Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 2/27/2025. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
It is not narrative in form as it is a run-on sentence.
A typographical error is present in the fifth line, where “deter-mining” has an unneeded hyphen.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“security device” in claim(s) 2-4.
“interaction device” in claim(s) 13-14, described in Applicant’s specification as “a microphone, a loudspeaker, and/or a display screen”, [0029].
“first wireless communication device” in claim(s) 15, described in Applicant’s specification as “first communication device 150” (Fig. 1), shown as a hardware device that transmits a signal.
“second wireless communication device” in claim(s) 15, described in Applicant’s specification as “second device 155” (Fig. 1), shown as a hardware device that transmits a signal.
“communication device” in claim(s) 16, described in Applicant’s specification as “communication device 160” (Fig. 1), shown as a hardware device that transmits a signal.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 15 recite(s) the limitation "receive a release for the assignment". While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending to “an assignment”, since the term has not been previously recited.
Claim(s) 16 recite(s) the limitation "transmit a release for the assignment". While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending to “an assignment”, since the term has not been previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f). If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Further, the disclosure must be reviewed from the point of view of one skilled in the relevant art to determine whether that person would understand the written description to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. See MPEP 2163.03. See also MPEP § 2181.
In this case, claim limitation(s) “security device” in claim(s) 2-4 lack(s) an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function. Specifically, the instant specification states “control device 110 on board the motor vehicle 105 preferably comprises…a security device 140” [0029], where “the control device can comprise an electronically embodied processing device for this purpose, which comprises, for example, an integrated circuit, a programmable logic component, or a programmable microcomputer” [0023]. However, the instant specification does not to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function in sufficient detail to establish that the inventor or joint inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as of the application's filing date, and thus the claim(s) fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation(s) “security device” in claim(s) 2-4 invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, as described about in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification states “control device 110 on board the motor vehicle 105 preferably comprises…a security device 140” [0029], where “the control device can comprise an electronically embodied processing device for this purpose, which comprises, for example, an integrated circuit, a programmable logic component, or a programmable microcomputer” [0023], however, it is unclear what component of the “control device” the “security device” is, i.e., hardware, software, or some combination, and thus, the written description does not clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, and thus the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-14 and 17-19 are pending and allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no prior art alone or in combination that discloses or teaches all the limitations of Applicant's claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 17, Herman (US 20210250178 A1) A method for establishing an assignment between a security device (“automotive computer 145”, Fig. 1) of a motor vehicle and a user of a mobile device (“mobile device 120”, Fig. 1), wherein the motor vehicle includes an interaction device (“Telematics Control Unit (TCU) 160”, [0025, 0029], Fig. 1) communicatively connected to the mobile device, the method comprising:
transmitting a first identification assigned to the security device from the motor vehicle to the mobile device (“using a vehicle ID and a cryptographic vehicle key (collectively shown in FIG. 1 as a response message 123), that may be sent back to the mobile device 120 as a response to the vehicle ID request message 122.”, [0019], Fig. 1);
determining a second identification assigned to a user of the mobile device (“the mobile device 120 may send a vehicle identification (ID) request message 122 to the VCU 165, where the vehicle ID request message 122 includes cryptographic mobile device key (not shown in FIG. 1). The cryptographic mobile device key may be one key of a cryptographic key pair that is unique to the vehicle 105 and the mobile device 120.”, [0019], Fig. 1);
transmitting a release of an assignment of the user of the mobile device to the security device (“the VLC system 107 can include components onboard the vehicle 105 and offboard the vehicle 105 such that the mobile device 120 may establish a visual light communication (VLC) with the vehicle (and vice versa).”, [0019]).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 17, Monthel teaches (US 20150298655 A1) A method for establishing an assignment between a security device (“vehicle door unlocking system 10”, Fig. 1) of a motor vehicle and a user of a mobile device (“cellphone 9”, Fig. 2), wherein the motor vehicle includes an interaction device (“communication means 6”, Fig. 2) communicatively connected to the mobile device, the method comprising:
transmitting a first identification assigned to the security device from the motor vehicle (“the user 8 copies an identifier of the identification means 10 of the vehicle, via a photograph or manually, and transmits it in the secure message 102 to the remote server 7”, [0061])
transmitting the first identification and the second identification from the mobile device to an external location (see “an identifier of the identification means 10 of the vehicle…and transmits it in the secure message 102 to the remote server 7”, [0061]);
determining that the first identification and the second identification are assigned to the motor vehicle (“The remote server 7 then determines, from the secure message 102, whether it can send the authorization command 103 for this user and this vehicle at the given time by referring to the reservation of the user 8.”, [0061]); and
transmitting a release of an assignment of the user of the mobile device to the security device (“the remote server 7 sends its signature to the communication means 6 following an authentication request from the communication means 6 sent to the remote server 7, the communication means 6 send their signature from the unlocking system 2 following an authentication request from the unlocking system 2 sent to the communication means 6 and the unlocking system 2 sends its signature to the engine control system 1 following an authentication request from the engine control system 1 sent to the unlocking system 2.”, [0064]).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights