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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on September 9, 2026.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Upon further search and consideration, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donadini et al. (US 20230137301 A1) in view of Pandey (US 20210105174 A1). Similar claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as listed above. See detailed rejection below.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above due to dependency. See detailed rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites “a first transmission/reception device arranged at a first location of the motor vehicle and configured to receive a functional signal for actuating a function of the motor vehicle from a functional device different from the motor vehicle”, which is interpreted in light of the instant specification, (“A transmission/reception device may also be referred to as a transceiver, antenna or armature and is a device of the motor vehicle used to transmit and receive signals. In particular, the transmission/reception device is designed to receive signals wirelessly” [0012]), as a transceiver, antenna, or armature.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donadini et al. (US 20230137301 A1) in view of Pandey et al. (US 20130237174 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10:
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Donadini teaches:
a first transmission/reception device arranged at a first location of the motor vehicle and configured to receive a functional signal for actuating a function of the motor vehicle from a functional device different from the motor vehicle; (“at least one transmitting and/or transceiver unit 13 to communicate with at least one control unit 6 provided for/mounted in/on a motor vehicle 2” [0038], “the receiver/transceiver 14 is configured to receive a command signal 15 directly from the outside. Preferably, the command signal 15, which is sent to said at least one receiver/transceiver 14 of the key 3, is disconnected from the state of the vehicle and, in particular, it is independent of any communication that occurs directly between an external unit and the vehicle itself.” [0045]), where a receiver/transceiver device at a vehicle location is configured to receive a functional signal for actuating a function of the motor vehicle from a key.
a control device in communication with the first transmission/reception device, (“at least one receiver and/or transceiver 14 (preferably a transceiver) which is connected with said at least one processing and/or control unit 10 and is configured to receive a command signal 15 from the outside.” [0039]).
Donadini does not teach, but Pandey teaches:
determine as a communication loss that the first transmission/reception device is at least temporarily unable to communicate with the control device due to a temporary disconnection of a wired connection between: (a) the first transmission/reception device, and (b) the control device or a bus; (“At block 1902, at a communications device, a communications link within a wired communications network that involves the communication device is monitored. For example, the communications channel 1870 is monitored by the failure detection unit 1874-1 or 1874-2 of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2. Next, at block 1904, at the communications device, it is determined whether or not a failure of the communications link is detected.” [0083], “FIG. 21 depicts a failure of a communications link 1118-1 in the communications network 1100 depicted in FIG. 11 that can result in bandwidth allocation and routing entry changes. As depicted in FIG. 21, a communications link 1118-1 between the communications node 1106-2 (e.g., a switch) and the ECU 1108-1 has a failure. The communications node 1106-2 and the ECU 1108-1 detects the failure of the communications link 1118-1 (e.g., a broken cable/wire and/or PHY failure), for example, using on-board diagnostic capability of PHYs of the communications node 1106-2 and the ECU 1108-1.” [0087]) Pandey teaches detecting a temporary failure between a wired communication system with the ECU of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Donadini’s actuating a function of a motor vehicle with Pandey’s detecting communication failure because (“the ECU 1108-1 can be hacked to send rogue commands to other communications nodes to change the routing table, which can cause the communications network 1100 to be compromised.” See Pandey [0087]) to prevent unauthorized access to functions of the motor vehicle.
Donadini further teaches:
actuate or disable the function based on the determination; (“the key 3 is in an “enabled state” when it is able to communicate with said at least one control unit 6 of the motor vehicle 2 and also when it communicates the correct recognition data 12 to said control unit, thus allowing the control unit itself to successfully command at least one function and/or system of the motor vehicle 2, and in particular in order to allow/unlock the opening of at least one door of the motor vehicle and/or in order to allow/unlock the ignition of the engine of the motor vehicle. On the contrary, the key 3 is in a “disabled state” when it is unable to communicate with said at least one control unit 6 of the motor vehicle 2 and/or does not communicate the correct recognition data 12 to said control unit, thus preventing the control unit itself to successfully command at least one function and/or system of the motor vehicle 2, and in particular when it is unable to allow/unlock the opening of at least one vehicle door and/or to allow/unlock the ignition of the motor vehicle engine.” [0050-0051], “enabling/disabling the key allows to counter and protect the user from the theft method called “relay attack”…” [0208]), where the key is enabled or disabled based on the communication, and therefore the function controlled by the key command signal, which is the functional signal, is actuated or disabled based on the communication determination.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Donadini and Pandey, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Donadini in combination with Pandey teaches actuating a function of a motor vehicle of claims 1 and 10. Donadini further teaches:
wherein the function comprises unlocking of the motor vehicle; (“at least one control unit 6 is configured to control at least one function and/or system of the motor vehicle 2, in particular it is configured to control the unlocking of the ignition of the motor vehicle engine and/or the unlocking of the opening of at least one vehicle door, following the reception of said at least one identification data of a given key 3.” [0041]).
With respect to claims 3 and 8, Donadini and Pandey, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Donadini in combination with Pandey teaches actuating a function of a motor vehicle of claims 1 and 10. Donadini further teaches:
wherein the function comprises ignition of the motor vehicle; (“at least one control unit 6 is configured to control at least one function and/or system of the motor vehicle 2, in particular it is configured to control the unlocking of the ignition of the motor vehicle engine and/or the unlocking of the opening of at least one vehicle door, following the reception of said at least one identification data of a given key 3.” [0041]).
With respect to claim 10, Donadini and Pandey, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Donadini in combination with Pandey teaches actuating a function of a motor vehicle of claim 1. Donadini further teaches:
A motor vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 1; (“at least a memory unit 11 in which at least one recognition data 12 is stored to control at least one function and/or system of the motor vehicle 2,” [0037], “at least one control unit 6 of the motor vehicle can comprise the electronic control unit of the engine (said “ECM”) and/or the immobilizer and/or one or more electronic control units (ECUs) incorporated in the system to be controlled.” [0041]).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donadini et al. (US 20230137301 A1) in view of Pandey et al. (US 20210105174 A1) and Murray et al. (US 20180089918 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 9:
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Donadini and Pandey, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Donadini in combination with Pandey teaches actuating a function of a motor vehicle of claims 1 and 10. Donadini does not teach, but Murray further teaches:
wherein the control device is configured to determine a time period which has elapsed since the communication loss and to actuate or disable the function based on the determination; (“after the communicator 116 sends the RKE message 122 to unlock the doors of the vehicle 104, the communicator 116 waits for the confirmation message 136. If the communicator 116 does not receive the confirmation message 136 within a threshold period of time (e.g., one second, five seconds, etc.), the communicator 116 provides an alert to the driver. In some examples, to alert the driver, the communicator 116 illuminates the LED 110. The communicator 116 continues to illuminate the LED 110 until (a) a preset time period has elapsed (e.g., one minute), (b) the user presses a particular button combination (e.g., the unlock button 108b together with the lock button 108a), and/or (c) the RKE node 112 of the key fob 102 is resynchronized with the RKE module 126 of the vehicle 104.” [0035]), which shows that when the communication loss time is determined to be within a threshold period of time, the functional signal is affected. Murray teaches that the functional signal includes the function comprising unlocking the vehicle, (“The buttons include a lock button 108a and an unlock button 108b to cause the key fob to send a RKE message 122 with a lock command or an unlock command” [0019]), and the examiner indicates that when the communication loss time is determined, and when it is determined that there is no abnormal communication, the functional signal will actuate the function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Donadini’s actuating a function of a motor vehicle with Murray’s elapsed time period (“for detection and protection against jam intercept and replay attacks.” See Murray [0004]), as the elapsed time period can be used to detect jam intercept and replay attacks.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donadini et al. (US 20230137301 A1) in view of Pandey et al. (US 20210105174 A1) and Noll et al. (US 20200020184 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, Donadini and Pandey, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Donadini in combination with Pandey teaches actuating a function of a motor vehicle of claim 1. Donadini further teaches:
wherein the control device is configured to cancel a disabled function based on a functional signal being received at a second transmission/reception device; (“the operations to switch the key from the disabled to the enabled state include—for example—one or more of the following operations: reception and restoration of the coded sequence 12′ to allow/unlock the opening of the vehicle doors 2 or of the secret key 12″ which allows the ignition of the engine, both present in the memory unit 11, reception and restoration of the correct section of code (firmware) or routine or procedure which allows to recover the recognition data 12 from the memory unit 11 and to send it to the control unit 6 of the motor vehicle 2, enabling the sending of the recognition data 12 on the basis of the value of a firmware and/or software parameter that can be modified by the processing and/or control unit 10 on the basis of instructions received from the mobile device 20 or from the remote unit 24 through the mobile device 20 (i.e., conditional sending of the recognition data 12), restoration of the stretch of track of one or more antennas, of the transmitter and/or transceiver unit 13, which allow to send the recognition data 12 from the memory unit 11 to the control unit 6 of the motor vehicle 2 by closing a suitable circuit controlled by one of the pins (“outputs”) of the processing and/or control unit 10,” [0067-0071]), where the control device is configured to cancel a disabled function and therefore enabling the function.
However, Donadini does not explicitly teach receiving the functional signal at a second transmission/reception device, but Noll teaches (“The activation signal can be a short unencrypted wake-up message to the PLL. After a communication between the base station and the mobile device, i.e. between the first and second transceiver units has ended, the PLL is deactivated once again, for example by an internal sleep message sent by the second transceiver unit to the PLL.” [0018], “After the request code has been generated, the first processor unit can transfer the request code to the first transceiver unit via a data link, which then can send the request code immediately to the second transceiver unit.” [0023], “the second transceiver unit compares the encrypted request code and the encrypted access code and, in case of a match, sends an acceptance signal to the base station. In other words, all the decoding and comparison of the request and access codes takes place in the second transceiver unit, i.e. in the mobile device.” [0025]), where the function is only enabled when a functional signal is received at a second transmission/reception device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Donadini’s actuating a function of a motor vehicle with Noll’s second transmission/reception device (“for preventing security breaches of a passive remote keyless entry system, which offers a high level of security, is economical and is easy to implement” See Noll [0006]), as this provides a way to authorize access to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights