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
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 03/06/2026.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20210370877 A1 – cited in IDS filed 10/09/2024) in view of Tanaka (US 20150365990 A1 – cited in IDS filed 07/14/2025) and Hanaoka (JP 2016079600 A – cited in IDS filed 10/09/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses a control system mounted on a vehicle and configured to control communication with a communication device present around the vehicle (Peterson discloses a vehicle door handle assembly 10 mounted to door 12a of a vehicle 12, including a handle portion 14 and a PCB 20 with an NFC reader, configured to communicate with an NFC tag carried by a user to unlock the door. See [0010] (“vehicle door handle assembly 10… mountable to a door 12a of a vehicle 12”), [0011] (“NFC reader… communicates (via NFC) with an NFC tag”), [0014] (authenticates tag and unlocks the door).), the control system comprising:
a detector configured to cause an electromagnetic field to be generated around an antenna in a first mode in which the detector operates under a preset first condition (Peterson teaches an NFC reader IC disposed on PCB 20 including an antenna 34 (loop antenna). The NFC reader drives current through the antenna to emit a magnetic field near the door handle. See [0011] (“Electric current flows through the antenna to generate a magnetic field (e.g., an inductive field) near the vicinity of the door handle assembly”), [0013] (“The NFC reader generates the magnetic field via an NFC antenna disposed on the PCB”). Peterson further discloses a power-saving state of operation and an active state of operation for the NFC reader, i.e., defined operating “conditions” of the reader (and its associated detection logic). See Abstract ("The antenna emits a magnetic field…adjusts operation of the NFC reader from a power-saving state of operation to an active state of operation"); Peterson claim 1 ("with the NFC reader operating in a power-saving state of operation, the antenna emits a magnetic field"); [0012] (the NFC reader "monitor for disturbances in the magnetic field generated from the antenna"). It would have been understood that in at least one operating state (e.g., the monitoring state), the NFC reader (detector) is configured to cause the antenna to generate an electromagnetic field around the vehicle door handle according to predetermined parameters (voltage/current and duty cycle), corresponding to the claimed “first mode” and “preset first condition.”), and detect disturbance of the electromagnetic field (Peterson teaches that the NFC reader detects disturbances in the emitted magnetic field from an NFC tag proximate to the door. See Abstract (“The antenna emits a magnetic field. The NFC reader detects disturbances in the emitted magnetic field”), [0004] (“The NFC reader detects disturbances in the magnetic field from an NFC tag present external of the vehicle”), [0012] (“A NFC tag disturbs the magnetic field when in close proximity… The NFC reader may monitor for disturbances in the magnetic field generated from the antenna, and in response to a disturbance… wake the microcontroller”).);
a communicator configured to output information for a communication device associated with the vehicle to surroundings of the vehicle by using near field communication, in a case where the disturbance is detected (Peterson teaches that when an NFC tag disturbs the magnetic field, the NFC reader wakes the microcontroller, and in this active state the reader and microcontroller perform NFC communication with the tag by sending authentication information. See Abstract; [0012]–[0014]. Specifically, after disturbance detection and wakeup, the NFC reader “wirelessly communicates with the NFC tag by wirelessly communicating an authentication signal to the NFC tag and wirelessly receiving an authentication response signal from the NFC tag” ([0004]), and if the response is valid, the system unlocks the door ([0014]). The NFC tag is expressly associated with the vehicle, since its authentication response is used to grant vehicle access. Thus, Peterson teaches a communicator that outputs information (authentication signals) for a communication device associated with the vehicle using NFC when disturbance is detected.).
However, Peterson does not expressly disclose detecting the disturbance on the basis of a change in impedance of the antenna; a counter configured to count the number of times the information is output, in a case where there is no response to the information even though the communicator outputs the information, wherein the detector is configured to shift to a second mode in which the detector operates under a second condition in which power is consumed less than in the first condition, in a case where a result of counting by the counter within a preset first period exceeds a preset number of times; and the detector is configured to suspend generation of the electromagnetic field or extend a cycle of generating the electromagnetic field for a preset second period, in a case where the detector has shifted to the second mode.
In the analogous art of NFC initiator/target communication, Tanaka teaches a detection unit 108 that "detects whether a partner apparatus (the target 201) is present within a communication-capable range of the initiator 101 by, for example, detecting changes in an impedance of the antenna 102" ([0022]; see also [0031]; claim 8). Tanaka further teaches a counter mechanism applied to no-response transmissions: where the impedance has changed (indicating a partner or non-target object is present) but a response to the polling signal has not been received, the initiator transmits an activation signal up to a predetermined number N of times and stops further transmissions once N is reached (S305–S306; FIG. 3; [0031]–[0032]). Tanaka expressly identifies the relevant problem as preventing needless retransmission "in the case where the impedance has changed due to an object that is not the target 201 having approached the initiator 101 or the like" ([0032]) — i.e., the same false-disturbance scenario addressed by the present claim. Tanaka further teaches that the initiator "may stop the polling signal transmission…after a specified number of transmissions, a specified amount of time, or the like" ([0032]), providing express authority for evaluating no-response transmissions against both number and time parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to (i) implement Peterson's disturbance detection using Tanaka's impedance-based mechanism, because both references operate in the same NFC field on substantially the same hardware (NFC reader, antenna, tag) and Tanaka provides a concrete, well understood implementation of NFC-partner-presence detection; and (ii) incorporate Tanaka's no response counter and threshold-based stop into Peterson's reader, evaluating the count over a preset time window, so that after a preset number of no response NFC outputs accumulate within that window the reader returns from its higher activity state to a lower power state of operation. The motivation is express in both references: Peterson seeks to conserve power and avoid unnecessary RF activity around the door handle ([0013]); Tanaka seeks to prevent needless retransmissions when impedance changes are caused by non-target objects ([0032]). In a vehicle door handle environment subject to recurrent disturbances from metal objects, mischief, or EMI — precisely the conditions Tanaka contemplates — applying Tanaka's count-and-stop mechanism within a preset time window to demote Peterson's reader to a lower power operating condition is a straightforward use of known NFC power management techniques to achieve Peterson's own stated objective. Selecting a time window over which to evaluate the count is a routine engineering choice within the scope of Tanaka's express alternatives ("specified number…a specified amount of time, or the like," [0032]).
The combination of Peterson and Tanaka does not expressly teach that the detector is configured to suspend generation of the electromagnetic field or extend a cycle of generating the electromagnetic field for a preset second period, in a case where the detector has shifted to the second mode.
In the analogous art of vehicle keyless-entry authentication, Hanaoka teaches a passive-entry control system in which an ECU 20 performs LF/RF wireless communication with an electronic key 3 and, upon a defined trigger, stops the passive-entry function by, inter alia, restricting transmission of the ID request signal ([0055] — describing stopping methods including "restrict transmission of the ID request signal" and refusal to control the lock mechanism). Hanaoka's second embodiment ties the stop event to a preset time parameter: the ECU determines whether or not the stop time has been reached after the second operation, where the stop time is preset and may be defined as elapsed time or as a fixed interval ([0076]–[0081]). Hanaoka thus teaches that the initiation and timing of the suppression of field-producing wireless transmission is governed by a preset, programmable parameter ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the second, lower-power mode of the Peterson/Tanaka combination such that, upon entering that mode after the count threshold is exceeded, the detector suspends generation of the electromagnetic field — or, in the alternative recited by the claim, extends the cycle of generating the field — for a preset second period. Peterson already seeks to reduce unnecessary RF activity ([0013]); Tanaka expressly contemplates time-bounded cessation of transmission ([0032]); and Hanaoka teaches that suppression of the field producing transmission may be governed by a preset time parameter in the same vehicle access context ([0055], [0079]). Suspending or slowing field generation for a preset interval upon entering a low-power mode is the most direct way to implement the power-saving objective the combination is already pursuing, and is a routine application of known time-controlled transmission suppression techniques to the same problem.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's assertion that the prior rejection of claim 1 over Peterson in view of Tanaka is "rendered moot" by the incorporation of former claim 2 into claim 1 is not persuasive. The amendment does not render any rejection moot; rather, the consolidation of former claim 2's subject matter into claim 1 operates to make the prior rejection of former claim 2 over Peterson, Tanaka, and Hanaoka the operative rejection of amended claim 1, as set forth above. The Peterson and Tanaka mapping of the limitations originally recited in claim 1 — including the detector, the impedance-based disturbance detection, the communicator, the no-response counter, and the shift to a lower-power second mode upon the count threshold being exceeded within a preset first period — has not been traversed and is therefore not addressed further here.
Applicant's argument that "Hanaoka shuts down the system after a predetermined shutdown time, with the starting point, target function, frequency and method being different," that "Hanaoka seeks to shut down its system at the user's initiative to prevent relay attacks, and there is no technical concept of a mode transition for power saving," and that "Hanaoka is in no way attempting to suspend generation of the electromagnetic field…for a preset second period, in a case where the detector has shifted to the second mode" — is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Hanaoka for the mode transition, for the counter, or for the trigger that places the detector into the second mode; those limitations are supplied by the Peterson/Tanaka combination as set forth above. Hanaoka is cited only for its discrete teaching that suppression of field-producing wireless transmission can be governed by a preset time parameter in the vehicle-access context ([0055], [0079]). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on the combined teachings of multiple references. See MPEP 2145(IV). That Hanaoka is concerned with relay-attack mitigation rather than power saving is likewise immaterial; a reference need not be motivated by the same purpose as the claimed invention to be combinable, and the articulated motivation here is grounded in Peterson's own express objective of conserving power and avoiding unnecessary RF activity ([0013]) and in Tanaka's express objective of preventing needless transmissions when impedance changes are caused by non-target objects ([0032]). Applicant's remaining assertions that the references differ in "starting point, target function, frequency and method" are conclusory and unsupported by specific technical analysis tied to the claim language. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Upon further consideration, the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Peterson in view of Tanaka, Hanaoka, and Karandikar (US 2017/0093464 A1) is withdrawn. Claims 3-4 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.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 3 in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1 — specifically, a detector configured to measure disturbance of the electromagnetic field for a preset third period after the second period has elapsed and, when disturbance is detected in the third period, to determine whether the disturbance continues, in combination with a communicator configured to continue operation in the lower-power second mode without performing communication when the disturbance is determined to continue, and a detector configured to shift to the first mode when the disturbance is determined not to continue.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights