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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Claims 6-8 have been newly added and are now pending in this application.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz et al. (US 20240336223 A1) in view of Katoh et al. (US 20220266797 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fawaz teaches a system that is configured to:
acquire, in response to parking of a vehicle, information on security in a predetermined area including a location where the vehicle is parked ([0053-0054], [0056], and [0061], where the zone the vehicle is parked in is detected and determined to have a remote ignition block (RIB)),
and output information on setting of a remote immobilizer of the vehicle when the security in the predetermined area is in a predetermined state ([0062-0063], where indication to enable RIB is sent to the vehicle).
Fawaz teaches that these operations are performed by a data center ([0051] and see Fig. 3). Fawaz does not disclose the composition of this data center, and does not explicitly teach that this data center is comprised of a control unit configured to perform the operations disclosed.
However, Fawaz teaches that the data center can be implemented as a variety of devices, including a mobile wireless device, computing system 200, etc. ([0042] and [0052]). A skilled artisan would have recognized that these devices necessarily comprise a control unit configured to perform the operations disclosed (see Fig. 2, where the computing system 200 includes a processor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include modify the data center of Fawaz to include a control unit based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the data center has the components necessary to perform the operations disclosed.
Fawaz does not teach that the setting of the remote immobilizer is done regardless of whether a user operates a user terminal to cause the output of the information on the setting of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Katoh teaches a system that automatically locks a remote immobilizer when a user moves sufficiently far away from a vehicle regardless of whether a user operates a user terminal to cause the output of the information on the setting of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle ([0041], [0045], and [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fawaz teachings of Katoh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of automatically locking and unlocking the remote immobilizer of the vehicle when a user leaves or enters the proximity of the vehicle without requiring the use of their user terminal. This also enhances security by automatically locking the remote immobilizer in cases where a user may otherwise forget to manually do so.
Regarding claim 2, Fawaz teaches wherein the control unit is configured to:
acquire information on an incidence of crimes in the predetermined area as the information on the security ([0053]);
and output the information on the setting of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle when the incidence of crimes in the predetermined area is equal to or greater than a predetermined incidence ([0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Fawaz teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to transmit, to the vehicle, a command to set the remote immobilizer of the vehicle as the information on the setting of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle ([0063-0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Fawaz teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to transmit, to the user terminal of the user of the vehicle or to a vehicle terminal of the vehicle, a notification for recommending the setting of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle as the information on the setting of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle ([0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Katoh teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to output information on releasing of the remote immobilizer of the vehicle ([0041] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Katoh teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to not output the information on releasing the remote immobilizer of the vehicle despite the vehicle receiving a signal from an authorized key to activate the vehicle ([0041], [0051-0052], and [0095]: The remote immobilizer, when set, means that even authorized users cannot activate the vehicle, and the smart cancel function means that the vehicle does not send radio signals. The second level of security sets the remote immobilizer and releases the smart cancel function; thus, the authorized signals will be received, but not result in the releasing of remote immobilizing as the remote immobilizer is only released when the user is sufficiently close).
Regarding claim 8, Katoh teaches:
wherein the vehicle does not activate despite receiving a signal from an authorized key ([0041]: legitimate keys are not authorized to activate the vehicle when the remote immobilizer is active).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Katoh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Penilla et al. (US 20180037193 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Fawaz teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to generate the information on the security in the predetermined area based on pieces of information on the security and pieces of information on locations ([0053]).
Fawaz does not disclose how the security and pieces of information on locations are obtained, and does not explicitly teach that they are collected from a plurality of vehicles, and does not teach that the control unit is further configured to store the information on the security in the predetermined area in a storage unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Penilla teaches operations for monitoring a vehicle. These operations include storing the information on the security in the predetermined area in a storage unit ([0101-0102], where the security and positional data is saved to cloud processing 120), wherein said security and positional information are collected from a plurality of vehicles ([0102], where other vehicles and their security and alarm data and triggers are recorded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Fawaz with the security and locational cloud processing of Penilla based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Penilla, of enhancing the security level of a vehicle by saving and processing crime and safety information so that data regarding historical events, such as in the form of a heat map, can be saved from prior vehicles and provided to a present user to ensure said user is properly made aware of the area in which they are parking ([0068-0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/18/2026 with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon newly cited reference Katoh as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon by the examiner is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure:
Bruhn (US 20200184825 A1)
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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights