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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the submitted Terminal Disclaimer the previous double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks allege the limitation “configured to transition from delivery of a first mode signal to delivery of a second mode signal when the communications signal exceeds a first threshold and the battery voltage exceeds a second threshold.” Is not taught in the prior are of Seibert. The Remarks contend the transition from a first mode to a second mode is not gated jointly by both a communication signal and a battery threshold in Siebert. The Remarks allege the prior art is only dependent on the battery voltage (Remarks at 9).
In response, the limitation “when” does not imply a “because” or “gated by” relationship rather merely the transition occurs when the two conditions exist. The Remarks conflate a dependance on the mode occurring either because of or based on two conditions which is distinct form the claim language when which merely set forth a conjunctive relationship. While the Remarks note the gating of the mode transition differs from the Siebert the claims fail to present corresponding language to that identified in the Remarks in the case of claim 1. Seibert here monitors both (col. 12 lines 10-12) the battery voltage and the communication signal via a network input (see network interface chip: Fig. 7C). In Siebert the first mode, journey ended and confirmed, here in the controller circuit stops querying and in the second mode the controller circuit is querying or starts querying. This transition, as pointed out in the Remarks occurs, and is in fact, not gated by or because of the battery and communication signal but does occur when the conditions are present. While in the first mode the controller continues to monitor the battery voltage. When the voltage exceeds a second threshold, for example 12.9+vdc, and, for example, the vehicle RPM is queried and the vehicle network returns a voltage level or value that represents the queried RPM value on the communication line the vehicle is in the underway mode. Applicant may wish to amend claim 1 consistent with the Remarks to adopt “gated by” or “because of” or similar language present in the remaining independent claims such a limitation is not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted the claims 12 and 16 have been amended to remove the “when” limitation and as such are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seibert.
In view of the above rejection has been made FINAL. The Remarks present no traversal or arguments to the rejections made in view Sullivan accordingly the rejections have similarly been made FINAL.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12 and 16 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seibert (US 10,127,742)
With respect to claim 1 Seibert teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller (col. 17 line 31) comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications network pin (Pins 6 and 14 further see col. 23 lines 10-30) of the OBD port (see OBD-II port, col. 23 line 8), a battery input (col. 8 lines 7-10, and line 36 for example) configured for connection to a battery pin of the OBD port; a output (see for example bidirectional communication with vehicle ECU, see RF transceiver with child buckle TX) configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (portable controller for child safety) and a controller circuit (microcontroller col. 7 line 62) configured to (i) monitor a communications signal (see value returned during querying to determine underway status col. lines 45-65) provided via the network input, (ii) monitor a battery voltage (col. 8 lines 7-10, and line 36 for example battery data fed to controller) provided via the battery input, and (iii) selectively deliver a mode signal (journey status, see ended confirming mode and monitoring mode col. 3 lines 20-25) to the output depending at least in part on the communications signal and the battery voltage, wherein the controller circuit is configured to transition from delivery of a first mode signal (journey ended) to delivery of a second mode (initial query or underway) signal when the communications signal exceeds a first threshold (from zero voltage to logic high voltage level response indicating journey is underway) and the battery voltage exceeds a second threshold (predefined level col. 8 line 44, 51-57, col. 23 lines 66- col. 24 lines 8).
With respect to claim 2 Seibert teaches the mode signal is a power output configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (when vehicle is stopped and journey has ended and child is buckled power output to alarm is output, col. 3 line 26, col. 25 lines 5-20).
With respect to claim 3 Seibert teaches the first mode signal is associated with partial functionality of the accessory in a sleep state (continued query not allowed when journey is ended) while the vehicle is parked and the second mode signal is associated with partial functionality of the accessory in a wake state while the vehicle is parked (confirming mode before transition to underway).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert in view of Mader et al. (US 20180277028).
With respect to claim 11 Seibert teaches the known use of an accessory however does not teach the accessory is a camera. Mader teaches the known use of a dashboard camera and the network input is a controller area network (CAN) input. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the accessory system of Seibert to the dash cam of Mader to the benefit of ensuring the driver is aware to deactivate dash cam electronics.
Claims 12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US 20100023198) in view of Winograd (US 20180300967).
With respect to claims 16 and 12 Hamilton teaches an accessory controller (see Fig. 1 and 2) configured for installation in a vehicle including a vehicle battery (26), an on-board diagnostics (OBD) port (20: OBD-II), and a vehicle accessory (14: paragraph 0005), the accessory controller comprising: a network input (see 16 interfacing 22) configured for connection to a communications network pin (see CAN high/low, J1850 or Kline for example) of the OBD port, a battery input (V_batt see table 1) configured for connection to a battery pin of the OBD port (see pin allocation in table 1); and a controller circuit (30) configured to deliver a vehicle operation signal (see enable control signal) to the vehicle accessory when upon determining that both (see logical flow chart Fig. 3 illustrating the battery threshold and communication signals are processed: further see claims 9 and 10 of Hamilton) (i) a communications signal provided via the network input (see CAN high and CAN low comm signal) and (ii) a battery signal provided via the battery input exceeds a second threshold (paragraph 0024). Hamilton teaches the known voltage levels of high and low on the communication line however does not compare the voltage level to a threshold level. Winograd teaches the known use of using a CAN signal interfacing a OBD port wherein the voltage level of communication signal is compared with a threshold level (paragraph 009, 12-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hamilton to include the comparison with a threshold level as seen in Winograd for the benefit of reliable determination of vehicle status (paragraph 0009 Winograd).
With respect to claim 17 Hamilton teaches an output (18) configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (14), wherein the controller circuit is configured to deliver the vehicle operation signal via the at least one output (enable signal).
With respect to claims 18 and 14 Hamilton teaches a first output (enable control signal) and a second output (ignition-switched emulated V.sub.BATT: paragraph 0021 for example), wherein the vehicle operation signal is provided by a combination (condition of ign triggered and switched power present) of the first output and the second output.
With respect to claim 19 Hamilton teaches the vehicle operation signal is one of a plurality of mode signals, a third mode signal associated with the vehicle being on and driving (ignition on see enable signal and driving see PRM/speed conditions).
With respect to claim 20 Hamilton teaches the third mode signal is associated with full functionality of the vehicle accessory (perform normal accessory operation).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US 20100023198) in view of Winograd (US 20180300967) in view of Mader (US 20180277028).
With respect to claim 13 Hamilton as modified above teach several examples of vehicle accessories however does not teach the accessory is a camera. Mader teaches the known use of a camera as a vehicle accessory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Hamilton to try the known use of a camera for the benefit of driver safety.
Claims 1, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20050177288) in view of Barden et al. (US 11,982,694).
With respect to claim 16 Sullivan teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications connection (see data connection with OBD port paragraph 0017-18) of the OBD port (10), a battery input (paragraph 0036, further see Fig. 3 paragraph 0047-49) configured for connection to a battery connection of the OBD port; and a controller circuit (see accessory microcontroller 14) configured to deliver a vehicle operation signal (allow the lift 34 operation in a safe mode) to the vehicle accessory (wheelchair lift) when a communications signal (digital comm signal to logic 24 or 38 indicating a TRUE state) provided via the network input (see input from vehicle data bus which interfaces logic) exceeds a first voltage threshold (transition from zero to active logic high of digital data transmission) and a battery signal provided via the battery input exceeds a second threshold (see battery voltage level for maintaining charge value paragraph 0049). Sullivan does not detail the pin architecture of the OBD port. As Applicant admits the network and battery pins are typical and known pins found in a OBD port (paragraph 0030), Barden for example teaches the known use of a network pin (see pin 6, 14) and battery voltage (P16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known pin configuration of Barden to the OBD port of Sullivan for the benefit of reliably interfacing the known connection in variety of vehicle.
With respect to claims 1 and 12 Sullivan teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications connection (see data connection with OBD port paragraph 0017-18) of the OBD port (10), a battery input (paragraph 0036, further see Fig. 3 paragraph 0047-49) configured for connection to a battery connection of the OBD port; a output (see for example bidirectional communication with vehicle ECU, for controlling engine RPM) configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (lift) and a controller circuit (see accessory microcontroller 14) configured to a controller circuit configured to (i) monitor a communications signal (digital comm signal to logic 24 or 38 indicating a TRUE state) provided via the network input, (ii) monitor a battery voltage provided via the battery input, and (iii) selectively deliver a mode signal (allow the lift 34 operation in a safe mode or disable when safe condition are not met) to the output depending at least in part on the communications signal and the battery voltage, wherein the controller circuit is configured to transition from delivery of a first mode signal to delivery of a second mode signal when the communications signal exceeds a first threshold (transition from zero to active logic high of digital data transmission) and the battery voltage exceeds a second threshold (see battery voltage level for maintaining charge value paragraph 0049). Sullivan does not detail the pin architecture of the OBD port. As Applicant admits the network and battery pins are typical and known pins found in a OBD port (paragraph 0030), Barden for example teaches the known use of a network pin (see pin 6, 14) and battery voltage (P16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known pin configuration of Barden to the OBD port of Sullivan for the benefit of reliably interfacing the known connection in variety of vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4 Seibert teaches the controller circuit however does not teach the controller is configured to transition from delivery of the second mode signal to delivery of a third mode signal when the battery voltage exceeds a third threshold indicative of vehicle operation or jumps by a change threshold indicative of vehicle operation. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
With respect to claim 15 Seibert teaches the plurality of mode signals however does not teach the signals include: a first mode signal wherein the first output and the second output are off; a second mode signal wherein the first output is on and the second output is off; and a third mode signal wherein the first output is on and the second output is on. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
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 Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights