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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar [US 20050099275 A1] in view of Lee et al [US 20160212522 A1] and in further view of Patel [US 9440618 B2].
As for claim 1, Kamdar discloses a vehicle (110) comprising:
a notification unit (130) that sends a notification signal to a terminal device (Key fob 120) that is separate from the vehicle, the notification signal notifying that the vehicle is in a first state which is different from a second state of the vehicle (paragraph 0015);
a reception unit (telematics unit 130) that receives a command signal from the terminal device (paragraphs 0028-0030 and 0032-0035); and
a control unit:
determines whether the reception unit of the vehicle receives the command from the terminal device within a predetermined time from a time that the notification unit sent the notification signal to the terminal device (paragraphs 0044-0045; Kamdar discloses that the systems determines if a command (to secure vehicle) is received within a preset time (2 mins) before determining that another notification signal needs to be sent.); and
that performs control that maintains the state after lapse of a predetermined time from a time that the notification unit sent the notification unit to the terminal device when the reception unit of the vehicle receives the command signal from the terminal device within the predetermined time (paragraph 0044).
Kamdar does not specifically disclose that a first signal commands a state to be maintained after a lapse of a predetermined time from the time that the notification unit notifies the terminal device of the state of the vehicle where the reception unit receives the command signal within the predetermined time or that the control unit performs control that changes the state to become the second state after lapse of the predetermined time when the reception unit of the vehicle does not receive the command signal from the terminal device within the predetermined time.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses that it was known for a terminal device to send a signal to a vehicle reception unit. Lee suggests that the signal could be any type of signal such as a locking or unlocking signal (paragraphs 0173-0175). Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the first signal command could be any available command desired by the user. The selection of whether to maintain the state of the vehicle or change the state of the vehicle is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan. Further, since Kamdar teaches using predetermined times as a trigger event and Lee teaches that the state of the vehicle can be automatically changed after the terminal device moved a predetermined distance away from the vehicle, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute a time trigger for the distance trigger of Lee. The substitution would have yielded the predictable results of a system wherein the state of the vehicle would be automatically changed after a predetermined time had passed.
In yet another analogous art, Patel discloses that it was known in the art for a vehicle control unit to maintain the state of a vehicle after lapse of a predetermined time from a time that the notification unit notifies the terminal device of the state of the vehicle when the reception unit receives the first signal within the predetermined time, and that performs control that changes the state to become a second state after lapse of the predetermined time when the reception unit does not receive the first signal from the terminal device within the predetermined time (column 2, lines 30-43). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kamdar and Lee to include the teachings of Patel because the combination would have allowed the user the convenience of controlling the vehicle to remain unlocked for a predetermined amount of time but also having the security of locking the vehicle if a second time is exceeded without instruction from the user.
As for claims 2 and 3, the claims are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also, Kamdar paragraphs 0014 and 0047.
As for claim 4, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. The user is able to use the key fob or Kamdar to change the state of the vehicle (paragraph 0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 Wang can be reached on 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685