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
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application filed on 10/09/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 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 § 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (U.S. 2017/0200336) and further in view of Suyama et al (U.S. 2003/0046452).
1. As per claims 13,23 Schmidt disclosed An electronic device to be installed on board a vehicle as an accessory device to allow remote control of one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle;
wherein the electronic device is configured to communicate wirelessly in radio frequency with a vehicle key and is configured to communicate with field devices on board the vehicle [The remote keyless system (RKS) 808 is an ECU configured to for controlling and monitoring remote, keyless interactions between the key fob 102 and the vehicle 104. The RKS 808 can include a remote keyless entry system and in some cases, a remote keyless ignition system. In the latter case, the RKS 808 may also be referred to as a “passive entry passive start (PEPS) system.” In some embodiments, the RKS 808 is a separate, stand-alone ECU that is interconnected to the BCM 812, PCM 816, TCU 810, and other ECUs of the vehicle 104 via the vehicle bus 806 in order to carry out the RKS/PEPS operations. For example, the RKS 808 may receive vehicle commands from the key fob 102 via the TCU 810, process the commands to identify the appropriate ECU for carrying out the command, send the command to the identified ECU, and confirm performance of the command] (Paragraph. 0049);
wherein the electronic device comprises a control unit configured to carry out a mapping procedure to acquire identification data of a key and to generate mapping data associating the key to a functionality executable by one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle [the vehicle 104 can be associated with a plurality of key fobs (not shown), and each of the key fobs can be associated with a respective one of the driver profiles 105. As shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle 104 stores the driver profiles 105 in a vehicle memory (such as, e.g., data storage device 804 shown in FIG. 8). Each of the driver profiles 105 can comprise customized settings selected by a corresponding user or driver for user-configurable features of the vehicle 104, such as, for example, seat position, mirror position(s), pedal position(s), radio station presets, heating/air-conditioning settings, navigation screen configuration] (Paragraph. 0030);
wherein the control unit is configured to perform a control procedure in response to reception of a radio frequency signal sent from a vehicle key operated by a user, the control procedure comprising:
recognizing the key that sent the radio frequency signal [the wireless unit 208 is configured for at least one type of short-range wireless communication technology, such as, for example, radio frequency (RF), Bluetooth, infrared, and/or NFC technology. In a preferred embodiment, the key fob 102 communicates with the vehicle 104 using RF technology. In other embodiments, the wireless unit 208 can also be configured for longer-range or broadband wireless communication technology, such as, for example, WiFi, WiMax, other wireless Ethernet, cellular, GPS, and/or satellite technology] (Paragraph. 0027 & 0047); Examiner interpreted the “vehicle key” as key fob and “control unit” as being the vehicle ECU that communicates using the RF technology.
However, Schmidt did not explicitly disclose if the key that sent the radio frequency signal is recognized, selecting mapping data relating to the key; and generating control signals for one or more field devices on board the vehicle based on the selected mapping data.
In the same field of endeavor Suyama disclosed, “A request signal transmitted from the vehicle 3 (control unit 4) is received by an antenna 18 and provided to the microcomputer 15 from the receiving circuit 16. In response to the request signal, the microcomputer 15 generates an ID code signal in accordance with an ID code of the master key 11. The transmitting circuit 17 transmits an ID code signal (radio wave) SA having a predetermined frequency from the master key 11 via an antenna 19 (Paragraph. 0018) and furthermore Suyama disclosed, the control unit 4 includes a smart ECU 20, a transmitting circuit 21, and a receiving circuit 22. The transmitting circuit 21 converts a request signal output from the smart ECU 20 to a radio wave having a predetermined frequency and transmits the converted request signal from the control unit 4 via the antennas 5 or 6. The receiving circuit 22 receives an ID code signal from outside the control unit 4 via the antenna 7, modulates the ID code signal to a pulse signal, and provides the pulse signal to the smart ECU 20 (Paragraph. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated A request signal transmitted from the vehicle 3 (control unit 4) is received by an antenna 18 and provided to the microcomputer 15 from the receiving circuit 16. In response to the request signal, the microcomputer 15 generates an ID code signal in accordance with an ID code of the master key 11. The transmitting circuit 17 transmits an ID code signal (radio wave) SA having a predetermined frequency from the master key 11 via an antenna 19 and furthermore the control unit 4 includes a smart ECU 20, a transmitting circuit 21, and a receiving circuit 22. The transmitting circuit 21 converts a request signal output from the smart ECU 20 to a radio wave having a predetermined frequency and transmits the converted request signal from the control unit 4 via the antennas 5 or 6. The receiving circuit 22 receives an ID code signal from outside the control unit 4 via the antenna 7, modulates the ID code signal to a pulse signal, and provides the pulse signal to the smart ECU 20 as taught by Suyama in the method and system of Schmidt to improve the remote control of the vehicle functions.
2. As per claims 14,25 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed wherein, in the control procedure, the step of recognizing the key that sent the radio frequency signal comprises:
decoding the radio frequency signal and extracting identification data of the key, the identification data comprising an identification code of the key and a further identification code of a button of the key pressed by the user (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0028);
comparing the key identification data thus obtained with corresponding identification data stored in memory and acquired through the mapping procedure (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0029).
3. As per claims 15,26 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed wherein the mapping procedure comprises: selecting address data indicative of a functionality performed by one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle; receiving a radio frequency signal sent by a vehicle key to be mapped; decoding the radio frequency signal and extracting identification data of the key, the identification data comprising at least an identification code of the key and a further identification code of a button of the key pressed by the user (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0028); generating mapping data related to the key by associating at least part of the identification data of the key with the selected address data (Suyama, Paragraph. 0019). Claims 15 and 26 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
4. As per claims 16,27 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed wherein the mapping procedure is performed cyclically for one or more buttons of the key (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0030).
5. As per claims 17,28 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed comprising: a first communication module operationally connected to the control unit and configured to communicate wirelessly in radio frequency with a vehicle key; a second communication module operationally connected to the control unit and configured to communicate with the field devices of the vehicle (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0065).
6. As per claims 18,29 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed wherein the first communication module comprises a radio antenna operationally connected to a transceiver, in turn operationally connected to the control unit (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0027).
7. As per claims 19,30 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed wherein the second communication module comprises one or more communication ports for wireless proximity communications (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0029).
8. As per claim 20 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed wherein the second communication module includes one or more communication ports with wires (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0048).
9. As per claims 14,31 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed comprising a user interface module operationally connected to the control unit and configured to allow a user to exchange data and signals with the control module (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0029).
10. As per claims 14,32 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed comprising a power supply unit of the internal electronic components of the electronic device, the power supply unit being electrically connectable to a power source on-board the vehicle (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0045).
11. As per claim 24 Schmidt-Suyama disclosed comprising a recreational vehicle, or commercial vehicle, or a towing vehicle (Schmidt, Paragraph. 0037).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device, and claim 23 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1 and 23 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 6 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An electronic device to be installed on board a vehicle as an accessory device to allow remote control of one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle;
wherein the electronic device is configured to communicate wirelessly in radio frequency with a vehicle key and is configured to communicate with field devices on board the vehicle;
wherein the electronic device comprises a control unit configured to carry out a mapping procedure to acquire identification data of a key and to generate mapping data associating the key to a functionality executable by one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle;
wherein the control unit is configured to perform a control procedure in response to reception of a radio frequency signal sent from a vehicle key operated by a user, the control procedure comprising:
recognizing the key that sent the radio frequency signal; if the key that sent the radio frequency signal is recognized, selecting mapping data relating to the key; and
generating control signals for one or more field devices on board the vehicle based on the selected mapping data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “configured to communicate, mapping, perform …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electronic device to be installed on board a vehicle as an accessory device to allow remote control of one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle;
wherein the electronic device is configured to communicate wirelessly in radio frequency with a vehicle key and is configured to communicate with field devices on board the vehicle;
wherein the electronic device comprises a control unit configured to carry out a mapping procedure to acquire identification data of a key and to generate mapping data associating the key to a functionality executable by one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle;
wherein the control unit is configured to perform a control procedure in response to reception of a radio frequency signal sent from a vehicle key operated by a user, the control procedure comprising:
recognizing the key that sent the radio frequency signal; if the key that sent the radio frequency signal is recognized, selecting mapping data relating to the key; and
generating control signals for one or more field devices on board the vehicle based on the selected mapping data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 23 further recite “A vehicle comprising one or more auxiliary systems and an electronic device installed on board as an accessory device to allow remote control of the one or more auxiliary systems; wherein the electronic device is configured to communicate wirelessly in radio frequency with a vehicle key and is configured to communicate with field devices on board the vehicle” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “carry out a mapping procedure to acquire identification data of a key and to generate mapping data associating the key to a functionality executable by one or more auxiliary systems of the vehicle” in claim 1 and “generate mapping data associating the key to a functionality executable by the one or more auxiliary systems” in claim 23 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the electronic device comprises a control unit configured to carry out a mapping procedure to acquire identification data of a key and to generate mapping data associating the key to a functionality executable by the one or more auxiliary systems” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 14-22 and 24-32 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 14-22 and 24-32 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 13.
Therefore, claim(s) 13-32 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
13. 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.
14. 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