DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/13/2026. This action is made Final.
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 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claim 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, line 1 – 2, “A control device configured to deactivate an activated anti-theft function of a vehicle component of a motor vehicle, wherein the control device is configured to:”
Claim 2, “wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the activated anti-theft function ..”
Claim 15, “wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the activated anti-theft function …”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “control device” is described as an ECU (Specification of publication, par. [0009])
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 14, 16 – 18, 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner Armin (English Translation of DE4240596A1; hereinafter Wagner) in view of Burger et al. (Publication No. US 20210362674 A1; hereinafter Burger).
Regarding to claim 1, Wagner teaches A control device configured to deactivate an activated anti-theft function of a vehicle component of a motor vehicle, ([Par. 0022], “If the vehicle is parked with the central locking and anti-theft alarm system (ZV-DWA) deactivated and the button T of the radio key (FS) is pressed after leaving the vehicle, the central locking and anti-theft alarm system (ZV-DWA) is switched on or armed (On). … B. 1001011) is issued, which is stored in the memory S of the engine control unit MS as a comparison code (1001011) and by which the engine control unit MS prevents all functions for starting up the internal combustion engine M via the control output lines… If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” wherein the control device is configured to:
determine whether a previously determined event has occurred, ([Par. 0022], “Pressing button T again switches off or disarms the central locking and anti-theft alarm system (ZV-DWA), thereby transmitting the transmission code (1001011) to the engine control unit MS again via the information line CS. The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” Wherein the code matching corresponds to the “determined event has occurred”) and
deactivate the activated anti-theft function of the vehicle component in a case in which the previously determined event has occurred. ([Par. 0022], “The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.”)
Wagner teaches to determine the activation of the anti-thef function as described above, but does not explicitly disclose determine that the activated anti-theft function is activated based on an electrical signal received from the vehicle component.
However, Burger teaches determine that the activated anti-theft function is activated based on an electrical signal received from the vehicle component. ([Par. 0020], “The power control unit may be in an armed state based on receiving the arming signal from the vehicle tracking unit 105. That is, the power control unit may monitor, based on receiving the arming signal from the vehicle tracking unit 105, the current output from the battery to determine whether to activate the switch component of the bypass circuit. While in the armed state, the power control unit may continue to provide electrical power directly to the lead of the vehicle electrical system (e.g., without passing through the resistor of the bypass circuit). As a result, the power control unit may not alter the electrical power and/or current provided by the battery to the vehicle electrical system.”; [Par. 0028], “the power control unit may include a feedback module configured to provide feedback to the vehicle tracking unit 105. For example, the feedback module may provide feedback related to a direction of current flow through the power control unit, a magnitude of the current flowing through the power control unit, and/or the like. As shown by reference number 155, the vehicle tracking unit 105 may determine a status of the vehicle based on information received from the power control unit (e.g., from the feedback module and/or the current sensor), from one or more sensors of the vehicle (e.g., a hood sensor, a microphone, a vibration sensor, a temperature sensor, a movement sensor, and/or the like).”; [Par. 0033], “The vehicle tracking unit 105 may provide status information to the vehicle monitoring platform 110 over the network. The status information may indicate a status of the vehicle. For example, the status information may indicate that the engine of the vehicle is in operation, that the engine of the vehicle has been started, that the vehicle is immobilized (e.g., that the power control unit is in the armed state and/or immobilization state),”
The mapping is interpreted as the power control unit (e.g., the vehicle component) is switched to an armed state upon receiving an arming signal from the vehicle tracking unit. The feedback module of the power control unit provides electrical feedback, including a direction of current flow and a magnitude of current, to the vehicle tracking unit. Based on the received electrical feedback, the vehicle tracking unit determines the status of the vehicle, including whether the power control unit is in the armed state and/or immobilization state. Therefore, the vehicle tracking unit determines that the activated anti-theft function is activated based on an electrical signal received from the power control unit.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner to incorporate Burger's electrical feedback monitoring so that the control device receives status information from the vehicle electrical system and determines the operating state of the immobilization system based on electrical feedback. Doing so would improve the reliability and monitoring of the anti-theft system by providing confirmation of the system's operating status before controlling vehicle operation.
Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner further teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises the control device receiving a release signal. ([Par. 0022], “The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” Wherein when the transmission code matched, it indicates a releasing signal sent to the anti-thef device to release the drive control unit.)
Claims 14, 16 recite the motor vehicle with substantially same scope as claims 1, 3 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 1, 3 respectively above.
Claim 17 recites the method with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claim 18 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with substantially similar scope as claim 17 and 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 17 and 1 above.
Claim 20 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with substantially similar scope as claim 3, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wagner and Burger in view of Bornschlegl et al. (English Translation of DE102019110055A1; hereinafter Bornschlegl).
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose canceling a cryptographically protected coupling between the vehicle component and the motor vehicle.
However, Bornschlegl teaches canceling a cryptographically protected coupling between the vehicle component and the motor vehicle. ([Par. 0022], “Component protection requires basic training or basic assignment of the component to the first vehicle 202. Thus, the component will only become functional after a coupling, secured by a cryptographic process, with the first vehicle 202… The backend 206 sends back the cryptographic keys necessary for basic learning and enables the basic learning or assignment of the component to the first vehicle 202 .”; [Par. 0034], “the customer can also perform the second action 24, whereby the customer deactivates the online cross-exchange prevention assigned to the component in his online account 20.As a second alternative reaction 28, it follows that the status indicator or The flag for preventing cross-swapping is adjusted, deleting the status indicator for preventing cross-swapping, allowing cross-swapping from the customer's first vehicle 2 to another vehicle 4, in particular cross-swapping of a use of the component (status indicator = "cross-swapping possible"), and enabling the component for this second vehicle 4.” This is interpreted as the component is coupled via a cryptographic process and it can be deactivated by canceling the coupling via deactivating the online cross-exchange prevention.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to incorporate Bornschlegl’s cryptographically secured component-to-vehicle coupling and its reversible deactivation mechanism in order to enhance theft protection. Bornschlegl teaches preventing unauthorized reuse of stolen components in other vehicles and allowing controlled reassignment. A person of ordinary skill would have applied this known cryptographic coupling technique to Wagner’s system to improve component-level security in a predictable manner.
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl teaches the device of claim 2.
Wagner further teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises the control device receiving a release signal. ([Par. 0022], “The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” Wherein when the transmission code matched, it indicates a releasing signal sent to the anti-thef device to release the drive control unit.)
Claim 15 recites the vehicle with substantially similar scope as claim 2, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 2 above.
Claim 19 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with substantially similar scope as claim 2, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wagner and Burger in view of Friedrich et al. (English Translation of DE19532744A1; hereinafter Friedrich).
Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle.
However Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “An odometer for storing the current mileage of the motor vehicle and for specifying at least one limit value (maxidistance): the distance traveledmeter is in a non-volatile, not directly accessible from the outside stores and not directly changeable memory; only as long as none the specified limit values for the mileage can be reached the control unit containing the immobilizer function is activated will.” This is interpreted as the immobilizer is activated by the mileage threshold. When the mileage threshold reached, the immobilizer is deactivated.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to include the usage-dependent limitation taught by Friedrich—specifically, disabling or restricting vehicle operation upon reaching a predetermined mileage threshold. Friedrich teaches that monitoring mileage and requiring reauthorization after a preset limit increases theft deterrence and long-term security. Incorporating Friedrich’s mileage-based event trigger into Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably enhanced security by limiting continued vehicle use without periodic authorization, thereby improving theft prevention using known techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding to claim 7, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 3.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle.
However Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “An odometer for storing the current mileage of the motor vehicle and for specifying at least one limit value (maxidistance): the distance traveledmeter is in a non-volatile, not directly accessible from the outside stores and not directly changeable memory; only as long as none the specified limit values for the mileage can be reached the control unit containing the immobilizer function is activated will.” This is interpreted as the immobilizer is activated by the mileage threshold. When the mileage threshold reached, the immobilizer is deactivated.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to include the usage-dependent limitation taught by Friedrich—specifically, disabling or restricting vehicle operation upon reaching a predetermined mileage threshold. Friedrich teaches that monitoring mileage and requiring reauthorization after a preset limit increases theft deterrence and long-term security. Incorporating Friedrich’s mileage-based event trigger into Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably enhanced security by limiting continued vehicle use without periodic authorization, thereby improving theft prevention using known techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding to claim 11, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle.
However, Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “This "immobilizer" control unit contains depending on the intended use dependent sizes at least one of the following components:- A timer to store the time duration of the force vehicle and for specifying at least one time limit (maximalwert): for this, the current time is either via an internal(battery operated and cannot be switched off) clock or an external central Clock (e.g. time signal transmitter) and at short intervals(at once a minute, for example) in a non-volatile, not from the outside directly accessible and not directly changeable timer stored (the Timer can also be used as a time counter incremented at short intervalsbe trained); only as long as none of the specified time Limit values is reached, may include the immobilizer function Control unit can be activated,”)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to incorporate Friedrich’s time-based limitation mechanism, such that deactivation of the anti-theft function occurs upon reaching a predetermined time threshold. Friedrich teaches monitoring elapsed time and restricting vehicle operation when a defined limit is reached to enhance theft protection. Applying this known time-triggered restriction to Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably improved long-term security by conditioning continued activation on the age or elapsed time associated with the vehicle.
Regarding to claim 13, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 3.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle.
However, Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “This "immobilizer" control unit contains depending on the intended use dependent sizes at least one of the following components:- A timer to store the time duration of the force vehicle and for specifying at least one time limit (maximalwert): for this, the current time is either via an internal(battery operated and cannot be switched off) clock or an external central Clock (e.g. time signal transmitter) and at short intervals(at once a minute, for example) in a non-volatile, not from the outside directly accessible and not directly changeable timer stored (the Timer can also be used as a time counter incremented at short intervalsbe trained); only as long as none of the specified time Limit values is reached, may include the immobilizer function Control unit can be activated,”)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to incorporate Friedrich’s time-based limitation mechanism, such that deactivation of the anti-theft function occurs upon reaching a predetermined time threshold. Friedrich teaches monitoring elapsed time and restricting vehicle operation when a defined limit is reached to enhance theft protection. Applying this known time-triggered restriction to Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably improved long-term security by conditioning continued activation on the age or elapsed time associated with the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl in view of Friedrich.
Regarding to claim 6, the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl teahes the device of claim 2.
The combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle.
However Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “An odometer for storing the current mileage of the motor vehicle and for specifying at least one limit value (maxidistance): the distance traveled meter is in a non-volatile, not directly accessible from the outside stores and not directly changeable memory; only as long as none the specified limit values for the mileage can be reached the control unit containing the immobilizer function is activated will.” This is interpreted as the immobilizer is activated by the mileage threshold. When the mileage threshold reached, the immobilizer is deactivated.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl to include the usage-dependent limitation taught by Friedrich—specifically, disabling or restricting vehicle operation upon reaching a predetermined mileage threshold. Fried teaches that monitoring mileage and requiring reauthorization after a preset limit increases theft deterrence and long-term security. Incorporating Friedrich’s mileage-based event trigger into Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably enhanced security by limiting continued vehicle use without periodic authorization, thereby improving theft prevention using known techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding to claim 12, the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl teaches the device of claim 2.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle.
However, Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “This "immobilizer" control unit contains depending on the intended use dependent sizes at least one of the following components:- A timer to store the time duration of the force vehicle and for specifying at least one time limit (maximalwert): for this, the current time is either via an internal(battery operated and cannot be switched off) clock or an external central Clock (e.g. time signal transmitter) and at short intervals(at once a minute, for example) in a non-volatile, not from the outside directly accessible and not directly changeable timer stored (the Timer can also be used as a time counter incremented at short intervalsbe trained); only as long as none of the specified time Limit values is reached, may include the immobilizer function Control unit can be activated,”)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl to incorporate Friedrich’s time-based limitation mechanism, such that deactivation of the anti-theft function occurs upon reaching a predetermined time threshold. Friedrich teaches monitoring elapsed time and restricting vehicle operation when a defined limit is reached to enhance theft protection. Applying this known time-triggered restriction to Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably improved long-term security by conditioning continued activation on the age or elapsed time associated with the vehicle.
Claim(s) 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wagner and Burger in view of Zimmermann et al. (English Translation of DE102018126334A1; hereinafter Zimmermann).
Regarding to claim 8, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component.
However, Zimmermann teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component. ([Par. 0037], “When it is determined that the end-of-life state has been reached, the control unit 112 and/or the control device 112 can cause the deactivation component 114 to be (irreversibly) deactivated and/or destroyed in order to take the vehicle component 113 out of service. This ensures that a (safety-relevant) vehicle component 113 is no longer used once it has reached it send-of-life state. This ensures the safe operation of vehicle 110.” Wherein deactivating the component also implies that the component is deactivated from any protection from any anti-thef function if applicable.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to incorporate Zimmermann’s lifecycle-based deactivation mechanism, such that the anti-theft function is deactivated upon reaching a predetermined age or end-of-life state of the vehicle component. Zimmermann teaches determining, via a control unit, when a component has reached a predefined lifecycle threshold and disabling the component in response. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating such lifecycle-based control into Wagner’s anti-theft system would predictably enhance security by preventing continued use or reuse of aging or unsupported components, thereby improving theft deterrence and operational safety.
Regarding to claim 10, the combination of Wagner and Burger teaches the device of claim 3.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component.
However, Zimmermann teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component. ([Par. 0037], “When it is determined that the end-of-life state has been reached, the control unit 112 and/or the control device 112 can cause the deactivation component 114 to be (irreversibly) deactivated and/or destroyed in order to take the vehicle component 113 out of service. This ensures that a (safety-relevant) vehicle component 113 is no longer used once it has reached it send-of-life state. This ensures the safe operation of vehicle 110.” Wherein deactivating the component also implies that the component is deactivated from any protection from any anti-thef function if applicable.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Burger to incorporate Zimmermann’s lifecycle-based deactivation mechanism, such that the anti-theft function is deactivated upon reaching a predetermined age or end-of-life state of the vehicle component. Zimmermann teaches determining, via a control unit, when a component has reached a predefined lifecycle threshold and disabling the component in response. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating such lifecycle-based control into Wagner’s anti-theft system would predictably enhance security by preventing continued use or reuse of aging or unsupported components, thereby improving theft deterrence and operational safety.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl in view of Zimmermann.
Regarding to claim 9, the combination of Wagner, Burger, and Bornschlegl teaches the device of claim 2.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component.
However, Zimmermann teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component. ([Par. 0037], “When it is determined that the end-of-life state has been reached, the control unit 112 and/or the control device 112 can cause the deactivation component 114 to be (irreversibly) deactivated and/or destroyed in order to take the vehicle component 113 out of service. This ensures that a (safety-relevant) vehicle component 113 is no longer used once it has reached it send-of-life state. This ensures the safe operation of vehicle 110.” Wherein deactivating the component also implies that the component is deactivated from any protection from any anti-thef function if applicable.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner, Burger, Bornschlegl to incorporate Zimmermann’s lifecycle-based deactivation mechanism, such that the anti-theft function is deactivated upon reaching a predetermined age or end-of-life state of the vehicle component. Zimmermann teaches determining, via a control unit, when a component has reached a predefined lifecycle threshold and disabling the component in response. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating such lifecycle-based control into Wagner’s anti-theft system would predictably enhance security by preventing continued use or reuse of aging or unsupported components, thereby improving theft deterrence and operational safety.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leboeuf et al. (Publication No. US 20150263860 A1) discloses a system and a method providing user information in a vehicle. The method includes the steps of: providing over a vehicle network a cryptographic key in response to receiving a wireless signal from a wireless transmitter at a first electronic control unit (ECU); receiving at a second ECU the cryptographic key; authenticating the cryptographic key at the second ECU; and providing user information via the second ECU based on the authentication.
Lunstedt et al. (Publication No. US 20150015396 A1) discloses invention relates to a device and a method for an additional electronic immobilizer (10) having a door-opener and theft-alarm function for a vehicle, comprising: a) a micro-controller; b) a mobile radio interface (1); c) a second interface (2) to a central locking system for doors of the vehicle; d) a near-field radio interface (3) such as RFID or NFC; e) a smart relay interface (4) for transmitting a control signal (S1) for a smart relay (8) and for receiving a receiving signal (S2) of the smart relay (8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights