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 status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 03/18/2025 and the latest claims filed 04/30/2025.
Claims 14-35 and 38-39 have been cancelled.
Claims 36-37 have been amended.
Claims 40-44 are new.
Claims 1-13, 36-37 and 40-44 are pending for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apsley et al. (US 2024/0127654) in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2019/0135229)
Regarding claim 1: Apsley disclose a method performed by a mobile device for providing access control, the method comprising:
determining the mobile device crossed a geofence toward a predefined location (¶0013);
responsive to crossing the geofence, communicating with a lock mechanism providing access to the predefined location via a wireless protocol (¶0013);
classifying the mobile device as moving toward the predefined location based on wireless signals of the wireless protocol received from the lock mechanism (¶0013); and
providing an unlock message to the lock mechanism, the unlock message indicating a range between the lock mechanism and the mobile device is less than a threshold (¶0039).
Apsley does not explicitly disclose dynamically adjusting a ranging rate with the lock mechanism based on the wireless signals.
In analogous art regarding access control, Ledvina disclose dynamically adjusting a ranging rate with the lock mechanism based on the wireless signals.(¶0154)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of dynamically adjusting a ranging rate with the lock mechanism based on the wireless signals, as disclose by Ledvina, to the method of Apsley. The motivation is to allow the system to adjust its operation based on the users movement hence making the method more effective.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 1, wherein classifying the mobile device is based on sensor data from sensors of the mobile device.(Ledvina: ¶0161)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the sensors include an accelerator and gyroscope.(Ledvina: ¶0161)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Apsley, Ledvina and Wisnia disclose the method of claim 8 further comprising suspending communication between the mobile device and the lock mechanism (Apsley: ¶0039).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising suspending communication between the mobile device and the lock mechanism after the mobile device has not met the threshold within a predefined period of time after crossing the geofence (Apsley: ¶0042: Time out).
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising utilizing an auxiliary processor of the mobile device to determine a proximity state of the mobile device to a predetermined location.(Apsley: ¶0163)
Regarding claim 36: Claim 36 is rejected for the same reason of claim 1.
Regarding claim 37: Claim 37 is rejected for the same reason of claim 1.
Regarding claim 41: Claim 41 is rejected for the same reason of claim 12.
Regarding claim 43: Claim 43 is rejected for the same reason of claim 7.
Regarding claim 44: Claim 44 is rejected for the same reason of claim 12.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, 11, 40, 42 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apsley et al. (US 2024/0127654) in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2019/0135229) and further in view of Wisnia et al. (US 2023/0219526).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 1, further disclose using different protocols (Ledvina: ¶0030) but does not disclose further comprising: determining, based on a wireless signal of a second wireless protocol, the mobile device as placed on a first side or a second side of the lock mechanism.
In analogous art regarding access control, Wisnia disclose determining, based on a wireless signal of a second wireless protocol, the mobile device as placed on a first side (inside) or a second side (outside) of the lock mechanism (¶0017-0020).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of determining, based on a wireless signal of a second wireless protocol, the mobile device as placed on a first side or a second side of the lock mechanism, as disclose by Wisnia, to the method of the combination of Apsley and Ledvina. The motivation is to control the disabling wireless communications of the key fob accordingly so as to prevent/permit the driver to operate the vehicle when the driver is unauthorized/authorized to use the vehicle by controlling at least one of the jamming transmitter, the key fob power supply and the switchable RF shield when the determination confirms that the driver's device is inside the vehicle. (¶0008)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Apsley, Ledvina and Wisnia disclose the method of claim 2, wherein determining the mobile device as placed on the first side or the second side of the lock mechanism is based on a differential signal strength (Ledvina: ¶0137-0138).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Apsley, Ledvina and Wisnia disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the second wireless protocol is an ultra-wide band protocol. (Ledvina: ¶0134-0138).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Apsley, Ledvina and Wisnia disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the differential signal strength is based on a distance between one or more antennas within the lock mechanism. (Ledvina: ¶0134-0138).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 3, wherein providing the unlock message to the lock mechanism occurs after determining that the mobile device is approaching from the first side of the lock mechanism. (Ledvina: ¶0154)
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Apsley and Ledvina disclose the method of claim 1, furthermore, it disclose However it does disclose monitoring motion (Ledvina: ¶0166) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising classifying the mobile device as being in a stationary state.
In analogous art regarding access control, Wisnia disclose a system that determine that a device is inside a vehicle (hence stationary) or outside (non-stationary) and based on the status of said device, it perform different actions (¶0017-0020).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of classifying the mobile device as being in a stationary state, as disclose by Wisnia, to the method of the combination of Apsley and Ledvina. The motivation is to allow or deny communication based on the status of the device hence enhancing security.
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Apsley, Ledvina and Wisnia disclose the method of claim 9, comprising classifying the mobile device as being in a non-stationary state (outside) and resuming communication between the mobile device and the lock mechanism (Wisnia: ¶0017-0020).
Regarding claim 40: Claim 40 is rejected for the same reason of claim 2.
Regarding claim 42: Claim 42 is rejected for the same reason of claim 2.
Regarding claim 44: Claim 40 is rejected for the same reason of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights