DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment dated May 21, 2026.
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 1-4 are currently amended.
Claims 5-7 are newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (US PG Pub #2005/0046552) in view of Willats et al. (Willats; US PG Pub #2003/0222758).
As to claim 1, Flick teaches an alarm control device comprising one or more processors (Paragraph [0025] teaches an alarm controller as part of a vehicle security system; Paragraph [0002] teaches the controller can also be called a central processor) configured to:
control an alarm device that activates an alarm when a door of a vehicle is unlocked (Paragraph [0035] teaches responding to a door open code from a door pin switch when in an armed mode as an indication of a high security threat);
control the alarm device so as to shift to an activated state when the door is locked using an authenticated key; and
control the alarm device so as to shift to an inactivated state when the door is unlocked using the authenticated key (Paragraphs [0041] and [0044] teach an armed mode change signal may be generated in response to the user pressing a door lock button on a key fob and a disarmed mode signal may be generated responsive to a door unlock button being pressed), but does not explicitly teach wherein:
the alarm device is not caused to issue an alarm when the door is unlocked from an inside of a cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key in a state in which the alarm device is in the activated state and in a state that the authenticated key is in the inside of the cabin of the vehicle.
In the field of vehicle access control systems, Willats teaches wherein:
the alarm device is not caused to issue an alarm when the door is unlocked from an inside of a cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key in a state in which the alarm device is in the activated state and in a state that the authenticated key is in the inside of the cabin of the vehicle (Paragraph [0151] teaches detecting the presence of an authorization device within the vehicle and enabling the authorized user to lock the vehicle doors; Paragraph [0154] teaches to exit the vehicle, the authorized user may pull a sill button to override the locking; Paragraph [0182] teaches two pull override unlocking such that a first actuation of the inside release means results in unlocking and further operation of the inside release means will cause the latch to unlatch). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Flick with the override of Willats because this improves vehicle ease of use, security and safety (Paragraphs [0004] and [0020]).
As to claim 2, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 1, Flick teaches wherein the alarm device is caused to issue the alarm when the door is unlocked from an outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the alarm device is in the activated state (Paragraphs [0009]-[0010] teach the alarm controller, when in an armed mode, may cause an alert indicator to generate an alarm indication responsive to a high security threat level; Paragraph [0035] teaches when armed, a door open code from a door pin switch is a high security threat).
As to claim 5, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 1, Flick does not explicitly teach wherein the alarm device is not caused to issue the alarm when the one or more processors determine that the authenticated key inside the cabin of the vehicle is the authenticated key that was used for shifting the alarm device to the activated state.
In the field of vehicle access control systems, Willats teaches wherein the alarm device is not caused to issue the alarm when the one or more processors determine that the authenticated key inside the cabin of the vehicle is the authenticated key that was used for shifting the alarm device to the activated state (Paragraph [0091] teaches a user actuating ID means or an RKE authorization device to trigger locking; Paragraph [0151] teaches detecting the presence of the authorization device within the vehicle and enabling the authorized user to lock the vehicle doors; Paragraph [0154] teaches to exit the vehicle, the authorized user may pull a sill button to override the locking; Paragraph [0182] teaches two pull override unlocking such that a first actuation of the inside release means results in unlocking and further operation of the inside release means will cause the latch to unlatch; Paragraph [0083] teaches distinguishing between levels of authorisation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Flick with the override of Willats because this improves vehicle ease of use, security and safety (Paragraphs [0004] and [0020]).
As to claim 7, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 1, Flick does not explicitly teach wherein a driver of the vehicle causes the door to be unlocked from the inside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key.
In the field of vehicle access control systems, Willats teaches wherein a driver of the vehicle causes the door to be unlocked from the inside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key (Paragraph [0154] teaches to exit the vehicle, the authorized user may pull a sill button to override the locking; Paragraph [0182] teaches two pull override unlocking such that a first actuation of the inside release means results in unlocking and further operation of the inside release means will cause the latch to unlatch). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Flick with the override of Willats because this improves vehicle ease of use, security and safety (Paragraphs [0004] and [0020]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (US PG Pub #2005/0046552) in view of Willats et al. (Willats; US PG Pub #2003/0222758) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dublirer (US Patent #4,262,279).
As to claim 3, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 2, Flick does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the door is unlocked in a state in which a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more.
In the field of vehicle alarm systems, Dublirer teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the door is unlocked in a state in which a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more (Column 9, Lin 67 – Column 10, Line 11 teaches that if a thief reaches through a car’s opened window and moves a switch to disable in an effort to circumvent the system, the input is treated as though the thief had opened an entry way). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Flick with the teaching of Dublirer such that it is determined that the door is unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key when the door is unlocked in a state in which a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more because this provides an uncomplicated, economical and reliable alarm system for us in a vehicle to provide protection without the owner performing any acts outside of normal vehicle operation (Column 1, Line 64 – Column 2, Line 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (US PG Pub #2005/0046552) in view of Willats et al. (Willats; US PG Pub #2003/0222758) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morosawa et al. (Morosawa; US PG Pub #2021/0370867).
As to claim 4, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 2, Flick does not explicitly teach wherein:
the one or more processors are configured to receive an image that captures surroundings of the vehicle when the door is unlocked; and
the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based on the image, whether the door has been unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key.
In the field of vehicle systems, Morosawa teaches wherein:
the one or more processors are configured to receive an image that captures surroundings of the vehicle when the door is unlocked (Paragraph [0025] teaches cameras for capturing images of the vehicle’s surroundings; Paragraph [0080] teaches recognizing a person outside the vehicle performing unlocking motions); and
the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based on the image, whether the door has been unlocked from the outside of the cabin of the vehicle without using the authenticated key (Paragraphs [0080]-[0081] and [0093]-[0094] teach detecting a person performing unlocking motions in order to open the door of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Flick with the image detection of Morosawa because this ensures security of the vehicle while allowing people other than registered vehicle users to smoothly board the vehicle (Paragraph [0006]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (US PG Pub #2005/0046552) in view of Willats et al. (Willats; US PG Pub #2003/0222758) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gangumalla et al. (Gangumalla; US PG Pub #2019/0088098).
As to claim 6, depending from the alarm control device according to claim 1, Flick does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more; and
cause the alarm device to issue an alarm after making a determination that the window of the vehicle is opened by the predetermined amount or more.
In the field of security systems, Gangumalla teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether a window of the vehicle is opened by a predetermined amount or more; and
cause the alarm device to issue an alarm after making a determination that the window of the vehicle is opened by the predetermined amount or more (Paragraph [0103] teaches triggering an alarm when a window is opened past a threshold distance that is an opening amount which would not allow a burglar entry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle security of Flick with the window alert of Gangumalla because this improves the functionality of security systems by monitoring how much a window is open rather than a conventional binary monitoring of whether the window is open or closed (Paragraph [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights