DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and addressed below.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 11/26/2024, 02/14/2025, 07/08/2025, and 11/26/2025 have been received and considered.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 “by the of the electrical power-saving communication unit” should read “by the electrical power-saving communication unit”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the electrical power-saving communication unit" in “communication received by the of the electrical power-saving communication unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ultra-wideband communication unit" in “attempts by the ultra-wideband communication unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“electrical power-saving communication unit” (claims 2, 3)
“ultra-wideband communication unit” (claim 3)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification ([0036]: “The ECU 12 is a type of computer, and performs distance measurement between the vehicle 200 and the portable information terminal 30 based on the results of communication processing by the UWB communication unit 20, and further, based on the results of communication processing by the BLE communication unit 24”; [0038]: “In the ECU 12, the CPU 12B, ROM 12A, RAM 12C, and input/output port 12D are connected together via various buses such as an address bus, a data bus, and a control bus. The input/output port 12D is connected to each of various input/output devices such as a storage device 14 configured by a non-volatile storage device such as a flash memory or a hard disk (HDD), an actuator 16, a UWB communication unit 20, and a BLE communication unit 24.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0196095 A1 (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an information processing device (Smith Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to (see at least Smith [0055]: “The controller 58 of the object device 50 in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 3 may include one or more processors 51 that execute one or more applications 57 (software and/or includes firmware), one or more memory units 52 (e.g., RAM and/or ROM)”):
correct an operation allowable threshold value based on a distance measurement between a vehicle and a portable information terminal calculated from a result of communication by ultra-wideband communication that temporarily has been put into an on state (see at least Smith [0162]: “The impact on thresholds is similar to or the same as that of the distance calculation output from the reference locator 210 or the adapter locator 310. For example, the reference locator 210 or the adapter locator 310 may be configured to provide an output indicative of distance or location of a remote device 20 relative to an object 10…The system 100 may be configured to implement one or more thresholds with respect to the location information that pertain to one or more zones or positions relative to the object. For instance, the one or more zones may include a region within 2 m of the object 10 and regions within an interior of the object 10 such as a vehicle cabin in the context of the object 10 being a vehicle.”; [0159]: “As shown in the illustrated embodiment, although the differences in distance calculation are more significant at further distances, the differences near the vehicle are sufficient to impact the user experience. For example, in a system where an unlock zone is configured to be entered two (2) meters from the vehicle, the reference device 200 would be correctly determined to be within the unlock zone at two (2) meters, whereas Device A would not be determined to be within the unlock zone until it reached one (1) meter and Device B would be determined to be within the unlock zone at four (4) meters.”; Smith [0080] discloses ultra-wideband communication can be used for the distance calculation),
initiate distance measurement between the vehicle and the portable information terminal by the ultra-wideband communication in a case in which a signal strength of electrical power-saving communication is equal to or higher than the corrected operation allowable threshold value (see at least Smith [0163]: “The system 100 may define an unlock zone, not as a computed distance, but as an RSSI threshold (or set of thresholds). In such a system 100, Device A may not satisfy the thresholds soon enough and Device B may satisfy them too early. For the same reasons, an inside determining threshold may not be satisfied with Device A, unlike the reference device 200 or Device B. It is noted that there are processes to determine and/or restrict relative position (driver/passenger/rear, inside/outside) that are immune to such calibration, and thus, it may still be ensured that the system 100 adequately restricts inside and outside determinations.”; [0078]-[0079]: “For instance, in a configuration in which both BLE and UWB information are obtained, this information can be combined to enhance and stabilize a localization estimate. The BLE and UWB channels used in the localization may involve different frequencies, and the signal characteristics to be exploited for ranging are different (RSSI for BLE and time-of-flight for UWB). RSSI ranging calibration may be augmented or supplemented with time-of-flight from UWB communications.”; Smith [0162] discloses the distance measurement is between the vehicle and the portable information terminal),
and enable control of the vehicle so as to perform at least one of locking, unlocking or engine starting of the vehicle in accordance with an operation signal transmitted from the portable information terminal by the electrical power-saving communication (see at least Smith [0162]-[0163]: “For instance, if the remote device 20 transitions from an outer zone considered far from the vehicle to an unlock zone identified as proximal to the vehicle (e.g., within 2 m of the vehicle), the system 100 may be configured to unlock the vehicle. The system 100 may define an unlock zone, not as a computed distance, but as an RSSI threshold (or set of thresholds).”; Smith [0078] discloses RSSI is used by BLE (i.e., electrical power-saving) communication).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the information processing device recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to
correct the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with a difference between a signal strength corresponding to the distance measurement by the ultra-wideband communication calculated based on a predetermined correlation between the distance measurement by the ultra-wideband communication and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication, and a signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication received by the of the electrical power-saving communication unit (see at least Smith [0078]: “For instance, in a configuration in which both BLE and UWB information are obtained, this information can be combined to enhance and stabilize a localization estimate. The BLE and UWB channels used in the localization may involve different frequencies, and the signal characteristics to be exploited for ranging are different (RSSI for BLE and time-of-flight for UWB).”; [0082]: “As described herein, one or more signal characteristics, such as signal strength and angle of arrival, may be analyzed to determine location information about the remote device 20 relative to the object 10, an aspect of the object 10, or the object device 50, or a combination thereof. For instance, time difference of arrival or the angle of arrival, or both, among the sensors 40 and the object device 50 may be processed to determine a relative position of the remote device 20.”; [0159]-[0163]: ““As shown in the illustrated embodiment, although the differences in distance calculation are more significant at further distances, the differences near the vehicle are sufficient to impact the user experience…The system 100 may define an unlock zone, not as a computed distance, but as an RSSI threshold (or set of thresholds).”).
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites a method performed by the device of claim 1. Smith also discloses a method performed by the device of claim 1, as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites a medium embodying the device of claim 1. Smith also discloses a medium embodying the device of claim 1 (Smith [0053]), as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Avakjan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198852 A1 (hereinafter Avakjan).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses all elements of the information processing device according to claim 2 as explained above. Smith fails to expressly disclose setting a number of distance measurement attempts to zero at a time of initiation. However, Avakjan teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
set a number of distance measurement attempts by the ultra-wideband communication unit to zero at a time of initiation of control (see at least Avakjan [0168]: “Then, in order for the control unit 110 to be able to let the connected mobile device 120 to make the determination as to whether or not to allow a future re-connection when it has been released from the connection, such that re-connections attempts are not made when such attempts shouldn't be made, the control unit 110 may keep track of the number of generated events. The track-keeping may be implemented by a counter of events. The counter of events may be given an initial value at some point in time, e.g. zero.”; );
and corrects the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with the difference in a case in which the number of distance measurement attempts does not exceed one, and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication received by the electrical power-saving communication unit is equal to or greater than an electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value, the electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value being lower than the operation allowable threshold value (This limitation is taught through the combination of Smith and Avakjan. Smith discloses “corrects the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with the difference…and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication received by the electrical power-saving communication unit is equal to or greater than an electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value, the electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value being lower than the operation allowable threshold value” because Smith discloses correcting zone thresholds based on signal strengths and distance measurements for a device, and determining what action should be performed based on a connection in a specific zone (Smith [0159]-[0163], [0062]). Smith fails to expressly disclose “a case in which the number of distance measurement attempts does not exceed one.” However, Avakjan teaches “a case in which the number of distance measurement attempts does not exceed one” because Avakjan teaches adjusting a counter to a first counter value for a first event of connecting to a mobile device within range (Avakjan [0174]-[0177]). Therefore, the combination of Smith and Avakjan teaches all elements of this limitation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Smith with Avakjan with reasonable expectation of success. Avakjan is directed towards the related field of access control using short-range wireless communications. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith with Avakjan to keep track of connection attempts (see at least Avakjan [0168]: “Then, in order for the control unit 110 to be able to let the connected mobile device 120 to make the determination as to whether or not to allow a future re-connection when it has been released from the connection, such that re-connections attempts are not made when such attempts shouldn't be made, the control unit 110 may keep track of the number of generated events.”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses all elements of the information processing device according to claim 1 as explained above. Smith fails to expressly disclose correcting a threshold value each time a connection is performed and canceling the correction when the connection is broken. However, Avakjan teaches wherein the processor is configured to
correct the operation allowable threshold value each time a connection of the electrical power-saving communication is performed between the vehicle and the portable information terminal, and cancels the correction of the operation allowable threshold value when the connection of the electrical power-saving communication is broken (see at least Avakjan [0046]: “Distance measuring may also be achieved by analysis of characteristics of the radio communication e.g., via Time of Flight, or some other method combining such analysis with phase difference. Such distance measuring could for example be implemented with UWB. Motion sensor data of a mobile device may also be used to determine when the respective mobile device connects automatically to the control unit 110. For example, if a first mobile device 120 is still, or its motion sensor data is below a threshold, or if it is moving away from the control unit 110 etc., then it does not automatically connect to the control unit 110 according to some embodiments.”; [0108]-[0109]: “The corrected estimated value, based on the received signal strength and motion sensor data, may be calculated in any other suitable method, for instance as a motion compensated distance or as a motion compensated quality indicator…As mentioned above. the corrected estimated value may be calculated by each of the one or more connected mobile devices 120-122.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Smith with Avakjan with reasonable expectation of success. Avakjan is directed towards the related field of access control using short-range wireless communications. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith with Avakjan to improve security and response time of connections (see at least Avakjan [0009]: “Considering the above it is an object of embodiments herein to provide an improved method and system for access control with regarding to multiple users, security and response time.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanji et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0255605 A1, directed towards correcting a threshold value based on a suppressed electric power signal to perform a vehicle inside/outside determination.
Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0193869 A1, directed towards determining whether a Bluetooth circuit show be transitioned from a sleep state to a working state.
Elangovan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0292388 A1, directed towards comparing RSSI values to pre-established thresholds to determine a correct localization zone.
Kennedy, U.S. Patent No. 10469987 B1, directed towards providing vehicle functions based on adjusting positional thresholds according to a type of device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662