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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 1/20/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 2,11,16,18,20-21, the cancellation of claims 4-5, 15 and the addition of claims 22-24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-3,6-14, and 16-24 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.
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) 2-5,11,15-16,18, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230.
Regarding claim 2, Murakami teaches One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising:
detecting a mobile computing device associated with a user within a proximity of a secured space, the mobile computing device detected within the proximity of the secured space based on a wireless communication between the mobile computing device and a device associated with the secured space (paragraph 037-038, 042); and providing access to the secured space by causing a door to the secured space to unlock in response to the detecting of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space (paragraph 044, 050). Murakami teaches the use of biometric for authenticating the user (paragraph 0132-0133) but is silent on teaching authorizing a user associated with the mobile computing device detected within the proximity of the secured space, the authorizing of the user based on a comparison of three- dimensional facial attributes of the user with stored three-dimensional facial attributes of the user. Muppirala in an analogous art teaches the use the authorizing of the user based on a comparison of three- dimensional facial attributes of the user with stored three-dimensional facial attributes of the user (paragraph 044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala because such modification represents represent the substitution of one form of biometric for another in order to reliably authenticate the user.
Regarding claim 3, Murakami teaches the wireless communication is a radio frequency signal (paragraph 047).
Regarding claim 11, Murakami teaches a method comprising:
detecting a mobile computing device associated with a user within a proximity of a secured space, the mobile computing device detected within the proximity of the secured space based on a wireless communication between the mobile computing device (paragraph 037-038, 042) and a device associated with the secured space; and providing access to the secured space by causing a door to the secured space to unlock m response to the detecting of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space (paragraph 044, 050). Murakami teaches the use of biometric for authenticating the user (paragraph 0132-0133) but is silent on teaching authorizing a user associated with the mobile computing device detected within the proximity of the secured space, the authorizing of the user based on a comparison of three- dimensional facial attributes of the user with stored three-dimensional facial attributes of the user. Muppirala in an analogous art teaches the use the authorizing of the user based on a comparison of three- dimensional facial attributes of the user with stored three-dimensional facial attributes of the user (paragraph 044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala because such modification represents represent the substitution of one form of biometric for another in order to reliably authenticate the user.
.
Regarding claim 16, Murakami teaches identifying the user and execute one or more operations based on the identifying of the user, the one or more operations executed according to one or more preferences of the user.
Regarding claim 18, Murakami teaches a system comprising:
a device associated with secured space having a door configured to lock and unlock, the device having a hardware device configured to wirelessly communicate with a mobile computing device, the mobile computing device associated with a user (paragraph 037-038, 042,050);
at least one processor of the device configured to detect the mobile computing device within a proximity of the secured space based on a wireless communication between the mobile computing device and the hardware device of the device associated with the secured space, the at least one processor of the device associated with the secured space providing access to the secured space by causing the door to unlock in response to detection of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space (fig. 5, paragraph 044, 050). Murakami teaches the use of biometric for authenticating the user (paragraph 0132-0133) but is silent on teaching authorizing a user associated with the mobile computing device detected within the proximity of the secured space, the authorizing of the user based on a comparison of three- dimensional facial attributes of the user with stored three-dimensional facial attributes of the user. Muppirala in an analogous art teaches the use the authorizing of the user based on a comparison of three- dimensional facial attributes of the user with stored three-dimensional facial attributes of the user (paragraph 044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala because such modification represents represent the substitution of one form of biometric for another in order to reliably authenticate the user.
Regarding claim 24, Murakami teaches the secured space is controlled in response to the detection of the mobile device within the proximity of the secured space (paragraph 044).
Claim(s) 6,13-14,17,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 and further in view of Nagaoka et al. US Patent Application Publication 20060267407.
Regarding claim 6,13-14, 17, and 22, Murakami is silent on teaching causing one or more lights within the proximity of the secured space to illuminate the response to the detecting of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space. Nagaoka et al. in an analogous art teaches causing one or more lights within the proximity of the secured space to illuminate the response to the detecting of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space (paragraph 061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Nagaoka et al. because such modification represent an improvement over the system Murakami by irradiating the entrance position provided around the door of the vehicle as a convenience for user access.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 and further in view of Sanji et al. US Patent Application 20180053416.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami is silent on teaching detecting the mobile computing device entering the secured space: and executing one or more welcome operations m response to the detecting of the mobile computing device entering the secured space. Sanji et al. teaches detecting the mobile computing device entering the secured space: and executing one or more welcome operations m response to the detecting of the mobile computing device entering the secured space (paragraph 073-074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Sanji because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Murakami in order to adjust the vehicle setting to the user’s convenience.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 in view of Sanji et al. US Patent Application 20180053416 and further in view of Preusser US Patent Application Publication 20150088377.
Regarding claim 8, Murakami is silent on teaching detecting the one or more welcome operations comprise outputting a greeting to the user. Preusser in an analogous art teaches detecting the one or more welcome operations comprise outputting a greeting to the user (paragraph 045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami in view of Sanji as disclosed by Preusser because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Murakami in view of Sanj in order to provide information to the user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 in view of Sanji et al. US Patent Application 20180053416 and further in view of Craine US Patent Application Publication 20140172238.
Regarding claim 9, Murakami is silent on teaching the one or more welcome operations comprise receiving one or more voice commands from the user, and executing the one or more voice commands. Craine in an analogous art teaches the one or more welcome operations comprise receiving one or more voice commands from the user, and executing the one or more voice commands (abstract, paragraph 012,025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami in view of Sanj as disclosed by Craine because such modification represents an improvement over the system Murakami in view Craine in order to customized vehicle’s setting and enable vehicle based on voice command.
Claim(s) 10,12, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 in view of Sanji et al. US Patent Application Publication 20180053416.
Regarding claim 10,12, and 23, Murakami is silent on teaching detecting the one or more welcome operations comprise causing the secured space to heat or cool in response to the detecting of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space. Sanji in an analogous art teaches detecting the one or more welcome operations comprise causing the secured space to heat or cool in response to the detecting of the mobile computing device within the proximity of the secured space (paragraph 074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala in view of Sanji because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Murakami in order to adjust the vehicle to the user’s preferred setting.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 and further in view of Dorland et al. US Patent Application Publication 20140301565.
Regarding claim 19, Murakami is silent on teaching the mobile device is wearable. Dorland et al. in an analogous art teaches the mobile device is wearable (wristwatch, paragraph 039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala in view of Dorland because such modification represents the substitution of one mobile device for another for producing the predictable result of communicating with the vehicle.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 and further in view of Muller US Patent Application Publication 20160171803.
Regarding claim 20, Murakami is silent on teaching the device associated with the secured space is an ultra-wideband device. Muller in an analogous art teaches the device associated with the secured space is an ultra-wideband device (paragraph 029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala in view of Muller because such modification represents the substitution of one mobile device for another for producing the predictable result of communicating with the vehicle.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami US Patent Application Publication 20150379793 in view of Muppirala US Patent Application Publication 20220130230 and further in view of Vasudevan US Patent Application Publication 20120129493.
Regarding claim 21, Murakami is silent on teaching the mobile computing device initiates the communication with the device associated with the secured space. Vasudevan in an analogous art teaches the mobile computing device initiates the communication with the device associated with the secured space (paragraph 059-060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Murakami as disclosed by Muppirala in view of Vasudevan because such modification represent the substitution of the initiator for initiating communication between the vehicle and mobile device and producing the predictable result of the mobile device communicating with the vehicle in order for the user to gain access.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686