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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on the application in the Federal Republic of Germany filed on 08/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 5 and 9 are 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. The newly amended claim limitation, “first portion of the motor vehicle”, “Second portion of the motor vehicle” as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYAZAWA (20170291579) and further in view of GEHRER (2022/0100853).
1. As per claims 1,5,9 MIYAZAWA disclosed an apparatus for actuating a function of a motor vehicle, comprising: a first transmission/reception device arranged at a first location of the motor vehicle on a first portion 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 and to transmit a first acknowledgement signal [An aspect of the present invention is a keyless entry system including a vehicle-mounted device and a portable device, the vehicle-mounted device including: a first control unit that generates a request signal; a first transmission unit that sequentially transmits a request signal generated by the first control unit from a plurality of respective transmission antennas; a first reception unit that receives a response signal to the request signal; and a storage unit that stores a history of information included in the response signal received by the first reception unit, in which, in a case where the response signal is newly received by the first reception unit, the first control unit determines whether or not the vehicle is caused to perform a predetermined operation on the basis of the information included in the response signal and the history of the information included in the response signal stored in the storage unit, and the portable device includes: a second reception unit that receives the request signal sequentially transmitted by the plurality of respective transmission antennas of the vehicle-mounted device; a second control unit that generates a response signal including information generated on the basis of the request signal received by the second reception unit; and a second transmission unit that transmits the response signal generated by the second control unit] (Paragraph. 0007).
a second transmission/reception device arranged at a second location of the motor vehicle on a second portion of the motor vehicle that is different from the first portion and configured to receive the acknowledgement signal from the first transmission/reception device [The portable device 200 according to the first embodiment can be applied as the portable device 200 according to the second embodiment. However, if the request signal is supplied from the reception unit 208, the control unit 210 acquires the authentication ID 2122 stored in the storage unit 212. The control unit 210 estimates the position of the portable device 200 on the basis of the information indicating the reception strength supplied from the reception unit 208. That is, the control unit 210 calculates the first estimation position. The control unit 210 generates a response signal including information indicating the first estimation position and the authentication ID 2122, and outputs the response signal to the transmission unit 204] (Paragraph. 0078); and
a control device in communication with the first transmission/reception device and the second transmission/reception device, the control device being operatively configured to:
measure a propagation time of the first acknowledgement signal from the first transmission/reception device to the second transmission/reception device [The portable device 200 determines to transmit the response signal in a case where the vehicle-specific identification code matches the identification information stored in the portable device 200, and determines not to transmit the response signal in a case where the vehicle-specific identification code does not match the identification information. Further, as the timing signal 34 is transmitted from the vehicle-mounted device 100, it can be seen that a signal for reception strength measurement then continues. The portable device 200 can set a timing for reception strength measurement. Thereafter, when the measurement signal 35 is transmitted from the vehicle-mounted device 100, the portable device 200 that has received the measurement signal 35 can measure the reception strength. The request signal from the transmission antenna that is received by the portable device 200 may be identified on the basis of the identification information of the transmission antenna that is included in the request signal from each transmission antenna] (Paragraph. 0036),
However, MIYAZAWA did not explicitly disclose, compare the measured propagation time with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the first transmission/reception device or the second transmission/reception device has been moved from the first location or the second location respectively, and actuate or disable the function based on the comparison.
In the same field of endeavor GEHRER disclosed, “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary block diagram of a computing device utilizing an MCU with an ADC. The circuit 200 may include a first ECU 201, second ECU 202, third ECU 203, an intrusion detection system (IDS) 205, as well as an ADC 215 that may be an on-chip ADC 215 incorporated into the MCU 211. The circuit may connect each of these components by a CAN bus 209. The CAN bus 209 may be utilized to allow various ECUs or controllers in the vehicle to communicate with one another. The IDS 205 may be utilized to store a fingerprint and other secure data related to the system, in one alternative. The fingerprint may be used as a profile of the ECU or circuit and be utilized by the IDS to detect malicious behavior. While multiple ECUs are shown in circuit 200, alternative embodiments may include more or less ECUs that are utilized (Paragraph. 0027). These measurements may be then processed in the same way as during the enrollment phase and compared to the baseline. If the fingerprint doesn't match the expected fingerprint of that function (within a defined threshold), it has to be assumed that the function was—potentially maliciously—modified. The intrusion can be logged and further actions can be triggered, e.g., kill/delay/modify a process/message/connection, disable/reboot device, reprogram device with original code, or resetting the device and furthermore the connection may be designed so as to minimize the amount of noise by using a low pass filter (e.g., Resistor-Capacitor circuit), which may be carefully designed to the characteristics of the Vdd signal. For example, to allow fast charging and discharging of the low pass filter. (Paragraph. 0031 & 0042)”. Examiner interpreted “the connection may be designed so as to minimize the amount of noise by using a low pass filter” in the above excerpt as “compare the measured propagation time with a predetermined threshold value, and actuate or disable the function based on the comparison”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing was made to have incorporated FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary block diagram of a computing device utilizing an MCU with an ADC. The circuit 200 may include a first ECU 201, second ECU 202, third ECU 203, an intrusion detection system (IDS) 205, as well as an ADC 215 that may be an on-chip ADC 215 incorporated into the MCU 211. The circuit may connect each of these components by a CAN bus 209. The CAN bus 209 may be utilized to allow various ECUs or controllers in the vehicle to communicate with one another. The IDS 205 may be utilized to store a fingerprint and other secure data related to the system, in one alternative. The fingerprint may be used as a profile of the ECU or circuit and be utilized by the IDS to detect malicious behavior. While multiple ECUs are shown in circuit 200, alternative embodiments may include more or less ECUs that are utilized. These measurements may be then processed in the same way as during the enrollment phase and compared to the baseline. If the fingerprint doesn't match the expected fingerprint of that function (within a defined threshold), it has to be assumed that the function was potentially maliciously—modified. The intrusion can be logged and further actions can be triggered, e.g., kill/delay/modify a process/message/connection, disable/reboot device, reprogram device with original code, or resetting the device and furthermore the connection may be designed so as to minimize the amount of noise by using a low pass filter (e.g., Resistor-Capacitor circuit), which may be carefully designed to the characteristics of the Vdd signal. For example, to allow fast charging and discharging of the low pass filter. as taught by GEHRER in the method and system of MIYAZAWA to increase the efficiency of communication between the transmitter and the receptor.
2. As per claims 2,6 MIYAZAWA-GEHRER disclosed wherein the function comprises unlocking of the motor vehicle (MIYAZAWA, Paragraph. 0003 & 0027).
3. As per claims 3,7 MIYAZAWA-GEHRER disclosed wherein the function comprises ignition of the motor vehicle (MIYAZAWA, Paragraph. 0027).
4. As per claims 4,8 MIYAZAWA-GEHRER disclosed wherein the
second transmission/reception device is configured to transmit a second acknowledgement signal in response to the reception of the first acknowledgement signal,
the first transmission/reception device is configured to receive the second acknowledgement signal (MIYAZAWA, Paragraph. 0066), and
the control device is operatively configured to:
measure a second propagation time of the second acknowledgement signal from the second transmission/reception device to the first transmission/reception device, compare the second propagation time with a second predetermined threshold value (MIYAZAWA, Paragraph 0092), and
actuate or disable the function based on the comparison (GEHRER, Paragraph. 0031). Examiner interpreted fingerprint comparison to the baseline causing function to actuate or disable in the above excerpt to “compare the measured propagation time with a predetermined threshold value, and actuate or disable the function based on the comparison”.
Claim 4 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “determine whether the first transmission/reception device or the second transmission/reception device has been moved from the first location or the second location respectively”.
As to applicant’s argument GEHRER disclosed, “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary block diagram of a computing device utilizing an MCU with an ADC. The circuit 200 may include a first ECU 201, second ECU 202, third ECU 203, an intrusion detection system (IDS) 205, as well as an ADC 215 that may be an on-chip ADC 215 incorporated into the MCU 211. The circuit may connect each of these components by a CAN bus 209. The CAN bus 209 may be utilized to allow various ECUs or controllers in the vehicle to communicate with one another. The IDS 205 may be utilized to store a fingerprint and other secure data related to the system, in one alternative. The fingerprint may be used as a profile of the ECU or circuit and be utilized by the IDS to detect malicious behavior. While multiple ECUs are shown in circuit 200, alternative embodiments may include more or less ECUs that are utilized (Paragraph. 0027).
B. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “a control device in communication with the first transmission/reception device and the second transmission/reception device, the control device being operatively configured to:
measure a propagation time of the first acknowledgement signal from the first transmission/reception device to the second transmission/reception device”.
As to applicant’s argument MIYAZAWA disclosed, the portable device 200 determines to transmit the response signal in a case where the vehicle-specific identification code matches the identification information stored in the portable device 200, and determines not to transmit the response signal in a case where the vehicle-specific identification code does not match the identification information. Further, as the timing signal 34 is transmitted from the vehicle-mounted device 100, it can be seen that a signal for reception strength measurement then continues. The portable device 200 can set a timing for reception strength measurement. Thereafter, when the measurement signal 35 is transmitted from the vehicle-mounted device 100, the portable device 200 that has received the measurement signal 35 can measure the reception strength. The request signal from the transmission antenna that is received by the portable device 200 may be identified on the basis of the identification information of the transmission antenna that is included in the request signal from each transmission antenna (Paragraph. 0036),
C. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “compare the measured propagation time with a predetermined threshold value, and actuate or disable the function based on the comparison”.
As to applicant’s argument GEHRER disclosed GEHRER disclosed these measurements may be then processed in the same way as during the enrollment phase and compared to the baseline. If the fingerprint doesn't match the expected fingerprint of that function (within a defined threshold), it has to be assumed that the function was—potentially maliciously—modified. The intrusion can be logged and further actions can be triggered, e.g., kill/delay/modify a process/message/connection, disable/reboot device, reprogram device with original code, or resetting the device and furthermore the connection may be designed so as to minimize the amount of noise by using a low pass filter (e.g., Resistor-Capacitor circuit), which may be carefully designed to the characteristics of the Vdd signal. For example, to allow fast charging and discharging of the low pass filter. (Paragraph. 0031 & 0042). Examiner interpreted “the connection may be designed so as to minimize the amount of noise by using a low pass filter” in the above excerpt as “compare the measured propagation time with a predetermined threshold value, and actuate or disable the function based on the comparison”.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan
Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
7. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
8. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights