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 Status
Claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11 and 14, recite the limitations “it” and “its”. The limitations are indefinite because it is unclear what they are referring to.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jun (Pub. No.: US 2019/0168713 A1) with inherency supported by Cho (Pub. No.: US 2014/0077931 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jun teaches a vehicle anti-theft device (Fig. 3, vehicle locking system, Abstract) which includes:
an electronic control unit (Fig. 4, controller 120);
an anti-theft member which is configurable between an inactive condition and an active condition by the electronic control unit (Fig. 1, para [0048], “When the authentication is completed between a smart key 200 (refer to FIG. 3) and the vehicle 100 via the wireless communication network, a door lock of the vehicle 100 may be released, and thus, when a user pulls the handles 17L and 17R, the doors 15L and 15R may be opened.”. The vehicle includes a door lock for each door. The door lock has a lock state and an unlock state); and
a user input device (Fig. 8, shows the smart key 200 includes a “lock” button. A support reference by Cho clearly shows a smart key includes a “lock” button 112 in Fig. 1 - Fig. 2) which is communicatively wired to the electronic control unit of the vehicle anti-theft device, such that, when the user input device is operated, the anti-theft member of the vehicle anti-theft device is brought into its active condition in which it prevents theft of the vehicle, wherein the electronic control unit is characterized in that operation of the user input device cannot result in the anti-theft member being brought into its inactive condition (para [0065], “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the smart key 200 may be a FOB key that is connected to the vehicle 100 by a wired or a wireless communication, and configured to unlock the door and configured to allow the ignition and the driving of the vehicle 100.”. The smart key is in wired communication with the vehicle. If the “lock” button of the smart key is pressed, then the vehicle doors are locked to prevent theft (analogous to “active condition”). The “lock” button cannot be used to unlock the vehicle doors or change to “inactive condition”. See Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 and paragraph [0045] of Cho for support and clarification.).
Regarding claim 2, Jun teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 1, which includes an actuator which is communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit and is drivingly connected to the anti-theft member to move the anti-theft member between a locked position in which it prevents theft of the vehicle and an unlocked position (para [0048], “When the authentication is completed between a smart key 200 (refer to FIG. 3) and the vehicle 100 via the wireless communication network, a door lock of the vehicle 100 may be released, and thus, when a user pulls the handles 17L and 17R, the doors 15L and 15R may be opened.”. It is inherent that the door lock is operated by actuator to lock or unlock the door. The inherency is supported by Fig. 3, control target driving unit 230 and para [0061] of Cho).
Regarding claim 3, Jun teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the anti-theft member takes the form of a locking member (para [0048], door lock).
Regarding claim 4, Jun teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user input device is a switch (Fig. 3 and Fig. 8, the smart key includes a plurality of buttons. One of the buttons is “lock” button.).
Regarding claim 9, recites a method for the device of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Jun teaches a method of overcoming remote jamming of a vehicle locking device (Fig. 3, vehicle locking system that uses wired communication to prevent wireless jamming, Abstract), the method including:
providing a user input device (Fig. 8, shows the smart key 200 includes a “lock” button. A support reference by Cho clearly shows a smart key includes a “lock” button 112 in Fig. 1 - Fig. 2) which is communicatively wired to the vehicle locking device(para [0065], “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the smart key 200 may be a FOB key that is connected to the vehicle 100 by a wired or a wireless communication,”. The smart key is in wired communication with the vehicle.); and
operating the user input device to lock the vehicle locking device, whilst not permitting unlocking of the vehicle locking device using the user input device (para [0065], the “lock” button is used to lock the doors of the vehicle to prevent theft (analogous to “active condition”). The “lock” button cannot be used to unlock the vehicle doors or change to “inactive condition”. See Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 and paragraph [0045] of Cho for further support and clarification.).
Regarding claim 13, Jun teaches a vehicle which includes a vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1 - Fig. 9, vehicle 100.).
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (Pub. No.: US 2019/0168713 A1) with inherency supported by Cho (Pub. No.: US 2014/0077931 A1) in view of Hoehne (Pub. No.: US 2008/0135388 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Murray teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 4, but fails to expressly teach wherein the switch is a rocker-type switch which includes a light.
However, in the same field of switch, Hoehne teaches a rocker switch with embedded OLED light. See abstract and para [0023]-[0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jun’s smart key buttons with OLED embedded rocker switch to provide indication.
Claims 6-7, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (Pub. No.: US 2019/0168713 A1) with inherency supported by Cho (Pub. No.: US 2014/0077931 A1) in view of Okada (Pat. No.: US 4,730,120).
Regarding claim 6, Jun teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein, upon the vehicle being turned off, the electronic control unit is configured automatically to bring the anti-theft member into its active condition in which it prevents theft of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Okada teaches a vehicle automatically locks the doors of the vehicle in response to the detection of the vehicle ignition being turned off. See abstract “An automatic locking device for an automobile door which can automatically lock a door a few seconds after the key is removed from the ignition switch and the door is closed. The device includes a key switch for detecting the insertion and removal of a key, a door switch for controlling the power source, and time-differential-type relays for operating an actuator.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jun’s vehicle to automatically locks the doors of the vehicle in response to the detection of the vehicle ignition being turned off to improve safety.
Regarding claim 7, Jun teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 2, wherein, upon the vehicle being turned off, the electronic control unit is configured automatically to lock the anti-theft member.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Okada teaches a vehicle automatically locks the doors of the vehicle in response to the detection of the vehicle ignition being turned off. See abstract “An automatic locking device for an automobile door which can automatically lock a door a few seconds after the key is removed from the ignition switch and the door is closed. The device includes a key switch for detecting the insertion and removal of a key, a door switch for controlling the power source, and time-differential-type relays for operating an actuator.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jun’s vehicle to automatically locks the doors of the vehicle in response to the detection of the vehicle ignition being turned off to improve safety.
Regarding claim 11, recites a method for the device of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, recites a method for the device of claims 1 and 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (Pub. No.: US 2019/0168713 A1) with inherency supported by Cho (Pub. No.: US 2014/0077931 A1) in view of Hille (Pat. No.: US 10,002,535 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Jun teaches the vehicle anti-theft device as claimed in claim 1, which includes a wireless communication module which is communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit (Fig. 4, the vehicle includes a controller 120 that is in communication with a communicator 110) and is configured to communicate a remote device (Fig. 2, sound output device 80).
Jun fails to teaches wherein, upon predetermined lengthened operation of the user input device, the electronic control unit is configured to forward a panic signal to the remote device via the wireless communication module.
However, in the same field of vehicle technology, Hille teaches that the smart key 24 outputs a panic signal if the user presses the “lock” button 32 twice within a short period of time. The vehicle’s ECU 12 receives the panic signal and transmits the panic signal via a wire to an audible output device 42 for alert generation. See Fig. 1 and Col. 1 line 24-30, “Historically, when attempting to locate a vehicle in a crowded parking lot, the vehicle owner has traditionally relied on either pressing a panic button or double pressing a lock button on a key fob to activate either the vehicle alarm system or a soft chirp respectively. The vehicle owner may then listen for the audible response produced by the vehicle to locate the vehicle.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jun’s smart key to output a panic signal if the “lock” button is pressed twice within a short duration of time to reduce the number of buttons of the smart key.
Hille teaches the use of wire to transmit the panic signal from the ECU 12 to the audible output device 42 instead of wireless communication.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wired communication with wireless communication because both types of communication were very well known and were art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose of signal transmission.
Regarding claim 10, recites a method for the device of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685