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 .
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec.
103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of International Patent
Pub. No.: WO2003055731A1 to Sato that was filed in 2002 and in view
of U.S. Patent No.: US1028691982 (US20150203125A 1) to Penilla that
was filed in 2015 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub.
No.: US20090151412A1 to Chung that was filed in 2008 (hereinafter
"Chung") and assigned to HYUNDAI™ and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US11027701B2 to Sanji.
Sato discloses" “... a secure idle mode of the vehicle, wherein the secure idle mode of the vehicle locks a gear shifter of the vehicle in a park position”. (see claims 1-6 where the control means issues a locking signal to the shift lever for locking the shift lever to move from the parking range based on a vehicle travel inhibition signal)
In regard to claim 1, and claim 9, SATO is silent but Chung teaches “...1. A method comprising: determining, by a vehicle, that the vehicle is parked and running (see paragraph 22-26 where the user can start the car with a FOB and then lock the vehicle in a park position when the vehicle is stationary and running and claims 1-5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of
Chung with the disclosure of Penilla since Chung teaches that a vehicle
can include a FOB device. The FOB can turn on the vehicle. The vehicle
can also have a locking lever that can prevent the vehicle from being
moved from the park position by a child. The fob can also include a second
key portion that can disconnect the locking lever to disengage the vehicle
from the park position. This can prevent a child from accidentally moving
the vehicle and shifting the vehicle from the park to the drive position. See
claims 1-4 and paragraph 27-32 of Chung.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SATO is silent but SANJI teaches “...and that an occupant of the vehicle has temporarily left a cabin of the vehicle or a door of the vehicle is open;
enabling, by the vehicle and based on determining that a vehicle is parked and running and that the occupant has temporarily left the cabin of the vehicle or the door of the vehicle is open”, (See Fig. 8 where the signal strength of a mobile device can provide a large strength that they are in the cabin and or if they have moved outside of the cabin and standby mode is required via a map in FIG. 6 that shows the user behind the wheel or outside of the car with the door open)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of
SANJI with the disclosure of Penilla since SAMJI teaches that a vehicle
can include a FOB device. The FOB can turn on the vehicle. The vehicle
can also have a detector for determining where the user is based on the signal strength and a maximum and minimum value of the RSS power. This can provide increased safety to prevent the vehicle from running over the driver and making sure the door is unlocked so he can get back in and then lock it when he left.
Sato is silent but Penilla teaches " ...while the occupant remains outside of the cabin of the vehicle or the door of the vehicle remains open;” (see paragraph 94-95 where the valet is driving then a speed restriction is put in place)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include
facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or
a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the
vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may
not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when
the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can
provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and p. 10-29.
In regard to claim 1, and claim 9 and 16, Sato is silent but Penilla
teaches “...receiving, by the vehicle, a request to enter a valet mode of a vehicle;
enabling, by the vehicle, the valet mode; and (See paragraph 10 and claim 8 where the user can input that the
valet mode is established and then the trunk access of the vehicle is now denied)
SATO is silent but Penilla also teaches “...disabling, by the vehicle and based on enabling the valet mode of the vehicle, the secure idle mode”. (see FIG. 10, where the vehicle camera does not recognize a face a valet mode is enabled in Block 160 however when the owner Bob is recognized then the user profile and preferences are then reenabled) (see blocks 450-458 where when the valet is no longer recognized and the user is recognized then the preferences for the user can be enabled and the settings for the owner can be re-established)".
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and paragraph 10-29.
In regard to claim 2, and claim 10 and 17, Sato is silent but Penilla teaches “...2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the valet mode of the vehicle is deactivated; and enabling, based on the determination that the valet mode of the vehicle is deactivated, the secure idle mode of the vehicle”. (see blocks 450-458 where when the valet is no longer recognized and the user is recognized then the preferences for the user can be enabled and the settings for the owner can
be re-established)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and paragraph 10-29.
In regard to claim 3, and claim 11 and 18, PENILLA teaches “...3. The method of claim 1, wherein the valet mode of the vehicle is enabled during a first key cycle, and wherein the method further comprises:
re-enabling, based on a second key cycle of the vehicle, the secure idle mode of the vehicle. (see blocks 450-458 where when the valet is no longer recognized and the user is recognized then the preferences for the user can be enabled and the settings for the owner can
be re-established)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and paragraph 10-29.
In regard to claim 4, and claim 12 and 19, Sato disclose “...4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a first time period has elapsed after the occupant temporarily left the cabin of the vehicle or the door of the vehicle has been open; and
locking, after determining that the first time period has elapsed, the gear shifter of the vehicle in the park position” (see claims 1-6 where the control means issues a locking signal to the shift lever for locking the shift lever to move from the parking range based on a vehicle travel inhibition signal).
In regard to claim 5, and claim 13 and 20, Sato discloses “...5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving an indication for the vehicle to use a second time period instead of the first time period before locking the gear shifter of the vehicle in the park position; (see claims 1-10 where the lock state can occur when the vehicle is preparing for travel or when the vehicle starts traveling or only when stopped or only when parked)
PENILLA teaches “...determining that the occupant has been outside of the cabin of the vehicle for the second time period or the door of the vehicle has been open for the second time period; and” (see FIG. 10, where the vehicle camera does not recognize a face a valet
mode is enabled in Block 160 however when the owner Bob is recognized then the user profile and preferences are then re-enabled) (see blocks 450-458 where when the valet is no longer recognized and the user is recognized then the preferences for the user can be enabled and the settings for the owner can be re-established the camera can determine if they are in front of the camera or outside of the view of the camera)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and paragraph 10-29.
Sato discloses" ..locking, after the second time period has elapsed and based on receiving the indication for the vehicle to use a second time period instead of the first time period, the gear shifter of the vehicle in the park position, wherein the second time period is greater than the first time period. (see claims 1-10 where the lock state can occur when the vehicle is preparing for travel or when the vehicle starts traveling or only when stopped or only when parked)
In regard to claim 6, and claim 14, Sato is silent but Penilla teaches ".6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the occupant is outside of the vehicle is based on at least one of: a mobile device or a key fob being outside of the vehicle or facial recognition of the occupant. (See paragraph 117 where the vehicle can recognize the owner and open the doors via a pair process) (see FIG. 10, where the vehicle camera does not recognize a face a valet mode is
enabled in Block 160 however when the owner Bob is recognized then the
user profile and preferences are then re-enabled) (see blocks 450-458
where when the valet is no longer recognized and the user is recognized
then the preferences for the user can be enabled and the settings for the
owner can be re-established)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include
facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or
a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the
vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may
not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when
the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can
provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and
paragraph 10-29.
In regard to claim 7, and claim 14, Sato is silent but Penilla teaches "7. The method of claim 6, wherein the mobile device is a validated Phone-as-a-Key (Paak) mobile device or a validated Passive entry passive start (PEPS) key fob. (see paragraph 117).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
teachings of Penilla with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since Penilla teaches that a camera can include
facial recognition software and recognize either the owner of the vehicle or
a valet. When a valet is detected, then privileges are disabled for the
vehicle and the onboard computer may not be accessed and the trunk may
not be opened and the speed of the vehicle can be limited. However, when
the owner returns then all vehicle functions can be re-enabled. This can
provide increased security of the vehicle. See Penilla at claim 1-2 and
paragraph 10-29.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of International Patent
Pub. No.: WO2003055731A1 to Sato that was filed in 2002 and in view
of U.S. Patent No.: US1028691982 (US20150203125A 1) to Penilla that
was filed in 2015 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub.
No.: US20090151412A1 to Chung that was filed in 2008 (hereinafter
"Chung") and assigned to HYUNDAI™ and in view of SANJI and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.: US20170201545A1 to Nicodemus filed in 2006.
Sato discloses “...8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the vehicle, that in input is received during the secure idle mode, the input including at least one of:
an input to a brake pedal or
an accelerator pedal of the vehicle or an input to a gear shifter of the vehicle; (see abstract where the steering wheel can be tilted and the speed of the vehicle can be restricted to lock any speed changes in the parking range in the idle mode and when the steering wheel is tiled back or the parking brake is released then the vehicle can move again for safety)
determining that the key fob or mobile device is not present within the cabin of the vehicle;
determining that a backup password is stored;
Nicodemus teaches “...presenting, via a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle and based on the determination that the input is received during the secure idle mode and the key fob or mobile device is not present within the cabin of the vehicle, a request for the backup password; (see paragraph 120 and 228 where a back up one time password can be provided to a remote computer to provide access to the system) (see claim 29-32 where the compliance can be monitored to provide access to the computer using a compliance resource that is a mobile device)
receiving, by the vehicle, a password input via the HMI; and
determining a match between the password input and the backup password, wherein disabling the secure idle mode is based on determining the match”. (see paragraph 29 and 120 and where a one time password can be provided to the mobile device to provide access to the main computer; and if there is a match then network policy compliance is determined to be successful in claims 29-32)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
teachings of NICODEMUS with the disclosure of Sato with a reasonable
expectation of success since NICODEMUS teaches that a computer system can enforce policies to prevent unauthorized backup access using 1. A mobile device end point and 2. Emailing a backup or tone time password for access to the main computer system. If this is not provided then a TCP port can be shut down and the service is disabled. See claims 29-32 and where if the application is used is not recognized this can enforce a second policy.
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 1-20 are rejected under obviousness double patenting in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: 12139100 that recites “.. a method comprising:
determining, by a vehicle, that the vehicle is parked and running and that at least one of: a key fob or mobile device associated with an occupant of the vehicle has temporarily left a cabin of the vehicle or a door of the vehicle is open;
enabling, by the vehicle and based on determining that a vehicle is parked and running and that the key fob or mobile device has temporarily left the cabin of the vehicle or the door of the vehicle is open, a secure idle mode of the vehicle, wherein the secure idle mode of the vehicle locks a gear shifter of the vehicle in a park position while the key fob or mobile device remains outside of the cabin of the vehicle or the door of the vehicle remains open;
receiving, by the vehicle, a request to enter a valet mode of a vehicle;
enabling, by the vehicle, the valet mode of the vehicle; and
disabling, by the vehicle and based on enabling the valet mode of the vehicle being enabled, [[a]] the secure idle mode .”.
The only difference is in claim of the present claims it recites a detecting a mobile device for leaving the cabin or the key fob. The claims are otherwise identical. It would have been obvious to detect a user leaving the vehicle using the facial recognition camera or a mobile device moving to determine a location of the user. These are obvious variants without any unexpected benefits and the facial recognition has the same accuracy
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 a
Prosecution Insights