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 .
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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on January 26, 2026, claims 3, 10 and 18-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites "the one or more sensor" in line 5 which is supposed to be “the one or more sensors” for consistency with the recitation in line 2.
Claim 17 recites "the one or more sensor" in line 6 which is supposed to be “the one or more sensors” for consistency with the recitation in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “a module configured to monitor the one or more sensor for when the at least one vibration exceeds a vibration threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold and activate an alarm system when the vibrational threshold and the duration threshold are exceeded”. However, claim 1 already recites that subject matter and therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a module configured to monitor” in Claims 1, 8 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1, 8 and 17 limitation “a module configured to monitor”, see Fig. 4, 400 and Paragraph [0046-0047], element 400 with processor 402.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,077,128 (reference application) in view of De Kock et al. (De Kock: US 20140104048).
Claims 1, 8 and 17 are generally broader than the respective claims 1, 6 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,077,128 except the one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel. However, De Kock teaches the one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel (Par 85, sensor chip 7 in housing 6 is mounted on plates 9, 10 i.e. panels and Par 78 , the sensor unit is underside of the vehicle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of De Kock as a known location in the base vibration/acceleration sensor with the predictable result of preventing the theft of a catalytic converter.
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 12 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 13 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by De Kock et al. (De Kock: US 20140104048).
Regarding Claim 1, De Kock teaches a tamper detection system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to monitor for at least one vibration from at least one vehicle exhaust component (para [0078] The sensor unit 1 contains a vibration sensor comprising a sensor chip 7 and various circuits for analysing and processing the output of the sensor chip 7. The sensor chip 7 comprises an accelerometer 15 (as shown in FIG. 3). The sensor unit 1 is mounted on the catalytic converter/particulate filter 4 or nearby on the exhaust pipe 5.) , the one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel (Par 85, sensor chip 7 in housing 6 is mounted on plates 9, 10 i.e. panels and Par 78 , the sensor unit is underside of the vehicle) and
a module (Fig. 1, 2 and Fig. 18, 92, 96 and para [0041] a controller arranged to monitor a signal from the sensor; wherein the controller is configured to generate an alarm event if the signal from the sensor includes characteristic features indicative of an attempted theft of the vehicle exhaust component) configured to monitor the one or more sensor for when the at least one vibration exceeds a vibration threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold and activate an alarm system when the vibrational threshold and the duration threshold are exceeded (par 18, the system is optionally adapted to discount vibrations having an amplitude below a predefined minimum amplitude. The system is optionally adapted to determine a threat duration (i.e. a time period for which vibrations characteristic of an attempted theft persist) and to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon). And para [0110-0111] Upon detection of a vibration which is in the target frequency band, of sufficient amplitude and sufficient duration then the microprocessor 92 in the sensor unit 1 will stop one or several heartbeats depending on its assessment of the threat level. And para 35-36).
Regarding Claim 2, De Kock teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors further includes a piezoelectric device, a piezoresistive device, a microphone, an accelerometer, or a combination thereof (De Kock: Fig. 3, accelerometer 15).
Regarding Claim 3, De Kock teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the system further includes a module (Fig. 1, 2 and Fig. 18, 92, 96 and para [0041] a controller arranged to monitor a signal from the sensor; wherein the controller is configured to generate an alarm event if the signal from the sensor includes characteristic features indicative of an attempted theft of the vehicle exhaust component) configured to monitor the one or more sensor for when the at least one vibration exceeds a vibration threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold and activate an alarm system when the vibrational threshold and the duration threshold are exceeded (par 18, the system is optionally adapted to discount vibrations having an amplitude below a predefined minimum amplitude. The system is optionally adapted to determine a threat duration (i.e. a time period for which vibrations characteristic of an attempted theft persist) and to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon). And para [0110-0111] Upon detection of a vibration which is in the target frequency band, of sufficient amplitude and sufficient duration then the microprocessor 92 in the sensor unit 1 will stop one or several heartbeats depending on its assessment of the threat level. And para 35-36).
Regarding Claim 5, De Kock teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the alarm system is a vehicle alarm module or a catalytic converter alarm module (De Kock: Fig. 1, 3a, 3b and para 77 and para 18, to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon)).
Regarding Claim 6, De Kock teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the alarm system is wireless communication module configured to transmit at least one wireless alert (De Kock: para 8, a communications module, for example a GSM module. The alarm event may comprise generating a text alert (e.g. an SMS message) or initiating a telephone call to a predefined telephone number to report an attempted theft in progress).
Regarding Claim 7, De Kock teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one vehicle exhaust component is a catalytic converter (De Kock: Par 78, The sensor unit 1 is mounted on the catalytic converter/particulate filter 4 or nearby on the exhaust pipe 5.).
Regarding Claim 8, De Kock teaches a method for detecting tampering with a vehicle, the method comprising:
(a) sensing a vibration using one or more sensors located on at least one vehicle exhaust component (Fig. 1, sensor unit 1, para [0078] The sensor unit 1 contains a vibration sensor comprising a sensor chip 7 and various circuits for analyzing and processing the output of the sensor chip 7. The sensor chip 7 comprises an accelerometer 15 (as shown in FIG. 3). The sensor unit 1 is mounted on the catalytic converter/particulate filter 4 or nearby on the exhaust pipe 5), wherein the one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel ( Par 85, sensor chip 7 in housing 6 is mounted on plates 9, 10 i.e. panels and Par 78 , the sensor unit is underside of the vehicle );
(b) determining, by using a module (Fig. 1, 2 and Fig. 18, 92, 96 and para [0041] a controller arranged to monitor a signal from the sensor; wherein the controller is configured to generate an alarm event if the signal from the sensor includes characteristic features indicative of an attempted theft of the vehicle exhaust component), that the vibration sensed exceeds a vibrational threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold (par 18, the system is optionally adapted to discount vibrations having an amplitude below a predefined minimum amplitude. The system is optionally adapted to determine a threat duration (i.e. a time period for which vibrations characteristic of an attempted theft persist) and to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon). And para [0110-0111] Upon detection of a vibration which is in the target frequency band, of sufficient amplitude and sufficient duration then the microprocessor 92 in the sensor unit 1 will stop one or several heartbeats depending on its assessment of the threat level. And para 35-36); and
(c) triggering an alarm system (Fig. 1, 2 and para [0041] a controller arranged to monitor a signal from the sensor; wherein the controller is configured to generate an alarm event if the signal from the sensor includes characteristic features indicative of an attempted theft of the vehicle exhaust component).
Regarding Claim 9, De Kock teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more sensors further include a piezoelectric device, a piezoresistive device, a microphone, an accelerometer, or a combination thereof (De Kock: Fig. 3, accelerometer 15).
Regarding Claim 11, De Kock teaches the method of claim 8, wherein step (c) further comprises the step of providing at least one audio alert or at least one visual alert from a vehicle alarm module (De Kock: Fig. 1, 3a, 3b and para 77 and para 18, to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon).
Regarding Claim 12, De Kock teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the step (c) further comprises the step of providing at least one audio alert or at least one visual alert from a catalytic converter alarm module (De Kock: Fig. 1, 3a, 3b and para 77 and para 18, to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon).
Regarding Claim 13, De Kock teaches the method of claim 8, wherein step (c) further comprises the step of (I) wirelessly transmitting at least one wireless alert (De Kock: para 8, a communications module, for example a GSM module. The alarm event may comprise generating a text alert (e.g. an SMS message) or initiating a telephone call to a predefined telephone number to report an attempted theft in progress).
Regarding Claim 14, De Kock teaches the method of claim 13, wherein step (I) comprises using at least one server to receive each wireless alert and wirelessly transmitting each wireless alert to at least one user device (De Kock: para 8, a communications module, for example a GSM module. The alarm event may comprise generating a text alert (e.g. an SMS message) or initiating a telephone call to a predefined telephone number to report an attempted theft in progress. The communications module may be part of the controller or connected to the controller).
Regarding Claim 15, De Kock teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the server of step (I) is configured to receive a plurality of wireless alerts from a plurality of tamper detection systems (De Kock: [0008] The system may include a communications module, for example a GSM module. The alarm event may comprise generating a text alert (e.g. an SMS message) or initiating a telephone call to a predefined telephone number to report an attempted theft in progress. And para 52, the trucks).
Regarding Claim 17, De Kock teaches a tamper detection system for a vehicle, the tamper detection system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to monitor for at least one vibration from a catalytic converter (para [0078] The sensor unit 1 contains a vibration sensor comprising a sensor chip 7 and various circuits for analyzing and processing the output of the sensor chip 7. The sensor chip 7 comprises an accelerometer 15 (as shown in FIG. 3). The sensor unit 1 is mounted on the catalytic converter/particulate filter 4 or nearby on the exhaust pipe 5.), the one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel (Par 85, sensor chip 7 in housing 6 is mounted on plates 9, 10 i.e. panels and Par 78 , the sensor unit is underside of the vehicle) and
a module (Fig. 1, 2 and Fig. 18, 92, 96 and para [0041] a controller arranged to monitor a signal from the sensor; wherein the controller is configured to generate an alarm event if the signal from the sensor includes characteristic features indicative of an attempted theft of the vehicle exhaust component) configured to monitor the one or more sensor for when the at least one vibration exceeds a vibration threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold and activate an alarm system when the vibrational threshold and the duration threshold are exceeded (par 18, the system is optionally adapted to discount vibrations having an amplitude below a predefined minimum amplitude. The system is optionally adapted to determine a threat duration (i.e. a time period for which vibrations characteristic of an attempted theft persist) and to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon). And para [0110-0111] Upon detection of a vibration which is in the target frequency band, of sufficient amplitude and sufficient duration then the microprocessor 92 in the sensor unit 1 will stop one or several heartbeats depending on its assessment of the threat level. And para 35-36).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 no obviousness.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Kock in view of Akiyama (US 20030009271 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, De Kock teaches the system of claim 1, the method of claim 8 and the vehicle of claim 20 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the module is a vehicle electronic control unit (ECU).
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicular security systems. Akiyama teaches a vehicle ECU to notify the emergency situation based on abnormal vibrations (para 118, The antitheft ECU 118 has functions relevant to antitheft operations, such as notification of an emergency situation based on abnormal vibrations generated in the parked vehicle ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akiyama for the benefit of performing antitheft operations (Akiyama: para 118).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “Claim 3 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 has been amended to include additional limitations”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended limitations are already included in the claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit.
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “The Office Action interpreted the limitation "a module configured to monitor" in Claims 1, 8, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), identifying the corresponding structure as "Fig. 4, 400 and Paragraph [0046-0047], element 400 with processor 402." Applicant respectfully submits that the term "module" as used in the claims recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions and should not be interpreted under §112(f). The term "module" in the context of the present invention refers to a structural component comprising hardware elements, including processors, memory, sensors, and associated circuitry as described throughout the specification. The term is widely understood in the art to denote a self-contained unit with specific structural components. However, should the Examiner maintain the §112(f) interpretation, Applicant notes that the specification provides adequate corresponding structure at Paragraphs [0046-0047] and Figure 4, specifically describing element 400 with processor 402 and associated components for performing the monitoring and alarm activation functions. This structure is sufficient to support the claims under §112(f)”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (i.e. module) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “module” itself does not have any structure to perform the claimed function of monitoring and activation. Therefore, the 112(f) interpretation is maintained.
On page 8-9 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “The Office Action's mapping of DE KOCK relies on paragraph [0078] for the sensor configuration and paragraphs [0078] and [0085] for the mounting location. However, the Office Action's analysis conflates multiple distinct sensor configurations in DE KOCK and fails to establish that a single embodiment discloses all claim limitations as arranged in the instant claims. DE KOCK describes sensors mounted on the catalytic converter/particulate filter or nearby on the exhaust pipe [0078], but the Office Action's citation to paragraphs [0078] and [0085] for "sensor chip 7 in housing 6 is mounted on plates 9, 10" does not establish that the same sensor configuration that monitors vibrations from the exhaust component is the "one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel" or "one or more sensors configured to monitor for at least one vibration from at least one vehicle exhaust component" where "the one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel." Put simply, the sensor chip 7 in housing 6 mounted on plates 9, 10 is distinct from the claimed one or more sensors includes a sensor mounted to a vehicle frame assembly, chassis, or underbody panel”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because De Kock’s disclosure of Par 78 and 85 represents Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively and Fig. 2 is enlarged view of the Fig. 1. They are clearly the same embodiment. Applicants do not provide any evidence that they are “multiple distinct configurations” as argued. De Kock clearly teaches the sensor unit having vibration sensor is mounted to the exhaust pipe underside of the vehicle (Par 78, Par 85 and Fig. 1-2) by the plates 9, 10. Therefore, it is clearly mounted to the underbody panel. Even though the sensor is mounted inside a housing, the claim does not exclude any intermediate component for mounting. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 9-10 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “DE KOCK's system is directed to determining characteristic features "indicative of an attempted theft" based on frequency analysis and pattern recognition ([0041], [0110-0111]), but fails to disclose "for when the at least one vibration exceeds a vibration threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold." The Office Action's characterization of DE KOCK's "threat duration" as equivalent to the claimed "duration threshold" ignores the deficiency of DE KOCK in that it is non-enabling art insofar as any disclosure of a "sensor signal indicative of a theft," since no accompanying written description or disclosure or other logic indicates what signal is contemplated”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because De Kock clearly teaches the vibration exceeding a vibration threshold because the vibrations below the threshold are discounted/ignored (par 18, discount vibrations having an amplitude below a predefined minimum amplitude) and activating the alarm when such vibration exceeds a vibration threshold for at least an amount of time that exceeds a duration threshold (par 18, determine a threat duration (i.e. a time period for which vibrations characteristic of an attempted theft persist) and to use the threat duration to determine whether to generate an alarm event (such as to switch on an alarm siren and/or a flashing beacon … generate an alarm event only when vibrations characteristic of an attempted theft persist for at least a predetermined time period.). It is clearly contemplated for vibration signals that meets the amplitude threshold. Applicants does not provide any reason for “non-enabling”. It should be noted that “summary” is part of the specification/disclosure. One of the ordinary skill in the art clearly understands and is enable to use vibration sensor and process the sensor signals to activate alarm from such disclosure.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (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 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688