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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: "comprising a means to carry a method". It is not clear what “carry a method” means. In the interest of advancing prosecution, Examiner has interpreted “comprising a means to carry a method” to mean –“comprising a means to carry out a method”--. 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.Claim 9 recites a device for access control of a motor vehicle, comprising means designed to carry a method according to claim 1. The specification fails to cover every conceivable means to --carry out-- the method of Claim 1 as it is a “Single Means” Claim. (MPEP 2181-V.)
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 1-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CERIC ET AL. German Patent Publication No. DE 102016015273 (hereinafter CERIC).
Regarding Claim 1 CERIC discloses a method for controlling access to a motor vehicle, comprising:
(¶[0009], "The method enables a keyless access authorization (e.g. Controlling access) and driving authorization system of the vehicle ; Furthermore, the method improves a comfort for a user when unlocking and/or starting the vehicle compared to the prior art. It is sufficient that the mobile communication unit is located at any location at the user of the vehicle")
detecting an input from a user at the user terminal;
(¶[0020], "To improve the security of the device (1) and thus to protect the vehicle from theft, it is provided that the authorisation data (B) is transmitted only when, after the wake-up signal (W) is received and thus the established connection between the vehicle-side control unit (1.2) and the mobile communication unit (1.1) (e.g. User Terminal), a predetermined or predeterminable voice input, such as a word, noise or generally an acoustic signal, is applied to the mobile communication unit (1.1) and is detected by the latter")
detecting that the user has not been authenticated;
(¶[0020], "For this purpose, the mobile communication unit (1.1) can remain at any location of the user, for example in a pants pocket.")(e.g. If the access device is located in the pocket of a user , authentication is not taking place)
and at least one of unlocking or opening the motor vehicle based on the approach and input
(¶[0010],"At the same time, the voice input allows the selection of a targeted closing function such as, for example, "unlocking", "locking", "opening the rear cover" and others, as well as functions which do not belong to the closing, such as, for example, the engine start.")
Regarding Claim 2, CERIC discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the input at the user terminal comprises a voice input and is rejected for the same reason as Claim 1’s limitation of “detecting an input from a user at the user terminal”.(¶[0020])
Regarding Claim 3, CERIC discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the input to the user terminal comprises a gesture input.
([0021]," In addition, the mobile communication unit (1.1) can comprise an acceleration sensor (1.1.5), which is likewise coupled to the mobile communication unit (1.1) and which is suitable for detecting a predefinable or predefined knocking gesture, which additionally or alternatively enables the transmission of the authorization data (B).")
Regarding Claim 4, CERIC discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the unlocking and/or opening takes place without authentication of the user and is rejected for the same reason as Claim 1’s limitation of “detecting that the user has not been authenticated”.(¶[0020])(e.g. If the device remains in the pocket and still allows access authentication is not taking place)
Regarding Claim 5, CERIC discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the input of the user at the user terminal does not comprise authentication and is rejected for the same reason as Claim 4.(e.g. If the device remains in the pocket and still allows access authentication is not taking place)
Regarding Claim 6, CERIC discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein: the input comprises an input content; the method further comprises evaluating the input content; and the at least one of unlocking or opening of the motor vehicle is further based on the input content and is rejected for the same reason as Claim 1’s limitation of “and at least one of unlocking or opening the motor vehicle based on the approach and input”.(¶[0010])
Regarding Claim 9, a device for access control of a motor vehicle, comprising means designed to carry a method according to claim 1 , which is merely a device intended to carry out the method of Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason as Claim 1.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CERIC in view of .BARTELS U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0096546. CERIC discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, of which Claim 7 is dependent upon. CERIC however does not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the detection of an approach of a user terminal(130) to a motor vehicle takes place in response to the detection of an input of the user at the user terminal. BARTELS discloses using a mobile radio(e.g. Smartphone/Smartwatch or Terminal) to send user interaction (e.g. User Input) signals to the vehicle which wakes it, and detection of user movements and interactions to perform the desired vehicle function.
(¶[0057]," For the mobile radio (130), the process (left-hand side in FIG. 3) begins in operation at (s302). A check takes place in operation at (s304) to determine whether user interaction has been detected. If not, the process returns to operation at s304 (motion/acceleration/gyro sensors (220), (BLUETOOTH®) communication subsystem (202), NFC interface (204) and/or microphone (212) continue with the detection”)
(¶[0058], “If an interaction is detected in operation at (s304), data that define the type of user interaction are determined/recorded in operation at (s306).”)
CERIC and BARTELS are analogous art because they both disclose methods of vehicle access. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for controlling access to a vehicle of CERIC and add the ability to wake the vehicle access system with a smartphone or key fob when the user is not in the passive detection zone of the vehicle disclosed by BARTEL, to create the claimed invention , in order to allow for user input at a greater range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CERIC in view of .BARUCO ET AL. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0373437 (hereinafter BARUCO). CERIC discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, of which Claim 8 depends upon. CERIC however does not disclose the method according to claim 1,wherein the detection of an input of the user at the user terminal is performed in response to the detection that a user of the user terminal has not been authenticated. BARUCO discloses the ability to signal intent (e.g. User Input) using a keyfob (230) or equivalent mobile device (231)(e.g. User Terminal) simply based on having the keyfob or mobile device upon them, without authenticating the user is the owner or valid actor.
(¶[0081], “For reference, both the PEPS system (200) and the RKE system (250) work with an electronic keyfob or fob (230) and/or mobile phone (231) that is located with the user (109). The PEPS and/or RKE systems (200), (250) receive signals from the fob (230) through one or more of the front and rear antennae (170), (180) to initiate an operation such as, for example, controlling the door (12) to open or close, etc.”)
([0141], "Additionally, the system using one or more sensors (122) may determine something the user has (123), such as a FOB or other device, which may adjust the initially determined high probability and confidence score that is tracked as the user (109) approaches the vehicle (10).")
(¶[0148], "So, the user (109) approaching the vehicle (10) would have the registered keyfob (230) or equivalent mobile device (231), such as a cellular phone or tablet. The mobile device or tablet (231) could be enabled with Ultra-wide Band (UWB), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), or similar technology to enable connectivity with the vehicle-side controller (e.g., controller (26), (608),(612)). The controller (26), (608),(612) or body control module (27) (e.g., using its own processor or microcontroller (2301)) can then control all of the various subsystems (e.g., access system (20), (110), (160)) based on detection of the keyfob (230) or mobile device (231).")
(¶[0156], “So, the determination of user intent based on position or approach trajectory can include the implementation of the predefined valid access zones where closure systems can be toggled from or not.")
PNG
media_image1.png
454
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CERIC and BARUCO are analogous are because they both disclose methods of vehicle access. Therefore it would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try based on the teachings of CERIC, which allows access to a vehicle with the mobile device in the user’s pocket; and the teachings of BARUCO which allows access to a with a key fob or mobile device simply based on having the device and/or signaling intent to operate a vehicle function such as locking or unlocking a vehicle. This allows ease of access for vehicles which may not have biometric authentication capabilities such as cameras, or users who may not have smartphones allowing it to be implemented in more applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VARUGHESE ET AL. U.S. Patent No. 11628846 discloses a UWB based access systems that allows access via a mobile access device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DWAYNE MARSHALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1001. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zimmerman Brian, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3059. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights