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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 5/05/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,3,6,8,10,12,16,17, the cancellation of claims 18-20 and the addition of claims 21-23.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no need to communicate the location of the access device to a user interface of the vehicle or external device, it is the examiner’s position that the reference of Ahmed teaches communicating the location of the vehicle access device (the vehicle communicate the location of the access device to the access device, paragraph 059,089-090). Ahmed teaches the location information is used by the vehicle access device to determine the wait time to transmit its signal (paragraph 090). Ahmed teaches the distant and location determining function of the vehicle is use for implementing passive unlock and starting of the vehicle (paragraph 09).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (applicant’s argument regarding reference of Chen), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955.
Regarding claim 1, Ahmed teaches a method for locating a vehicle access device, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting a signal from a vehicle access device with one or more access
device sensors, wherein the vehicle access device is a key fob (antenna devices on the vehicle receive signal from the mobile device, paragraph 055,057-058);
determining a location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or
more access device sensors (paragraph 058); and
communicating the location of the vehicle access device (the vehicle communicate the location of the access device to the access device, paragraph 059,089).
Regarding claim 2, Ahmed et al. teaches detecting a signal from a vehicle access
device is accomplished by either the access device or the one or more access
device sensors sending wireless communication and the other of the vehicle
access device or the one or more access device sensors receiving wireless
communication (paragraph 057-058).
Regarding claim 3, Ahmed et al. teaches the wireless communication is one or more of
cellular, ultra-wideband (UWB), WiFi, radio, or Bluetooth (paragraph 055).
Regarding claim 4, Ahmed teaches the step of determining a location of the
vehicle access device relative to one or more access device sensors includes
determining the signal strength of a communication between the one or more
access device sensors and the vehicle access device (paragraph 079).
Regarding claim 13, Ahmed teaches the step of determining a location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors includes determining an elapsed time between sending a communication from either the access device sensor or the vehicle access device and receiving a communication from the other of the access device sensor or the vehicle access device (round trip time is used for location determination, paragraph 074,080)..
Claim(s) 17, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuke et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230101462.
Regarding claim 17, Fuke et al. teaches a method for locating a vehicle access device, the method comprising the steps of: detecting a change of one or more conditions (detect locking operation, 094);
Sending a communication to the vehicle access device to cause the vehicle access device to output a return communication (paragraph 060);
detecting a request to search for a vehicle access device, where the request is initiated by a user of the vehicle (search request is initiated based on operation of door handle, S140, paragraph 110, fig, 9);
detecting with an access device sensor a communication from a vehicle access device (paragraph 097),
comparing a signal strength of the detected return communication or an elapsed time of communication between the vehicle access device and an access device sensor to a predetermined threshold (paragraph 097);
determine an approximate location of the vehicle access device as a function of the signal strength or the elapsed time (paragraph 097,0122)
and communicating the approximate location of the vehicle access device to the user (paragraph 097-098, fig.6).
Regarding claim 21, Fuke teaches the approximate location includes an indication of whether the vehicle access device is located inside or outside of the vehicle (paragraph 013-014,075-076).
Regarding claim 22, Fuke teaches the request is initiated via user interface of the vehicle or via an external device (search request is initiated based on operation of door handle, S140, paragraph 110, fig, 9)
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Salah US Patent Application Publication 20190248331.
Regarding claim 5, Ahmed teaches the vehicle access device is determined to be located within the vehicle (paragraph 081) but is not explicit in teaching the signal strength of the communication between the one or more access device sensors and the vehicle access device is greater than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located within the vehicle. Salah in an analogous art teaches the signal strength of the communication between the one or more access device sensors and the vehicle access device is greater than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located within the vehicle (paragraph 052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed as disclosed by Salah because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in order to reliably and efficiently determine when the access device is located within the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Ahmed is not explicit in teaching the signal strength of the communication between the one or more access device sensors is less than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located outside of the vehicle. Salah in an analogous art teaches the signal strength of the communication between the one or more access device sensors is less than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located outside of the vehicle (paragraph 052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed as disclosed by Salah because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in order to reliably and reliably determine when the access device is located within the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Salah US Patent Application Publication 20190248331 and further in view of Chen et al. US Patent Application Publication 20180359604.
Regarding claim 6, Ahmed is silent on teaching the vehicle access device includes visually, audibly, or tactilely communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches the vehicle access device includes audibly communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle (paragraph 015-016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah as disclosed by Chen et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a easily perceivable indication of the location of the vehicle access device and aid in preventing the vehicle access device from been lock inside the vehicle compartment.
Regarding claim 10, Ahmed is silent on teaching the vehicle access device includes visually, audibly, or tactilely communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches the vehicle access device includes audibly communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle (paragraph 015-016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah as disclosed by Chen et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a easily perceivable indication of the location of the vehicle access device and aid in preventing the vehicle access device from been lock inside the vehicle compartment.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Salah US Patent Application Publication 20190248331 and further in view of Breer et al. US Patent Application Publication
Regarding claim 7, Ahmed is not explicit in teaching comparing the signal strength
of the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors. Breer et al. in an analogous art teaches comparing the signal strength of the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors (paragraph 023-025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah as disclosed by Breer because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a more precise location of the vehicle access device and further providing access to the vehicle by unlocking the door in the vicinity of the location of the access device and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Ahmed is not explicit in teaching comparing the signal strength
of the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors. Breer et al. in an analogous art teaches comparing the signal strength of the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors (paragraph 023-025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah as disclosed by Breer because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a more precise location of the vehicle access device and further providing access to the vehicle by unlocking the door in the vicinity of the location of the access device and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Salah US Patent Application Publication 20190248331 and in view of Breer et al. US Patent Application Publication and further in view of Chen et al. US Patent Application Publication 20180359604.
Regarding claim 8, Ahmed is silent on teaching the vehicle access device includes visually, audibly, or tactilely communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches the vehicle access device includes audibly communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle (paragraph 015-016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah in view of Breer as disclosed by Chen et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a easily perceivable means for indicating the location of the access device.
Regarding claim 12, Ahmed is silent on teaching the vehicle access device includes visually, audibly, or tactilely communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches the vehicle access device includes audibly communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle (paragraph 015-016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah in view of Breer as disclosed by Chen et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a easily perceivable means for indicating the location of the access device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Kusumoto US Patent Application Publication 20200037133.
Regarding claim 14, Ahmed teaches determining the location of the access device based on the time of the flight between the transmitting and receiving of the signal between the vehicle and the access device (paragraph 074,080) but is silent on teaching communication between the one or more access device sensors and the vehicle access device is greater than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located outside of the vehicle, or when the elapsed time of the communication between the one or more access device sensors and the vehicle access device is less than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located within the vehicle. Kusumoto in an analogous art teaches communication between the one or more access device sensors and the vehicle access device is greater than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located outside of the vehicle, or when the elapsed time of the communication between the one or more access device sensors and the vehicle access device is less than a predetermined threshold, the vehicle access device is determined to be located within the vehicle (paragraph 018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed as disclosed by Kusumoto because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in order to reliably and efficiently determine when the access device is located outside or inside the vehicle in order to implement the desired vehicle functions..
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Hasegawa et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220030383.
Regarding claim 15, Ahmed teaches determining the location of the access device based on the time of the flight between the transmitting and receiving of the signal between the vehicle and the access device (paragraph 074,080) but is silent on the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one
or more access device sensors (paragraph 036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed as disclosed by Hasegawa et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed by providing a more precise location of the vehicle access device and further providing access to the vehicle by unlocking the door in the vicinity of the location of the access device and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed US Patent Application Publication 20210402955 in view of Chen et al. US Patent Application Publication 20180359604.
Regarding claim 16, Ahmed is silent on teaching the vehicle access device includes visually, audibly, or tactilely communicating the location of the vehicle access device through the external device or a user interface of a vehicle. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches the vehicle access device includes audibly communicating the location of the vehicle access device through an external device or a user interface of a vehicle (paragraph 015-016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Ahmed in view of Salah in view of Breer as disclosed by Chen et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Ahmed in view of Salah by providing a easily perceivable means for indicating the location of the access device.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuke et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230101462 in view of Breer et al. US Patent Application Publication
Regarding claim 23, Fuke is not explicit in teaching comparing the signal strength
of the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors. Breer et al. in an analogous art teaches comparing the signal strength of the communication received at the one or more access device sensors to determine the approximate location of the vehicle access device relative to the one or more access device sensors (paragraph 023-025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Fuke as disclosed by Breer because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Fuke by providing a more precise location of the vehicle access device and further providing access to the vehicle by unlocking the door in the vicinity of the location of the access device and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights