DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 19/009,440 filed on July 6, 2026 in which claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 were amended and claims 2, 4, and 5 were cancelled.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites a method claim including the limitations “recognizes whether or not an anti-theft registration to enable an anti-theft function is completed for an immobilizer, the immobilizer being an anti-theft device of the mobile body mounted on the mobile body; and when the processor recognizes that the anti-theft registration of the immobilizer is completed, the processor automatically switches the operating mode of the mobile body from the factory special mode to a market mode in which the execution of the abnormality monitoring processing is enabled.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the performance of the limitation “automatically switches the operating mode of the mobile body from the factory special mode to a market mode in which the execution of the abnormality monitoring processing is enabled” because the claim allows for an instance in which the anti-theft registration has not be completed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fardoun et al., US Publication 6,889,792 (hereinafter Fardoun), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated April 3, 2026 in view of Oh et al., US Publication 2022/0198849 (hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 1, Fardoun discloses a mobile body control device, comprising a processor (Fardoun col. 3, ll., 24-45), wherein the processor “executes abnormality monitoring processing that monitors presence or absence of abnormality of a mobile body and outputs abnormality notification information when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body” (Fardoun col. 5, ll. 38-51) where the steering ECU executes anti-theft monitoring to output notifications when recognizing an attempted theft. This works by detecting whether the ignition switch is being bypassed, which is an “abnormality” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Additionally, Fardoun discloses “recognizes whether or not an anti-theft registration to enable an anti-theft function is completed for an immobilizer, the immobilizer being an anti-theft device of the mobile body mounted on the mobile body” (Fardoun col. 5, l. 61-col. 6, l. 7) where the system switches from a state where the anti-theft detection (i.e., abnormality monitoring) occurs only after the initialization of the electrically-assisted power steering system, which is switching it from a disabled state to an enabled state when it recognizes that the components are “functioning properly” (i.e., in the prescribed state) but does not perform the anti-theft detection (i.e., it is in a disabled state) if the initialization fails.
Fardoun does not appear to explicitly disclose “in a manufacturing process of the mobile body at a factory, sets an operating mode of the mobile body to a factory special mode in which the abnormality monitoring processing is disabled” or “when the processor recognizes that the anti-theft registration of the immobilizer is completed, the processor automatically switches the operating mode of the mobile body from the factory special mode to a market mode in which the execution of the abnormality monitoring processing is enabled.”
However, Oh discloses a mobile body control device, comprising a processor (Oh ¶ 53), wherein the processor “in a manufacturing process of the mobile body at a factory, sets an operating mode of the mobile body to a factory special mode in which the abnormality monitoring processing is disabled” (Oh ¶¶ 55-56) where, when the vehicle is in factory mode (i.e., a factory special mode), use of the immobilizer may not be possible. Oh discloses that the factory mode is set when in “a factory work environment.” Additionally, Oh discloses “recognizes whether or not an anti-theft registration to enable an anti-theft function is completed for an immobilizer, the immobilizer being an anti-theft device of the mobile body mounted on the mobile body; and (Oh ¶¶ 55-56) by recognizing whether the an electronic key has been learned (i.e., an anti-theft registration is enabled) or whether the vehicle is still in factory mode (i.e., an anti-theft registration is not enabled) for the immobilizer. Finally, Oh discloses “when the processor recognizes that the anti-theft registration of the immobilizer is completed, the processor automatically switches the operating mode of the mobile body from the factory special mode to a market mode in which the execution of the abnormality monitoring processing is enabled” (Oh ¶¶ 55-56, 70) by recognizing that the electronic key is learned (Oh ¶ 70) and switching out of factory mode as discussed above.
Fardoun and Oh are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle immobilizers.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fardoun and Oh before him or her to modify the immobilizer of Fardoun to include the factory mode of Oh.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Fardoun teaches the “base device” for a vehicle abnormality detector that can trigger an immobilization function on the vehicle. Further, Oh teaches the “known technique” of including a factory mode in a vehicle immobilizer that is applicable to the base device of Fardoun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fardoun and Oh discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Fardoun and Oh discloses “stores abnormality recognition information in a memory when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body” (Fardoun col. 6, ll. 32-42) by storing an actual key identification code, which is used to recognize an attempted theft, making it “abnormality recognition information,” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Further, Fardoun discloses “stores the abnormality recognition information including a prescribed code in the memory when recognizing the abnormality of the mobile body within a predetermined time from a time when switching from the factory special mode to the market mode” (Fardoun col. 6, ll. 8-31 and Oh ¶¶ 4, 55-56) where the comparison occurs within a predetermined time period, which, when combined, would be when the factory mode was switched off.
Regarding claim 6, it merely recites a method for implementing the device of claim 6. The method comprises performing the various functions. The combination of Fardoun and Oh comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 6 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, it merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for embodying the device of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Fardoun and Oh comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 7 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 6, 2026, with respect to the objection of the specification and the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification and the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed July 6, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 8-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Fardoun and Oh.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Luo et al., US Publication 2025/0091558, Vehicle anti-theft device including a factory mode.
Rӧhrl et al., US Patent 6,211,776, Vehicle anti-theft device including a factory mode.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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 on 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights