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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on July 6, 2026. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated July 6, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections, and maintains the prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, U.S. Pub. No. 20230329138 (hereinafter, "Ueno"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20160344747 (hereinafter, "Link"; previously of record), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220324329 (hereinafter, "Hanson"; newly of record) are directed to vehicles and remote control arrangements using mobile devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20230329138 (hereinafter, "Ueno"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20160344747 (hereinafter, "Link"; previously of record), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220324329 (hereinafter, "Hanson"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno discloses a control system configured for guiding an agricultural machine, the control system comprising:
a control console (Fig. 3, #13) within a cab of the agricultural machine (Fig. 1, #2), the control console including:
a display (Fig. 3, #14);
one or more input elements (Fig. 3, #28); and
a wireless communications interface (Fig. 3, #41); and
a wireless device configured to be carried or worn by a user of the agricultural machine (Fig. 3, #5),
However, Ueno does not explicitly teach
wherein the wireless communications interface is configured to detect the wireless device within a predetermined distance of the agricultural machine while the user is outside the cab, and
wherein the wireless communications interface is configured to automatically initiate a startup sequence of the control console upon detecting the wireless device within the predetermined distance.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless communications interface is configured to detect the wireless device within a predetermined distance of the agricultural machine… (“vehicle processing device 1506 determines that receiver 1504 received first security signal 1520 and second security signal 1522 from within a predetermined range” (para 0098)), and
wherein the wireless communications interface is configured to automatically initiate a startup sequence of the control console upon detecting the wireless device within the predetermined distance (“if vehicle processing device 1506 determines that receiver 1504 received first security signal 1520 and second security signal 1522 from within a predetermined range, and that the security signals were received with a predetermined period following one, or more, authentication trigger events, then unit 1506 will typically determine that a request to perform a requested task or activity should be granted; such tasks, or activities, including, for example, … Performing a vehicle operation such as steering, braking, acceleration, unlocking a door, locking a door, operating the vehicle's HVAC system, raising or lowering a window” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to eliminate the human, manual intervention and uncertainty associated with the identity of the subscriber and to authenticate the ownership before allowing vehicle pairing and remote access; see Link at least at [0021].
Hanson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
… while the user is outside the cab (“because the localization algorithm may detect the device (i.e., mobile phone or fob) as out of the vehicle if the driver has the mobile device or fob in a location such as a jacket or a shirt pocket or outside pocket during instances where the driver is standing or leaning out of the vehicle” (0040)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Hanson in order to automatically perform a key search; see Hanson at least at [0040].
Regarding claim 2, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 1. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device includes a radio frequency (RF) communication device.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device includes a radio frequency (RF) communication device (“the mere presence of the first and second two-way fobs in or within a radio frequency (“RF”) ‘bubble’ (i.e., a predetermined range) around the car in which transponders of the vehicle may communication with, and recognize, the keys” (para 0069)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide first and second two-way fobs in or within a radio frequency (“RF”) ‘bubble’ (i.e., a predetermined range); see Link at least at [0069].
Regarding claim 3, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 2. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device includes a radio frequency identification (RFID) device.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device includes a radio frequency identification (RFID) device (“This solution uses a form of RFID where a simple passive key without any power source or buttons, but mechanically cut correctly, first turns the lock and then the RFID portion responds to a request from the ECU query with a preprogrammed digital response code to allow the car to start” (para 0047)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide a solution uses a form of RFID where a simple passive key without any power source or buttons; see Link at least at [0047].
Regarding claim 4, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 1. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device includes a Bluetooth device.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device includes a Bluetooth device (“The fobs transmitting a signal that could be received by a smart phone or tablet, perhaps Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy, directly to the smart phone or tablet, may satisfy the possession of the two different security devices requirement—the possession of both fobs, or other type of security device, is a very strong indicator of ownership of the vehicle by the requestor of telematics services” (para 0075)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to transmit a signal that could be received by a smart phone or tablet, perhaps Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy, directly to the smart phone or tablet; see Link at least at [0075].
Regarding claim 5, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 4. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device includes a Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) device.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device includes a Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) device (“The fobs transmitting a signal that could be received by a smart phone or tablet, perhaps Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy, directly to the smart phone or tablet, may satisfy the possession of the two different security devices requirement—the possession of both fobs, or other type of security device, is a very strong indicator of ownership of the vehicle by the requestor of telematics services” (para 0075)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to transmit a signal that could be received by a smart phone or tablet, perhaps Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy, directly to the smart phone or tablet; see Link at least at [0075].
Regarding claim 15, Ueno discloses a method of operating a control console for guiding an agricultural machine, the method comprising:
the wireless device configured to be carried or worn by the user of the agricultural machine (Fig. 3, #5); and
the control console (Fig. 3, #13) including a display (Fig. 3, #14) and one or more input elements (Fig. 3, #28).
However, Ueno does not explicitly teach
detecting a wireless device within a predetermined distance of the agricultural machine, while a user is outside a cab of the agricultural machine, using a wireless communications interface of the control console,
automatically, initiating a startup sequence of the control console upon detecting the wireless device within the predetermined distance,
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
detecting a wireless device within a predetermined distance of the agricultural machine … using a wireless communications interface of the control console (“vehicle processing device 1506 determines that receiver 1504 received first security signal 1520 and second security signal 1522 from within a predetermined range” (para 0098)),
automatically, initiating a startup sequence of the control console upon detecting the wireless device within the predetermined distance (“if vehicle processing device 1506 determines that receiver 1504 received first security signal 1520 and second security signal 1522 from within a predetermined range, and that the security signals were received with a predetermined period following one, or more, authentication trigger events, then unit 1506 will typically determine that a request to perform a requested task or activity should be granted; such tasks, or activities, including, for example, … Performing a vehicle operation such as steering, braking, acceleration, unlocking a door, locking a door, operating the vehicle's HVAC system, raising or lowering a window” (para 0098)),
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to eliminate the human, manual intervention and uncertainty associated with the identity of the subscriber and to authenticate the ownership before allowing vehicle pairing and remote access; see Link at least at [0021].
Hanson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
… while the user is outside the cab… (“because the localization algorithm may detect the device (i.e., mobile phone or fob) as out of the vehicle if the driver has the mobile device or fob in a location such as a jacket or a shirt pocket or outside pocket during instances where the driver is standing or leaning out of the vehicle” (0040)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Hanson in order to automatically perform a key search; see Hanson at least at [0040].
Regarding claim 20, Ueno discloses the method of claim 15. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device includes a badge or a key fob.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device includes a badge or a key fob (“In addition to the transponder technology contained within the key-like fob, some fobs contain buttons for lock or unlock and trunk access as well as other functions much like the one-way fobs” (para 0050)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide a proximity system where the transmitter is triggered when the key-like fob is within a certain predetermined range of the vehicle; see Link at least at [0050].
Claims 6, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20230329138 (hereinafter, "Ueno"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20160344747 (hereinafter, "Link"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220324329 (hereinafter, "Hanson"; newly of record) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200406860 (hereinafter, "Mai"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 6, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 1. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communications interface is configured to send out a signal during a low power mode of the control console, the signal configured to be detected and responded to by the wireless device.
Mai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless communications interface is configured to send out a signal during a low power mode of the control console, the signal configured to be detected and responded to by the wireless device (“pausing the monitoring task when a low-activity condition is determined in the monitoring task; entering a low-power mode; awakening from the low-power mode triggered by a signal; performing the monitoring task; pausing the monitoring task again when the low-activity condition is determined again in the monitoring task; and entering the low-power mode again” (para 0259)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Mai in order to provide a method for the vehicle wireless monitoring system of clause B23, comprising: starting, stopping or pausing a sub-task of the monitoring task; see Mai at least at [0259].
Regarding claim 14, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 1. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the control console is configured to enter a low power mode if the user is not detected within the cab of agricultural machine within a predetermined time period after the detecting of the wireless device.
Mai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the control console is configured to enter a low power mode if the user is not detected within the cab of agricultural machine within a predetermined time period after the detecting of the wireless device (“a lack of motion inside the vehicle for a period of time, a presence of motion inside the vehicle for a period of time, and another condition; pausing the monitoring task when a low-activity condition is determined in the monitoring task; entering a low-power mode” (para 0259)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Mai in order to provide a method for the vehicle wireless monitoring system of clause B23, comprising: starting, stopping or pausing a sub-task of the monitoring task; see Mai at least at [0259].
Regarding claim 16, Ueno discloses the method of claim 15. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach further comprising:
entering a low power mode of the control console if the user is not detected within the cab of the agricultural machine within a predetermined time period after the detecting of the wireless device.
Mai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising:
entering a low power mode of the control console if the user is not detected within a cab of agricultural machine within a predetermined time period after the detecting of the wireless device (“a lack of motion inside the vehicle for a period of time, a presence of motion inside the vehicle for a period of time, and another condition; pausing the monitoring task when a low-activity condition is determined in the monitoring task; entering a low-power mode” (para 0259)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Mai in order to provide a method for the vehicle wireless monitoring system of clause B23, comprising: starting, stopping or pausing a sub-task of the monitoring task; see Mai at least at [0259].
Regarding claim 17, Ueno discloses the method of claim 15. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach further comprising:
sending a signal from the wireless communications interface during a low power mode of the control console, the signal configured to be detected and responded to by the wireless device.
Mai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
sending a signal from the wireless communications interface during a low power mode of the control console, the signal configured to be detected and responded to by the wireless device (“pausing the monitoring task when a low-activity condition is determined in the monitoring task; entering a low-power mode; awakening from the low-power mode triggered by a signal; performing the monitoring task; pausing the monitoring task again when the low-activity condition is determined again in the monitoring task; and entering the low-power mode again” (para 0259)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Mai in order to provide a method for the vehicle wireless monitoring system of clause B23, comprising: starting, stopping or pausing a sub-task of the monitoring task; see Mai at least at [0259].
Claims 7-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20230329138 (hereinafter, "Ueno"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20160344747 (hereinafter, "Link"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220324329 (hereinafter, "Hanson"; newly of record) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230106867 (hereinafter, "Chan"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 7, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 1. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device is configured to store a profile of a user, and wherein the profile is provided to the wireless communications interface.
Chan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device is configured to store a profile of a user (“In some embodiments, one or more user devices may be configured to locally store information related to one or more user accounts or user profiles (e.g., in connection with a mobile application)” (para 0054)), and wherein the profile is provided to the wireless communications interface (“User device 102 and/or 104 may be operable by a user to perform various functions in connection with vehicle 106 (e.g., remote start, unlocking and locking doors or hatches, pairing to a media system of vehicle 106, starting or turning of vehicle 106, signaling a panic condition, etc.) over wireless or wired communication paths. In some embodiments, user preferences may be managed locally in-vehicle and viewable remotely (e.g., via mobile and web). In some embodiments, a particular user profile and/or user account may store indications of any number of preferred vehicle attributes or user settings or preferences” (para 0036)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Chan in order to manage user preferences locally in-vehicle; see Chan at least at [0036].
Regarding claim 8, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 7. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the profile includes startup instructions to the control console during the startup sequence.
Chan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the profile includes startup instructions to the control console during the startup sequence (“User device 102 and/or 104 may be operable by a user to perform various functions in connection with vehicle 106 (e.g., remote start, unlocking and locking doors or hatches, pairing to a media system of vehicle 106, starting or turning of vehicle 106” (para 0036)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Chan in order to perform various functions in connection with a vehicle; see Chan at least at [0036].
Regarding claim 9, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 8. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the startup sequence includes turning on a door light of the agricultural machine.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the startup sequence includes turning on a door light of the agricultural machine (“unit 1506 will typically determine that a request to perform a requested task or activity should be granted; such tasks, or activities, including, for example, activating a telematics subscription, or pairing/associating a separate user device with the vehicle for purposes of accessing, controlling, or making a payment in connection with, the vehicle. In addition to automatically activating a telematics subscription, examples of sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control include: Performing a vehicle operation such as steering, braking, acceleration, unlocking a door, locking a door, operating the vehicle's HVAC system, raising or lowering a window, retrieving stored performance data or diagnostic trouble code information, or making a payment with a payment device associated with the vehicle, etc.” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control; see Link at least at [0098].
Regarding claim 10, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 8. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the startup sequence includes turning on a cab light of the agricultural machine.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the startup sequence includes turning on a cab light of the agricultural machine (“unit 1506 will typically determine that a request to perform a requested task or activity should be granted; such tasks, or activities, including, for example, activating a telematics subscription, or pairing/associating a separate user device with the vehicle for purposes of accessing, controlling, or making a payment in connection with, the vehicle. In addition to automatically activating a telematics subscription, examples of sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control include: Performing a vehicle operation such as steering, braking, acceleration, unlocking a door, locking a door, operating the vehicle's HVAC system, raising or lowering a window, retrieving stored performance data or diagnostic trouble code information, or making a payment with a payment device associated with the vehicle, etc.” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control; see Link at least at [0098].
Regarding claim 11, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 8. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the startup sequence includes adjusting a seating position in the agricultural machine.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the startup sequence includes turning on a cab light of the agricultural machine (“unit 1506 will typically determine that a request to perform a requested task or activity should be granted; such tasks, or activities, including, for example, activating a telematics subscription, or pairing/associating a separate user device with the vehicle for purposes of accessing, controlling, or making a payment in connection with, the vehicle. In addition to automatically activating a telematics subscription, examples of sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control include: Performing a vehicle operation such as steering, braking, acceleration, unlocking a door, locking a door, operating the vehicle's HVAC system, raising or lowering a window, retrieving stored performance data or diagnostic trouble code information, or making a payment with a payment device associated with the vehicle, etc.” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control; see Link at least at [0098].
Regarding claim 12, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 8. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the startup sequence includes programming the control console to a desired language.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the startup sequence includes programming the control console to a desired language (“unit 1506 will typically determine that a request to perform a requested task or activity should be granted; such tasks, or activities, including, for example, activating a telematics subscription, or pairing/associating a separate user device with the vehicle for purposes of accessing, controlling, or making a payment in connection with, the vehicle. In addition to automatically activating a telematics subscription, examples of sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control include: Performing a vehicle operation such as steering, braking, acceleration, unlocking a door, locking a door, operating the vehicle's HVAC system, raising or lowering a window, retrieving stored performance data or diagnostic trouble code information, or making a payment with a payment device associated with the vehicle, etc.” (para 0098)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to provide sensitive actions that an owner of might want to make sure only he can access or control; see Link at least at [0098].
Regarding claim 13, Ueno discloses the control system of claim 8. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the startup sequence includes starting an engine of the agricultural machine.
Link, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the startup sequence includes starting an engine of the agricultural machine (“When a passive transponder car key (i.e., a security device) is turned in the ignition lock, the engine control unit (“ECU”) on the car sends an electronic query to the key; the ECU will allow the car to start only if it receives the correct response message from the key” (para 0047)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Link in order to allow the car to start only if it receives the correct response message from the key; see Link at least at [0047].
Regarding claim 18, Ueno discloses the method of claim 15. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device is configured to store a profile of a user, and wherein the profile is provided to the wireless communications interface.
Chan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the wireless device is configured to store a profile of a user (“In some embodiments, one or more user devices may be configured to locally store information related to one or more user accounts or user profiles (e.g., in connection with a mobile application)” (para 0054)), and wherein the profile is provided to the wireless communications interface (“User device 102 and/or 104 may be operable by a user to perform various functions in connection with vehicle 106 (e.g., remote start, unlocking and locking doors or hatches, pairing to a media system of vehicle 106, starting or turning of vehicle 106, signaling a panic condition, etc.) over wireless or wired communication paths. In some embodiments, user preferences may be managed locally in-vehicle and viewable remotely (e.g., via mobile and web). In some embodiments, a particular user profile and/or user account may store indications of any number of preferred vehicle attributes or user settings or preferences” (para 0036)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Chan in order to manage user preferences locally in-vehicle; see Chan at least at [0036].
Regarding claim 19, Ueno discloses the method of claim 18. However, Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the profile includes startup instructions to the control console during the startup sequence.
Chan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the profile includes startup instructions to the control console during the startup sequence (“User device 102 and/or 104 may be operable by a user to perform various functions in connection with vehicle 106 (e.g., remote start, unlocking and locking doors or hatches, pairing to a media system of vehicle 106, starting or turning of vehicle 106” (para 0036)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Ueno with the teachings of Chan in order to perform various functions in connection with a vehicle; see Chan at least at [0036].
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights