regarding controlling vehicle speed (See abstract) alter one or more operation parameters of at least one radiating component from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field (See page 6, lines 10-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Blatz by altering one or more operation parameters of at least one radiating component from the one or more radiating components based on the calculated magnetic field, as taught by Owen in order to control the rise and fall of the wheel to reduce or remove the effects of an out of balance wheel (Owen; page 6, Lines 5-7).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatz in view of Owen further in view of Taylor et al. (Patent NO. US 10,991,242 B2; hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding Claim 13, Blatz in view of Owen teaches the method of claim 1. Blatz in view of Owen is silent about further comprising: identifying nodes; and determining if for each identified node, the node is located at a critical area, wherein the critical area is one of: an area occupied by one of: a human and an animal, and a vehicle’s electronic component sensitive of EM radiation.
Taylor teaches further comprising: identifying nodes; and determining if for each identified node (See Col. 55, Lines 20-60), the node is located at a critical area, wherein the critical area (See Col. 55, Lines 20-60) is one of: an area occupied by one of: a human and an animal (See Col. 56, Lines 45-50), and a vehicle’s electronic component sensitive of EM radiation
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Blatz and Owen by identifying nodes; and determining if for each identified node, the node is located at a critical area, wherein the critical area is one of: an area occupied by one of: a human and an animal, as taught by Taylor in order to achieve enhanced control of vehicle (Taylor; abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tefft et al. (Pub NO. US 2019/0037142 A1) discloses Control of Imaging Assembly.
DOYLE et al. (Pub NO. US 2017/0108589 A1) discloses Measuring and Controlling Electromagnetic Radiation.
Kuhnke et al. (Patent NO. US 8,861,105 B2) discloses Corner Reflector for Vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858