DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follmer (US 2008/0258890 A1) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2021/0237690 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Follmer vehicle (e.g. Figs. 1-2) comprising:
an on-board navigation device (e.g. Fig. 1: 207) configured to obtain a location of the vehicle (e.g. [0042]); and
an on-board immobilizer device (e.g. Fig. 6: 602 & [0114]),
wherein the on-board immobilizer device is configured to activate a function of a remote immobilizer through a remote operation (e.g. [0115]: vehicle monitor 602 receives deactivation command from server 607 to remotely disable the vehicle) when the location of the vehicle obtained from the on-board navigation device is outside a predetermined geographical region (e.g. [0118]: one condition triggers shutoff of the vehicle includes: outside an approved area),
the function of the remote immobilizer prohibiting operation of a drive system of the vehicle (e.g. [0115]: remotely disable a vehicle by sending command from server 607 to vehicle monitor 602), and
the on-board immobilizer device is configured to prohibit operation of the drive system of the vehicle while the function of the remote immobilizer is active (e.g. [0115]: upon receiving deactivation command from server 607, i.e. remote immobilizer is active, vehicle monitor 602 disable vehicle by turning off engine, preventing engine from starting, preventing vehicle’s transmission from engaging).
Follmer fails to disclose, but Sakurada teaches the on-board immobilizer device is configured to prohibit operation of the drive system of the vehicle while the function of the remote immobilizer is active, even when an attempt is made to activate the drive system of the vehicle with an immobilizer key and identification information registered to be immobilizer key conforms to identification information registered to the vehicle (e.g. [0022, 0026-0028]: additional immobilizer deactivation request is needed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Follmer with the teachings of Sakurada to send/request immobilizer deactivation request to deactivate an activated immobilizer so as to confirm the immobilizer setting with the authorized user at any time (e.g. [0046]), and it would prevent stealing of the vehicle due to rely attack (e.g. [0022-0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Follmer discloses a server (e.g. Fig. 6: 607) comprising:
processing circuitry (e.g. [0085-0086]) configured to obtain a location of a vehicle from the vehicle (e.g. [0084-0086]: monitoring system 602 collect vehicle data including location information and send the vehicle data to server 607), and remotely operate an on-board immobilizer device (e.g. Fig. 6: 602 & [0114]) mounted on the vehicle to activate a function of a remote immobilizer (e.g. [0115]: vehicle monitor 602 receives deactivation command from server 607 to remotely disable the vehicle) when the location of the vehicle that is obtained is outside a predetermined geographical region (e.g. [0118]: one condition triggers shutoff of the vehicle includes: outside an approved area), wherein the on-board immobilizer device is configured to prohibit operation of a drive system of the vehicle while the function of the remote immobilizer is active (e.g. [0115]: upon receiving deactivation command from server 607, i.e. remote immobilizer is active, vehicle monitor 602 disable vehicle by turning off engine, preventing engine from starting, preventing vehicle’s transmission from engaging).
Follmer fails to disclose, but Sakurada teaches the on-board immobilizer device is configured to prohibit operation of the drive system of the vehicle while the function of the remote immobilizer is active, even when an attempt is made to activate the drive system of the vehicle with an immobilizer key and identification information registered to be immobilizer key conforms to identification information registered to the vehicle (e.g. [0022, 0026-0028]: additional immobilizer deactivation request is needed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Follmer with the teachings of Sakurada to send/request immobilizer deactivation request to deactivate an activated immobilizer so as to confirm the immobilizer setting with the authorized user at any time (e.g. [0046]), and it would prevent stealing of the vehicle due to rely attack (e.g. [0022-0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Follmer discloses a vehicle control system (e.g. Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6: 601); and
a server (e.g. Fig. 6: 607),
wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain a location of the vehicle (e.g. [0084]), and request that the server transmit an instruction to the vehicle for activating a function of a remote immobilizer through a remote operation when the location of the vehicle that is obtained is outside a predetermined geographical region (e.g. [0113, 0114, 0118 0119, 0120]: vehicle monitor 602 send message to server 607 to request to disable a vehicle upon unauthorized operation detected, such as vehicle outside approved area), the function of the remote immobilizer prohibiting operation of a drive system of the vehicle (e.g. [0115]: remotely disable a vehicle by sending command from server 607 to vehicle monitor 602), when receiving the request, the server is configured to transmit the instruction for activating the function of the remote immobilizer to the vehicle so that an on-board immobilizer device mounted on the vehicle is remotely operated to activate the function of the remote immobilizer (e.g. [0115]: remotely disable a vehicle by sending command from server 607 to vehicle monitor 602), and the on-board immobilizer device is configured to prohibit operation of the drive system of the vehicle while the function of the remote immobilizer is active (e.g. [0115]: upon receiving deactivation command from server 607, i.e. remote immobilizer is active, vehicle monitor 602 disable vehicle by turning off engine, preventing engine from starting, preventing vehicle’s transmission from engaging).
Follmer fails to disclose, but Sakurada teaches the on-board immobilizer device is configured to prohibit operation of the drive system of the vehicle while the function of the remote immobilizer is active, even when an attempt is made to activate the drive system of the vehicle with an immobilizer key and identification information registered to be immobilizer key conforms to identification information registered to the vehicle (e.g. [0022, 0026-0028]: additional immobilizer deactivation request is needed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Follmer with the teachings of Sakurada to send/request immobilizer deactivation request to deactivate an activated immobilizer so as to confirm the immobilizer setting with the authorized user at any time (e.g. [0046]), and it would prevent stealing of the vehicle due to rely attack (e.g. [0022-0026]).
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 18, Follmer discloses an on-board communication device configured to communicate with a device arranged outside the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0044-0046]: wireless communication between vehicle controller MCM 202 and server/base station 104), wherein when the on-board immobilizer device activates the remote immobilizer, the on-board communication device is configured to notify a terminal of an authentic user of the vehicle that the remote immobilizer is activated (e.g. [0116, 0119]: warning or alert message maybe send to driver, owner of vehicle, or fleet manager before disabling the vehicle).
Regarding claims 3, 14 and 19, Follmer discloses when the location of the vehicle obtained during a predetermined time is outside the predetermined geographical region, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to activate the remote immobilizer, and during a time other than the predetermined time, even when the location of the vehicle is outside the predetermined geographical region, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to not activate the remote immobilizer (e.g. [0118]: one condition for disabling the vehicle: “off of an approved route, at an unauthorized time of day, for an excessive period of time, or not in accordance with an approved schedule” implies vehicle is disabled when vehicle is outside a pre-approved region during a predetermined time of a day ONLY).
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 20, Follmer discloses when the location of the vehicle obtained on a predetermined day of week is outside the predetermined geographical region, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to activate the remote immobilizer, and on a day other than the predetermined day of week, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to not activate the remote immobilizer even when the location of the vehicle is outside the predetermined geographical region (e.g. [0118]: one condition for disabling the vehicle: “off of an approved route, at an unauthorized time of day, for an excessive period of time, or not in accordance with an approved schedule” implies vehicle is disabled when vehicle is outside a pre-approved region during a predetermined time of a day or pre-approved schedule; “schedule” is broadly interpreted as a time of a day of week ONLY).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Follmer discloses wherein when the location of the vehicle obtained during a predetermined time on a predetermined day of week is outside the predetermined geographical region, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to activate the remote immobilizer, and during a time other than the predetermined time on the predetermined day of week, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to not activate the remote immobilizer even when the location of the vehicle is outside the predetermined geographical region (e.g. [0118]: one condition for disabling the vehicle: “off of an approved route, at an unauthorized time of day, for an excessive period of time, or not in accordance with an approved schedule” implies vehicle is disabled when vehicle is outside a pre-approved region during a predetermined time of a day or pre-approved schedule ONLY; “schedule” is broadly interpreted as a time of a day of week).
Regarding claim 7, Follmer discloses the predetermined geographical region includes multiple geographical regions (e.g. [0118]: outside an approved area, off of an approved route) and the vehicle is moved outside of one of the geographical regions, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to activate the remote immobilizer (e.g. [0117, 0118]).
Regarding claim 8, Follmer discloses the on-board immobilizer device is configured to activate the remote immobilizer when failing to obtain the location of the vehicle from the on-board navigation device (e.g. [0118]: failure to respond or improper response to a query from server).
Regarding claim 10, Follmer discloses an on-board communication device configured to communicate with a device arranged outside the vehicle, wherein the on-board communication device is configured to transmit an activation state of the remote immobilizer to a terminal of an authentic user of the vehicle in response to a request from the terminal (e.g. [0059]: fleet managers can request vehicle data including operation state of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Follmer discloses an on-board communication device (e.g. Fig. 6: 602) configured to communicate with a device (e.g. Fig. 6: 607) arranged outside the vehicle, wherein the on-board communication device is configured to deactivate the remote immobilizer when receiving a request for deactivation of the remote immobilizer from a terminal of an authentic user of the vehicle while the remote immobilizer is active (e.g. [0121]: server may reset the disable command so that vehicle can operate again).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follmer (US 2008/0258890 A1) in view of in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2021/0237690 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 11,037,248 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Follmer fails, but Davis teaches the predetermined geographical region (i.e. routine travel) is set through machine learning based on a travel history of the vehicle (col 26 lines 25-48).
Follmer discloses the predetermined geographical region could be outside of approved area or off of an approved route (broadly interpreted as routine travel), and Davis teaches it is known to use machine learning to keep track of historical data to determine a routine route.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Follmer with the teachings of Davis to set a routine travel route as geo-fencing perimeter so as to be to track whether vehicle deviate from routine behavior to identify potential stolen and/or usage without permission of the vehicle (e.g. Follmer: [0114]). The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely utilizing a well-known method (i.e. define routine travel route by machine learning) in a well-known invention ready for improvement (i.e. disclose how one skilled in the art would define an approved route in the invention of Follmer).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follmer (US 2008/0258890 A1) in view of in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2021/0237690 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maiwand (US 2018/0009416 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Follmer fails to disclose, but Maiwand teaches when an attempt is made to activate the drive system of the vehicle while the remote immobilizer is active, the on-board immobilizer device is configured to show a prompt on an indicator, the prompt requesting an input for authentication, and the on-board immobilizer device is configured to deactivate the remote immobilizer when predetermined identification information corresponding to the prompt is input (e.g. [0075, 0081]: request password from user).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teachings of Follmer with the teachings of Maiwand to enhance security by requesting password from user during authentication besides possessing a key fob of a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
