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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [KR 20070101963 A (see attached translation)] in view of Fujiwara et al [US 20050062602 A1].
As for claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a reception component (Figure 1; owner personal mobile device) configured to receive a notification that indicates biometric information of a person attempting to access a vehicle and an option for an owner of the vehicle includes remotely controlling the ignition of the vehicle based on receiving an input from the owner (pages 17-18 and 20-21), and
wherein the biometric information of the person includes a fingerprint, a facial feature, or a voice print, or any combination thereof (page 18 suggests that known biometric information may be collected: if biometric recognition levels such as fingerprint or iris recognition are added, it can function as an even more reinforced security structure. If the authentication module compares the already learned face image and determines that the person is not the owner;..);
a display (mobile phone, PDA, laptop, page 18) configured to display a digitized representation of the biometric information included in the notification; and a user interface configured to collect, from the owner of the vehicle, an input corresponding to the option for controlling the ignition of the vehicle (Figure 1 and pages 17-18 and 20-21).
Lee does not specifically disclose a plurality of options for an owner to select from. In an analogous art for monitoring an asset remotely, Fujiwara discloses a security arrangement wherein when an unauthorized user is detected a notification is sent to a remote device. The notification includes a plurality of options for the owner to select from (see Figures 23A and 23B). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the invention of Lee to include the notification taught by Fujiwara in order to yield the predictable results of a system wherein the owner would be able to play an active role in providing a remedy for an alarm/security event at his/her vehicle. The selection of particular options presented to the owner is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan.
As for claims 2-4 the claims are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 5, examiner take official notice that it was known in the art to lock and/or unlock vehicles via a remote signal. Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Lee as modified by Fujiwara to include an option for locking the vehicle. This modification would have been obvious because it would have provided the owner with more control over the security of the vehicle while stationed safely at a remote location.
As for claim 6¸ Fujiwara discloses that a transmitting component is configured to transmit a notification to a public authority, a private security service, or both based at least in part on the input corresponding to reporting the person attempting to access the vehicle (see Figures 23A and 23B).
Claims 8 and 17 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See Lee, Figure 1.
Claims 9-11 and 18-19 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 5 above.
Claim 12 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 13-15 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 3-6 above.
Claim 20 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [KR 20070101963 A (see attached translation)] in view of Fujiwara et al [US 20050062602 A1] as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Merrill et al [US 20180053034 A1].
As for claim 7, neither Lee nor Fujiwara specifically discloses the specifics of the notification information. Examiner takes official notice that it was known in the art at the time of filing the instant application for a vehicle monitoring/security device to transmit location, identification and time information concerning an event. In an analogous art, Merrill discloses monitoring a quantity of unsuccessful attempts by a person to access a vehicle (paragraph 0067). Having each of the references on hand, along with information readily available in the art, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Lee and Fujiwara to include a notification having vehicle location, identifying, and time information. Further, it would have been obvious to also include unsuccessful attempts to access the vehicle as taught by Fujiwara. The modification would have been obvious because it would have allowed the owner to monitor the status of the vehicle along with security information so that said owner could make an informed decision on how to respond to an event that caused the notification.
Claim 16 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses security monitoring systems and methods that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights