DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims 1-20 have been considered and examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Respond to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 has been fully considered and the results as followings:
On pages 9-12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech does not teach the claimed invention because Asma’s circuitry remains connected to its fob battery even when the fob is stationary.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant because as discussed in the Non-Final rejection mailed on 03/10/2026, the rejection relied upon Asmar to discloses a method of determining an authentication of a user based on position information and motion information of a fob device associated with the user (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: In general, system 100 includes a mobile platform 120 including a body control module (BCM) or other processing system 121, a plurality of mobile platform transmitter components 123-128 (e.g., low frequency antennas operating at about 125 KHz and having a range of about 2-5 meters) and a mobile platform receiver component 122 (e.g., an RF receiver operating at about 315-433 MHz and having a range of about 40-150 meters)…Referring briefly to the conceptual block diagram of FIG. 3, operation of the system may be illustrated as a determination module 300 (including any suitable combination of hardware and software) that takes as its input position information 302 (e.g., range information derived from the signals received from the various low frequency transmitter components 123-128 incorporated into the mobile platform) as well as motion information 301 (e.g., accelerometer data from motion sensing component 109)).
Further, ESSAtech discloses a known alternative method for determining an authentication of a user based on motion information received from a key/fob device, e.g. the user coming to a vehicle, for controlling operations of the vehicle by selectively connecting/disconnecting electronics of fob device and its battery (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip).
Therefore, by modifying the remote control system of Asmar to include the features of ESSAtech to prevent unauthorized usage of the vehicle based on motion information, as suggested by ESSAtech, does not change the principle of operations of Asmar to perform authentication of the user for controlling operations of the vehicle.
As a result, Applicant arguments are not deemed persuasive, and the previous rejections pertaining to the previous set of claims are sustained. Therefore, due to the claimed amendments, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejections necessitated by amendments is made in view of following reference/combinations.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Beyer et al. (Beyer – US 2018/0208155 A1) and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1). The rejections in this instant application are based on the English translation of DE 20 2019 101 926 U1 publication by computer.
As to claim 1, Asmar discloses a fob device for use with a base unit, comprising:
a fob housing (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the housing 103);
a communication circuit (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the fob receiver component 107 and the fob transmitter component 108); and
a fob security circuit connected to the communication circuit and connected to the fob housing, wherein the fob security circuit including:
the battery (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the power supply 106);
a motion sensor (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0020], and FIG. 1 the motion sensor component 109) configured to measure motion of the fob device and generate output signals indicative of the motion of the fob device (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0017]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], and FIG. 1: the fob device 102 determines, based on the motion information derived from motion sensor component 109, whether it is being carried by a user in motion. That is, fob device 102 might use accelerometer data to determine whether the motion of fob device is consistent with human walking. Similarly, fob device 102 might determine whether it is stationary or whether it is located within mobile platform 120 while it that platform is moving);
a microprocessor (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4) in communication with the motion sensor (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: referring briefly to the conceptual block diagram of FIG. 3, operation of the system may be illustrated as a determination module 300 (including any suitable combination of hardware and software) that takes as its input position information 302 (e.g., range information derived from the signals received from the various low frequency transmitter components 123-128 incorporated into the mobile platform) as well as motion information 301 (e.g., accelerometer data from motion sensing component 109)),
wherein the microprocessor is configured to determine, as activation criteria, whether the fob device is (i) in motion relative to the base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: an action is taken based on both motion information (associated with the movement of the key fob device) as well as position information (associated with the relative position of the key fob device relative to the mobile platform). This action might include, for example, preventing entry to the mobile platform, preventing the activation of the mobile platform, producing an alarm signal, and disabling the receipt of requests for entry or requests for activation of the mobile platform), and (ii) within a predetermined maximum distance of the base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: In general, system 100 includes a mobile platform 120 including a body control module (BCM) or other processing system 121, a plurality of mobile platform transmitter components 123-128 (e.g., low frequency antennas operating at about 125 KHz and having a range of about 2-5 meters) and a mobile platform receiver component 122 (e.g., an RF receiver operating at about 315-433 MHz and having a range of about 40-150 meters)…Referring briefly to the conceptual block diagram of FIG. 3, operation of the system may be illustrated as a determination module 300 (including any suitable combination of hardware and software) that takes as its input position information 302 (e.g., range information derived from the signals received from the various low frequency transmitter components 123-128 incorporated into the mobile platform) as well as motion information 301 (e.g., accelerometer data from motion sensing component 109)).
Asmar does not explicitly disclose
wherein the fob security circuit has a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery, the fob security circuit including: the coin-type fob battery;
the microprocessor being configured to detect a threshold motion of the fob device in response to the output signals from the motion sensor; and
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and configured to selectively connect the battery to the communication circuit when the switch is in a conducting CLOSED state, and to disconnect the battery from the communication circuit when the switch is in the default non-conducting OPEN state,
and to transition the switch from the default non-conducting OPEN state to the conducting CLOSED state in response to satisfaction of the activation criteria, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement the microprocessor being configured to detect a threshold motion of the fob device in response to the output signals from the motion sensor, as suggested by Beyer, which discloses a microprocessor (Beyer: Abstract and FIG. 1 the control module 16) in communication with the motion sensor (Beyer: FIG. 1 the motion sensor 14), the microprocessor being configured to detect a threshold motion of the fob device in response to the output signals from the motion sensor (Beyer: Abstract, [0014], [0047]-[0054], and FIG. 1).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar and Beyer, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar to include the microprocessor being configured to detect a threshold motion of the fob device in response to the output signals from the motion sensor, as suggested by Beyer. The motivation for this is to determine whether the vehicle remote control is in motion based on measured motion information.
The combination of Asmar and Beyer does not explicitly disclose wherein the fob security circuit has a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery, the fob security circuit including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and configured to selectively connect the battery to the communication circuit when the switch is in a conducting CLOSED state, and to disconnect the battery from the communication circuit when the switch is in the default non-conducting OPEN state,
and to transition the switch from the default non-conducting OPEN state to the conducting CLOSED state in response to satisfaction of the activation criteria, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement wherein the fob security circuit has a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery, the fob security circuit including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and configured to selectively connect the battery to the communication circuit when the switch is in a conducting CLOSED state, and to disconnect the battery from the communication circuit when the switch is in the default non-conducting OPEN state,
and to transition the switch from the default non-conducting OPEN state to the conducting CLOSED state in response to satisfaction of the activation criteria, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state, as suggested by ESSAtech, which discloses
wherein the fob security circuit has a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery, the fob security circuit including: the coin-type fob battery (ESSAtech: [0018]-[0021], [0024]-[0026], and FIG. 1 the battery 2);
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip) and configured to selectively connect the battery to the communication circuit when the switch is in a conducting CLOSED state, and to disconnect the battery from the communication circuit when the switch is in the default non-conducting OPEN state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip),
and to transition the switch from the default non-conducting OPEN state to the conducting CLOSED state in response to satisfaction of the activation criteria (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip), such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar and Beyer to include wherein the fob security circuit has a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery, the fob security circuit including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and configured to selectively connect the battery to the communication circuit when the switch is in a conducting CLOSED state, and to disconnect the battery from the communication circuit when the switch is in the default non-conducting OPEN state,
and to transition the switch from the default non-conducting OPEN state to the conducting CLOSED state in response to satisfaction of the activation criteria, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state, as suggested by ESSAtech. The motivation for this is to prevent unauthorized intervention of vehicle control operations.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Beyer et al. (Beyer – US 2018/0208155 A1) and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Kampel et al. (Kampel – US 2006/0035622 A1) and Person (Person – US 6,400,270 B1).
As to claim 2, Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 1 except for the claimed limitations of the fob device of claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad; and
selectively transition the switch to the conducting CLOSED state in response to the override signal.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal; and
selectively transition the switch to the conducting CLOSED state in response to the override signal, as suggested by Kampel, which discloses wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047]-[0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36); and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047], [0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36: when the mode switch 28' is positioned to direct power from the power supply 46 to the transmitter 20', the transmitter power switch 48 can also be closed by a user override 36'….As indicated by the dashed lines 44', the mode switch 28' can be configured to toggle between directing power to the transmitter 20' and to the signal receiver 26' in response to the control logic circuit 30' and/or in response to the user override 36'. When the mode switch 28' is configured to be operated by the control logic circuit 30', the control logic circuit 30' operates the mode switch 28' so as to direct power to the transmitter 20' and closes the transmitter power switch 48 when a no-motion condition is detected when the mode switch 28' is positioned to direct power to the signal receiver 26'. Similarly, when the mode switch 28' is configured to be operated by the user override 36', the user override 36' operates the mode switch 28' to direct power to the transmitter 20', if it is not already positioned to do so).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and Kampel it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech to include wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal; and
selectively transition the switch to the conducting CLOSED state in response to the override signal, as suggested by Kampel. The motivation for this is to manually select an operation mode of a portable device.
The combination of Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and Kampel does not explicitly disclose an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad.
However, it has been known in the art of portable device to implement an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad, as suggested by Person, which discloses an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad (Person: Abstract, column 16 lines 35-46, and FIG. 1 the wallet protection system 10: The user will either put the card back in the appropriate card holder slot to close the device, or the user will key in an override code using the external alphanumeric keypad to close the device ).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, Kampel, and Person it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and Kampel to include an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad, as suggested by Person. The motivation for this is to implement a known alternative input device for generating an override signal.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Beyer et al. (Beyer – US 2018/0208155 A1) and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Hara et al. (Hara – US 2015/0254916 A1).
As to claim 3, Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 1 except for the claimed limitations of the fob device of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery.
However, it has been known in the art of remote controls to implement wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery, as suggested by Hara, which discloses wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery (Hara: Abstract, [0083]-[0089], and FIG. 6-8: The touch pad 26 is formed to have a circular outline so that even if the entry key 2 is rotated, input operations can be made without being conscious of the rotation position. The surface of the touch pad 26 is covered with a touch pad cover 53 which is made of the same synthetic resin as that of the case 5. The touch pad cover 53 and the surface of the surrounding upper case 5a form a continuous surface of spherical crown shape curved upward).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and Hara it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech, to include wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery, as suggested by Hara. The motivation for this is to implement a known alternative input device for a controlled apparatus, e.g. a vehicle.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Beyer et al. (Beyer – US 2018/0208155 A1) and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of DeLong et al. (DeLong – US 2024/0080765 A1).
As to claim 4, Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 1 further comprising the fob device of claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is configured to selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state when the fob device is in motion and the linear distance is less than the predetermined maximum distance (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip).
The combination of Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech does not explicitly disclose
wherein the fob security circuit includes at least one transceiver connected to the microprocessor, and wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a communication signal from the base unit via the at least one transceiver;
determine a time-of-flight of the communication signal between the base unit and the at least one transceiver; and
calculate a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit based on the time-of-flight, as the predetermined maximum distance.
However, it has been known in the art of vehicle controls to implement wherein the fob security circuit includes at least one transceiver connected to the microprocessor, and wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a communication signal from the base unit via the at least one transceiver;
determine a time-of-flight of the communication signal between the base unit and the at least one transceiver; and
calculate a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit based on the time-of-flight, as the predetermined maximum distance, as suggested by DeLong, which discloses wherein the fob security circuit includes at least one transceiver (DeLong: the transceiver units 208) connected to the microprocessor (DeLong: FIG. 2 the processor 210), and wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a communication signal from the base unit via the at least one transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver);
determine a time-of-flight of the communication signal between the base unit and the at least one transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: upon receipt of the response to the UWB challenge, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may verify and determine the authenticity of the key fob 204. In addition, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may determine the distance between the key fob 204 and the vehicle 202 by using distance-based measurement via time-of-flight (ToF), at step 416. In one aspect, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may activate welcome lights of the vehicle 202 when the key fob 204 is in the third predetermined range 240 and the key fob 204 is authentic); and
calculate a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit based on the time-of-flight, as the predetermined maximum distance (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: upon receipt of the response to the UWB challenge, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may verify and determine the authenticity of the key fob 204. In addition, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may determine the distance between the key fob 204 and the vehicle 202 by using distance-based measurement via time-of-flight (ToF), at step 416. In one aspect, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may activate welcome lights of the vehicle 202 when the key fob 204 is in the third predetermined range 240 and the key fob 204 is authentic).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and DeLong it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech, to include wherein the fob security circuit includes at least one transceiver connected to the microprocessor, and wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a communication signal from the base unit via the at least one transceiver;
determine a time-of-flight of the communication signal between the base unit and the at least one transceiver; and
calculate a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit based on the time-of-flight, as the predetermined maximum distance, as suggested by DeLong. The motivation for this is to prevent relay attack based on predetermined ranges of communications between a vehicle and a portable device.
As to claim 5, Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and DeLong disclose the limitations of claim 4 further comprising the fob device of claim 4, wherein the at least one transceiver includes at least one radio frequency (RF) transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver).
As to claim 6, Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and DeLong disclose the limitations of claim 5 further comprising the fob device of claim 5, wherein the RF transceiver includes an ultra-wide band (UWB) transceiver and/or a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Beyer et al. (Beyer – US 2018/0208155 A1) and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Donadini et al. (Donadini – US 2023/0137301 A1).
As to claim 7, Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 1 except for the claimed limitations of the fob device of claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a set of user preferences, including a time-of-day setting; and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in accordance with the set of user preferences.
However, it has been known in the art of remote controller to implement wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a set of user preferences, including a time-of-day setting; and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in accordance with the set of user preferences, as suggested by Donadini, which discloses wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a set of user preferences (Donadini: [0048], [0053]-[0057], [0060]-[0072], and FIG. 1: the processing and/or control unit 10 is configured so that—upon receipt of at least one command signal 15 from the outside—it performs an erase operation (at least partial) and/or a modification of the configuration and/or of the connections and/or of the data present and/or used by said at least one processing and/or control unit 10 and/or by said at least one memory 11 and/or from said at least one transmitting and/or transceiver unit 13 and/or from said receiver/transceiver 14), including a time-of-day setting (Donadini: Abstract, [0048], [0053]-[0057], [0060]-[0072], [0182]-[0183], [0193]-[0194], and FIG. 1: the software module of the mobile device 20 is configured to associate a time interval (duration) for its validity (for example a few hours or days or weeks) to an external command signal 15 for enabling a certain key 3 so that once this interval has elapsed, the software module of the mobile device 20 automatically sends to the key 3 an external disabling command 15 to thus pass said key from the enabled state to the disabled state, thus preventing the user from continuing to use the motor vehicle 2); and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in accordance with the set of user preferences (Donadini: Abstract, [0048], [0053]-[0057], [0060]-[0072], [0182]-[0183], [0193]-[0194], and FIG. 1).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Beyer, ESSAtech, and Donadini it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Beyer, and ESSAtech, to include wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive a set of user preferences, including a time-of-day setting; and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in accordance with the set of user preferences, as suggested by Donadini. The motivation for this is to program a portable device to selectively control operations of a vehicle.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Asakura et al. (Asakura – US 6,670,883 B1), DeLong et al. (DeLong – US 2024/0080765 A1), and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1).
As to claim 8, Asmar discloses a keyless entry system, comprising:
a base unit (Asmar: [0015], [0021], [0031]-[0032], and FIG. 1 the mobile platform 120) connected to an access-protected enclosure (Asmar: FIG. 1), the base unit including:
a first microprocessor (Asmar: FIG. 1 the body control module (BCM) or other processing system 121);
a fob device in communication with the base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the housing 103), including:
a motion sensor (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0020], and FIG. 1 the motion sensor component 109) operable for detecting motion of the fob device relative to the base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0017]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], and FIG. 1: the fob device 102 determines, based on the motion information derived from motion sensor component 109, whether it is being carried by a user in motion. That is, fob device 102 might use accelerometer data to determine whether the motion of fob device is consistent with human walking. Similarly, fob device 102 might determine whether it is stationary or whether it is located within mobile platform 120 while it that platform is moving);
a communication circuit (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the fob receiver component 107 and the fob transmitter component 108); and
a fob security circuit (Asmar: FIG. 1) including:
the battery (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the power supply 106);
a second microprocessor (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4) connected to the battery (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the power supply 106);
a second transceiver in communication with the first transceiver and the second microprocessor, the second microprocessor being configured to determine when the fob device is in motion and within a predetermined maximum distance of the base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: referring briefly to the conceptual block diagram of FIG. 3, operation of the system may be illustrated as a determination module 300 (including any suitable combination of hardware and software) that takes as its input position information 302 (e.g., range information derived from the signals received from the various low frequency transmitter components 123-128 incorporated into the mobile platform) as well as motion information 301 (e.g., accelerometer data from motion sensing component 109)).
Asmar does not explicitly disclose
a first microprocessor connectable to a power supply within the access-protected enclosure; and
a first transceiver in communication with the first microprocessor; and
a communication circuit in remote communication with the first transceiver; and
the fob security circuit having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and connected to the battery and the second microprocessor, the switch having a conducting CLOSED state in which the battery is connected to the communication circuit to energize the communication circuit when the fob device is in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit, and the default non-conducting OPEN state in which the battery is disconnected from the communication circuit when the fob device is not in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit,
wherein the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state.
However, it has been known in the art of vehicle control to implement a first microprocessor connectable to a power supply within the access-protected enclosure, as suggested by Asakura, which discloses a first microprocessor connectable to a power supply within the access-protected enclosure (Asakura: Abstract, column 5 lines 49-58, and FIG. 1 the power supply 2: A smart entry unit 1 comprises a power supply circuit 2 such as a battery equipped on the vehicle, an input/output circuit 3 connected to LF (low frequency) transmitter circuits 9a to 9c, a bus communication circuit 4 connected by a communication line 32 to an ignition SW unit 10 which will be described later, a memory circuit 5, an MOSFET circuit 6, an input circuit 7, and a CPU 8 connected to above-mentioned circuit components for controlling their actions).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar and Asakura, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar to include a first microprocessor connectable to a power supply within the access-protected enclosure, as suggested by Asakura. The motivation for this is to supply power for a vehicle control system.
The combination of Asmar and Asakura does not explicitly disclose a first transceiver in communication with the first microprocessor; and
a communication circuit in remote communication with the first transceiver.
However, it has been known in the art of vehicle controls to implement a first transceiver in communication with the first microprocessor; and
a communication circuit in remote communication with the first transceiver, as suggested by DeLong, which discloses a first transceiver in communication with the first microprocessor (DeLong: Abstract, [0024]-[0029], [0042], and FIG. 1-2: the automotive computer 108 may include the one or more vehicle processors 110 and the computer-readable memory 112. The automotive computer 108 may be installed in an engine compartment of the vehicle 102 (or elsewhere in the vehicle 102) in accordance with the disclosure. In one or more aspects, the automotive computer 108 may be integrated with and/or be incorporated with the vehicle TCU 114. In other aspects, some or all components of the automotive computer 108 may be shared with the vehicle TCU 114); and
a communication circuit in remote communication with the first transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Asakura, and DeLong it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar and Asakura, to include a first transceiver in communication with the first microprocessor; and
a communication circuit in remote communication with the first transceiver, as suggested by DeLong. The motivation for this is to prevent relay attack based on predetermined ranges of communications between a vehicle and a portable device.
The combination of Asmar, Asakura, and DeLong does not explicitly disclose the fob security circuit having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and connected to the battery and the second microprocessor, the switch having a conducting CLOSED state in which the battery is connected to the communication circuit to energize the communication circuit when the fob device is in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit, and the default non-conducting OPEN state in which the battery is disconnected from the communication circuit when the fob device is not in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit,
wherein the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement the fob security circuit having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and connected to the battery and the second microprocessor, the switch having a conducting CLOSED state in which the battery is connected to the communication circuit to energize the communication circuit when the fob device is in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit, and the default non-conducting OPEN state in which the battery is disconnected from the communication circuit when the fob device is not in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit,
wherein the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state, as suggested by ESSAtech, which discloses
the fob security circuit having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery including: the coin-type fob battery (ESSAtech: [0018]-[0021], [0024]-[0026], and FIG. 1 the battery 2);
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip) and connected to the battery and the second microprocessor, the switch having a conducting CLOSED state in which the battery is connected to the communication circuit to energize the communication circuit when the fob device is in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip), and the default non-conducting OPEN state in which the battery is disconnected from the communication circuit when the fob device is not in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip),
wherein the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Asakura, and DeLong to include the fob security circuit having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery including: the coin-type fob battery;
a switch having a default non-conducting OPEN state and connected to the battery and the second microprocessor, the switch having a conducting CLOSED state in which the battery is connected to the communication circuit to energize the communication circuit when the fob device is in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit, and the default non-conducting OPEN state in which the battery is disconnected from the communication circuit when the fob device is not in motion within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit,
wherein the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state, as suggested by ESSAtech. The motivation for this is to prevent unauthorized intervention of vehicle control operations.
As to claim 9, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 further comprising the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein the access-protected enclosure is a vehicle body of a motor vehicle having a low-voltage battery or a low-voltage bus as the power supply (Asakura: Abstract, column 5 lines 49-58, and FIG. 1 the power supply 2: A smart entry unit 1 comprises a power supply circuit 2 such as a battery equipped on the vehicle, an input/output circuit 3 connected to LF (low frequency) transmitter circuits 9a to 9c, a bus communication circuit 4 connected by a communication line 32 to an ignition SW unit 10 which will be described later, a memory circuit 5, an MOSFET circuit 6, an input circuit 7, and a CPU 8 connected to above-mentioned circuit components for controlling their actions).
As to claim 12, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 further comprising the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein the first transceiver and the second transceiver each include a respective Bluetooth low energy (BLE) transceiver and/or a respective ultra-wide band (UWB) transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver).
As to claim 14, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 further comprising the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein the second microprocessor is configured to determine when the fob device is within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit by calculating a time-of-flight of a communication signal that is communicated between the base unit and the fob device via the first transceiver and the second transceiver (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: upon receipt of the response to the UWB challenge, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may verify and determine the authenticity of the key fob 204. In addition, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may determine the distance between the key fob 204 and the vehicle 202 by using distance-based measurement via time-of-flight (ToF), at step 416. In one aspect, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may activate welcome lights of the vehicle 202 when the key fob 204 is in the third predetermined range 240 and the key fob 204 is authentic).
As to claim 15, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 further comprising the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein motion sensor includes a multi-axis accelerometer (Asmar: [0017], [0020], [0024], and FIG. 1 the motion sensing component 109: Motion sensor component 109 includes any combination of hardware and software configured to determine the relative motion of fob device 102. For example, motion sensor component 109 might be implemented as a multi-axis (e.g., 3-axis) accelerometer, global positioning system (GPS) device, pedometer, gyroscopic sensor, etc.).
As to claim 16, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 further comprising the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein the base unit is configured to connect to a vehicle body of a motor vehicle (Asmar: [0015], [0021], [0031]-[0032], and FIG. 1 the mobile platform 120, Asakura: Abstract, column 5 lines 49-58, and FIG. 1 the power supply 2: A smart entry unit 1 comprises a power supply circuit 2 such as a battery equipped on the vehicle, an input/output circuit 3 connected to LF (low frequency) transmitter circuits 9a to 9c, a bus communication circuit 4 connected by a communication line 32 to an ignition SW unit 10 which will be described later, a memory circuit 5, an MOSFET circuit 6, an input circuit 7, and a CPU 8 connected to above-mentioned circuit components for controlling their actions, and DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Asakura et al. (Asakura – US 6,670,883 B1), DeLong et al. (DeLong – US 2024/0080765 A1), and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Hara et al. (Hara – US 2015/0254916 A1).
As to claim 10, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 except for the claimed limitations of the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery.
However, it has been known in the art of remote controls to implement wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery, as suggested by Hara, which discloses wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery (Hara: Abstract, [0083]-[0089], and FIG. 6-8: The touch pad 26 is formed to have a circular outline so that even if the entry key 2 is rotated, input operations can be made without being conscious of the rotation position. The surface of the touch pad 26 is covered with a touch pad cover 53 which is made of the same synthetic resin as that of the case 5. The touch pad cover 53 and the surface of the surrounding upper case 5a form a continuous surface of spherical crown shape curved upward).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, and Hara it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech, to include wherein the fob security circuit includes a crescent-shaped or arcuate printed circuit board that partially surrounds the battery, as suggested by Hara. The motivation for this is to implement a known alternative input device for a controlled apparatus, e.g. a vehicle.
As to claim 11, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, and Hara disclose the limitations of claim 8 further comprising the keyless entry system of claim 8, further comprising:
a circular circuit enclosure surrounding the battery, the second microprocessor, the second transceiver, and the switch, wherein the circular form factor (ESSAtech: [0018]-[0021], [0024]-[0026], and FIG. 1 the battery 2) of the circular circuit enclosure is configured to fit on or within a battery pad of the fob device (Hara: Abstract, [0083]-[0089], and FIG. 6-8: The touch pad 26 is formed to have a circular outline so that even if the entry key 2 is rotated, input operations can be made without being conscious of the rotation position. The surface of the touch pad 26 is covered with a touch pad cover 53 which is made of the same synthetic resin as that of the case 5. The touch pad cover 53 and the surface of the surrounding upper case 5a form a continuous surface of spherical crown shape curved upward).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Asakura et al. (Asakura – US 6,670,883 B1), DeLong et al. (DeLong – US 2024/0080765 A1), and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Kampel et al. (Kampel – US 2006/0035622 A1) and Person (Person – US 6,400,270 B1).
As to claim 13, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 12 except for the claimed limitations of the keyless entry system of claim 12, wherein the access-protected enclosure is connected to an alphanumeric keypad, and wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal from the alphanumeric keypad; and selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal; and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, as suggested by Kampel, which discloses wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047]-[0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36); and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047], [0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36: when the mode switch 28' is positioned to direct power from the power supply 46 to the transmitter 20', the transmitter power switch 48 can also be closed by a user override 36'….As indicated by the dashed lines 44', the mode switch 28' can be configured to toggle between directing power to the transmitter 20' and to the signal receiver 26' in response to the control logic circuit 30' and/or in response to the user override 36'. When the mode switch 28' is configured to be operated by the control logic circuit 30', the control logic circuit 30' operates the mode switch 28' so as to direct power to the transmitter 20' and closes the transmitter power switch 48 when a no-motion condition is detected when the mode switch 28' is positioned to direct power to the signal receiver 26'. Similarly, when the mode switch 28' is configured to be operated by the user override 36', the user override 36' operates the mode switch 28' to direct power to the transmitter 20', if it is not already positioned to do so).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, and Kampel it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech to include wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal; and
selectively transition the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, as suggested by Kampel. The motivation for this is to manually select an operation mode of a portable device.
The combination of Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, and Kampel does not explicitly disclose an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad.
However, it has been known in the art of portable device to implement an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad, as suggested by Person, which discloses an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad (Person: Abstract, column 16 lines 35-46, and FIG. 1 the wallet protection system 10: The user will either put the card back in the appropriate card holder slot to close the device, or the user will key in an override code using the external alphanumeric keypad to close the device ).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, Kampel and Person it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, and Kampel to include an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad, as suggested by Person. The motivation for this is to implement a known alternative input device for generating an override signal.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of Asakura et al. (Asakura – US 6,670,883 B1), DeLong et al. (DeLong – US 2024/0080765 A1), and ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Donadini et al. (Donadini – US 2023/0137301 A1).
As to claim 17, Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 8 except for the claimed limitations of the keyless entry system of claim 8, wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive a user preference signal from a mobile device, the user preference signal being indicative of one or more user preferences; and
selectively control operation of the switch in response to the user preference signal.
However, it has been known in the art of remote controller to implement wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive a user preference signal from a mobile device, the user preference signal being indicative of one or more user preferences; and
selectively control operation of the switch in response to the user preference signal, as suggested by Donadini, which discloses
wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive a user preference signal from a mobile device (Donadini: [0048], [0053]-[0057], [0060]-[0072], and FIG. 1: the processing and/or control unit 10 is configured so that—upon receipt of at least one command signal 15 from the outside—it performs an erase operation (at least partial) and/or a modification of the configuration and/or of the connections and/or of the data present and/or used by said at least one processing and/or control unit 10 and/or by said at least one memory 11 and/or from said at least one transmitting and/or transceiver unit 13 and/or from said receiver/transceiver 14), the user preference signal being indicative of one or more user preferences (Donadini: Abstract, [0048], [0053]-[0057], [0060]-[0072], [0182]-[0183], [0193]-[0194], and FIG. 1: the software module of the mobile device 20 is configured to associate a time interval (duration) for its validity (for example a few hours or days or weeks) to an external command signal 15 for enabling a certain key 3 so that once this interval has elapsed, the software module of the mobile device 20 automatically sends to the key 3 an external disabling command 15 to thus pass said key from the enabled state to the disabled state, thus preventing the user from continuing to use the motor vehicle 2); and
selectively control operation of the switch in response to the user preference signal (Donadini: Abstract, [0048], [0053]-[0057], [0060]-[0072], [0182]-[0183], [0193]-[0194], and FIG. 1).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, ESSAtech, and Donadini it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, Asakura, DeLong, and ESSAtech, to include wherein the second microprocessor is configured to:
receive a user preference signal from a mobile device, the user preference signal being indicative of one or more user preferences; and
selectively control operation of the switch in response to the user preference signal, as suggested by Donadini. The motivation for this is to program a portable device to selectively control operations of a vehicle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1).
As to claim 18, Asmar discloses a method for enabling operation of a fob device, comprising:
determining, via a microprocessor and at least one sensor (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0020], and FIG. 1 the motion sensor component 109) of a fob security circuit of the fob device (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the housing 103), whether activation criteria have been satisfied, the fob device battery (Asmar: Abstract, [0017]-[0018], and FIG. 1 the power supply 106) and including a communication circuit, wherein the activation criteria include (i) motion of the fob device relative to a base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: an action is taken based on both motion information (associated with the movement of the key fob device) as well as position information (associated with the relative position of the key fob device relative to the mobile platform). This action might include, for example, preventing entry to the mobile platform, preventing the activation of the mobile platform, producing an alarm signal, and disabling the receipt of requests for entry or requests for activation of the mobile platform), and (ii) the fob device being within a predetermined maximum distance of the base unit (Asmar: Abstract, [0011], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0032], FIG. 1 the processor 110, and FIG. 3-4: In general, system 100 includes a mobile platform 120 including a body control module (BCM) or other processing system 121, a plurality of mobile platform transmitter components 123-128 (e.g., low frequency antennas operating at about 125 KHz and having a range of about 2-5 meters) and a mobile platform receiver component 122 (e.g., an RF receiver operating at about 315-433 MHz and having a range of about 40-150 meters)…Referring briefly to the conceptual block diagram of FIG. 3, operation of the system may be illustrated as a determination module 300 (including any suitable combination of hardware and software) that takes as its input position information 302 (e.g., range information derived from the signals received from the various low frequency transmitter components 123-128 incorporated into the mobile platform) as well as motion information 301 (e.g., accelerometer data from motion sensing component 109)), except for the claimed limitations of the fob device having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery; when the activation criteria have been satisfied, commanding a switch of the fob security circuit to transition from a default non-conducting OPEN state to a conducting CLOSED state, via the microprocessor, to thereby connect a coin-type fob battery of the fob security circuit to the communication circuit, thereby selectively and temporarily enabling operation of the fob device, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement the fob device having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery; when the activation criteria have been satisfied, commanding a switch of the fob security circuit to transition from a default non-conducting OPEN state to a conducting CLOSED state, via the microprocessor, to thereby connect a coin-type fob battery of the fob security circuit to the communication circuit, thereby selectively and temporarily enabling operation of the fob device, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state, as suggested by ESSAtech, which discloses
the fob device having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery ESSAtech: [0018]-[0021], [0024]-[0026], and FIG. 1 the battery 2); when the activation criteria have been satisfied, commanding a switch of the fob security circuit to transition from a default non-conducting OPEN state to a conducting CLOSED state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip), via the microprocessor, to thereby connect a coin-type fob battery of the fob security circuit to the communication circuit, thereby selectively and temporarily enabling operation of the fob device (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip), such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state (ESSAtech: Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0024], and FIG. 1: According to the programmed motion detection algorithm, the chip disconnects the electronics of the key from the power source battery. In the mode in which the electronics of the key are disconnected from the battery, no authorization is possible with the key. It can therefore also not be used for theft of the vehicle with the aid of the extender. In the usual mode of use, such as coming to the car, unlocking, starting the motor, the key is in motion and the electronics are connected to the battery through the chip).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar and ESSAtech it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar to include the fob device having a circular form factor matching a coin-type fob battery; when the activation criteria have been satisfied, commanding a switch of the fob security circuit to transition from a default non-conducting OPEN state to a conducting CLOSED state, via the microprocessor, to thereby connect a coin-type fob battery of the fob security circuit to the communication circuit, thereby selectively and temporarily enabling operation of the fob device, such that the communication circuit is not energized unless and until the switch is in the conducting CLOSED state, as suggested by ESSAtech. The motivation for this is to prevent unauthorized intervention of vehicle control operations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of DeLong et al. (DeLong – US 2024/0080765 A1).
As to claim 19, Asmar and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 18 except for the claimed limitations of the method of claim 18, further comprising:
transmitting a communication signal between the fob device and the base unit;
calculating a time-of-flight of the communication signal via the microprocessor of the fob device and/or a microprocessor of the base unit;
determining a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit using the time-of-flight; and
comparing the linear distance to the predetermined maximum distance to determine if the fob device is within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit.
However, it has been known in the art of vehicle controls to implement transmitting a communication signal between the fob device and the base unit;
calculating a time-of-flight of the communication signal via the microprocessor of the fob device and/or a microprocessor of the base unit;
determining a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit using the time-of-flight; and
comparing the linear distance to the predetermined maximum distance to determine if the fob device is within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit, as suggested by DeLong, which discloses
transmitting a communication signal between the fob device and the base unit (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver);
calculating a time-of-flight of the communication signal via the microprocessor of the fob device and/or a microprocessor of the base unit (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: upon receipt of the response to the UWB challenge, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may verify and determine the authenticity of the key fob 204. In addition, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may determine the distance between the key fob 204 and the vehicle 202 by using distance-based measurement via time-of-flight (ToF), at step 416. In one aspect, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may activate welcome lights of the vehicle 202 when the key fob 204 is in the third predetermined range 240 and the key fob 204 is authentic);
determining a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit using the time-of-flight (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: upon receipt of the response to the UWB challenge, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may verify and determine the authenticity of the key fob 204. In addition, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may determine the distance between the key fob 204 and the vehicle 202 by using distance-based measurement via time-of-flight (ToF), at step 416. In one aspect, the one or more vehicle processors 110 may activate welcome lights of the vehicle 202 when the key fob 204 is in the third predetermined range 240 and the key fob 204 is authentic); and
comparing the linear distance to the predetermined maximum distance to determine if the fob device is within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit (DeLong: Abstract,[0015]-[0019], [0027], [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0044], [0060]-[0066], and FIG. 2-7: a Passive Entry Passive Start (PEPS) method is described. The method includes obtaining, via a BLE receiver of a key fob, a first BLE wakeup signal from a vehicle. In response to obtaining the first wakeup signal, the method includes activating a BLE transceiver of the key fob. Upon activation of the BLE transceiver, the method includes activating a UWB transceiver of the key fob via the BLE transceiver. When the UWB transceiver is activated, the method includes receiving a challenge signal from the vehicle via the UWB transceiver. Upon receiving the challenge signal, the method includes transmitting a response to the challenge signal via the UWB transceiver. Based on the response to the challenge signal, the method includes receiving a success signal from the vehicle. Upon receiving the success signal, the method includes deactivating BLE transceiver and the UWB transceiver).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, ESSAtech, and DeLong it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar and ESSAtech, to include transmitting a communication signal between the fob device and the base unit;
calculating a time-of-flight of the communication signal via the microprocessor of the fob device and/or a microprocessor of the base unit;
determining a linear distance between the fob device and the base unit using the time-of-flight; and
comparing the linear distance to the predetermined maximum distance to determine if the fob device is within the predetermined maximum distance of the base unit, as suggested by DeLong. The motivation for this is to prevent relay attack based on a predetermined range of communications between a vehicle and a portable device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asmar et al. (Asmar – US 2017/0352211 A1) in view of ESSAtech (ESSAtech – DE 20 2019 101 926 U1) and further in view of Kampel et al. (Kampel – US 2006/0035622 A1) and Person (Person – US 6,400,270 B1).
As to claim 20, Asmar and ESSAtech disclose the limitations of claim 18 except for the claimed limitations of the method of claim 18, further comprising:
receiving an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad via the microprocessor of the fob device; and
selectively transitioning the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, wherein the activation criteria include receipt of the override signal.
However, it has been known in the art of remote control to implement receiving an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad via the microprocessor of the fob device; and
selectively transitioning the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, wherein the activation criteria include receipt of the override signal, as suggested by Kampel, which discloses
receiving an override signal via the microprocessor of the fob device (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047]-[0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36); and
selectively transitioning the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, wherein the activation criteria include receipt of the override signal
wherein the microprocessor is configured to:
receive an override signal (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047]-[0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36); and
selectively transitioning the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, wherein the activation criteria include receipt of the override signal (Kampel: Abstract, [0044], [0047], [0049], [0051]-[0052], and FIG. 1-2 the user override 36: when the mode switch 28' is positioned to direct power from the power supply 46 to the transmitter 20', the transmitter power switch 48 can also be closed by a user override 36'….As indicated by the dashed lines 44', the mode switch 28' can be configured to toggle between directing power to the transmitter 20' and to the signal receiver 26' in response to the control logic circuit 30' and/or in response to the user override 36'. When the mode switch 28' is configured to be operated by the control logic circuit 30', the control logic circuit 30' operates the mode switch 28' so as to direct power to the transmitter 20' and closes the transmitter power switch 48 when a no-motion condition is detected when the mode switch 28' is positioned to direct power to the signal receiver 26'. Similarly, when the mode switch 28' is configured to be operated by the user override 36', the user override 36' operates the mode switch 28' to direct power to the transmitter 20', if it is not already positioned to do so).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, ESSAtech, and Kampel it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar and ESSAtech to include receiving an override signal via the microprocessor of the fob device; and
selectively transitioning the switch to the CLOSED state in response to the override signal, wherein the activation criteria include receipt of the override signal, as suggested by Kampel. The motivation for this is to manually select an operation mode of a portable device.
The combination of Asmar, ESSAtech, and Kampel does not explicitly disclose an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad.
However, it has been known in the art of portable device to implement an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad, as suggested by Person, which discloses an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad (Person: Abstract, column 16 lines 35-46, and FIG. 1 the wallet protection system 10: The user will either put the card back in the appropriate card holder slot to close the device, or the user will key in an override code using the external alphanumeric keypad to close the device ).
Therefore, in view of teachings by Asmar, ESSAtech, Kampel, and Person it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in the remote control system of Asmar, ESSAtech, and Kampel to include an override signal from an alphanumeric keypad, as suggested by Person. The motivation for this is to implement a known alternative input device for generating an override signal.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Hasegawa et al., US 2021/0179023 A1, discloses vehicle control apparatus, vehicle control method, recording medium with program for control recorded, and vehicle control system.
Yamaguchi, US 2020/0198579 A1, discloses electronic key apparatus, control method, and program.
Oesterling et al., US 10,319,167 B1, discloses systems and methods for peer-to-peer vehicle sharing.
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 extension fee 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 QUANG PHAM whose telephone number is (571)-270-3668. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM - 05:00 PM.
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.
/QUANG PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights