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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification filed on 05/13/2025, paragraph [0001], there is missing a new U.S. Patent No. 12,600,320.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al [US 8,841,987]
Claim 1. A vehicle anti-theft device for a vehicle (the vehicle upgrade kit 100 for anti-theft, see abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 36-41), comprising: a controller coupled to an ignition system of the vehicle (the upgrade kid 100 having a processor 150 installed in a vehicle ignition key and coupled to the OBD port of the vehicle, see Figs. 1, 3, col. 2, lines 14-35, col. 3, lines 1-3), the controller having a communication module to wirelessly receive a signal to disable ignition of the vehicle when an individual wirelessly transmits the signal to disable ignition via a computing device (the processor 150 can turn the wireless jammer 110 "ON" when the sensor 170 output changes from the first state to the second state and if operation of the vehicle is not currently authorized, and the processor 150 can turn the wireless jammer 110 "OFF" when the sensor 170 output changes from the second state to the first state. The sensor 170 and the processor 150 can thus cooperate to deactivate the wireless transponder (by actuating the wireless jammer 110) if removal of the upgraded ignition key from the key dock 180 is invalid or unauthorized, see Figs. 1, col. 7, lines 46-55). But
Stanfield et al fails to disclose a hardware adapter wirelessly coupled to the controller, the hardware adapter monitoring for unauthorized movement of the vehicle and allowing only authorized individuals who enter an authorization code to the hardware adapter to drive the vehicle, the hardware adapter wirelessly sending signals to disable ignition to the controller when unauthorized movement of the vehicle is detected or when an improper authorization code is received. However,
Standfield et al teaches that the upgrade kit 100 includes a diagnostic port dongle 190 that installs into a standardized diagnostic port PBD2 port of the vehicle. In this configuration, the dongle 190 can function as a router that wirelessly communicates access commands from the phone to the upgraded ignition key or from a vehicle-sharing network (e.g., a remote server) to the upgraded ignition key using cellular, Bluetooth, Zigbee and /or Wi-Fi communication protocols. The user can use the FOB, mobile computing device, smart phone, RFID reader to wirelessly transmit code signal to the dongle 190 for unlock/lock the door and enable vehicle and disable the ignition of the vehicle via the wireless jammer 110 when there is a vehicle theft. (See Figs. 3, 7, col. 3, lines 1-67, col. 4, lines 1-47, col. 5, lines 17-34).
The processor 150 can turn the wireless jammer 110 "ON" when the sensor 170 output changes from the first state to the second state and if operation of the vehicle is not currently authorized, and the processor 150 can turn the wireless jammer 110 "OFF" when the sensor 170 output changes from the second state to the first state. The sensor 170 and the processor 150 can thus cooperate to deactivate the wireless transponder (by actuating the wireless jammer 110) if removal of the upgraded ignition key from the key dock 180 is invalid or unauthorized. (See Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 46-55).
The processor 150 can flash the warning lamp when removal of the upgraded ignition key from the key dock 180 is detected without receipt of authorization of the vehicle for operation. (See Figs. 2, 3, col. 7, lines 63-66).
Similarly, the upgrade kit 100 can include a sensor configured to detect tampering of the upgraded ignition key, and the upgrade kit 100 can further include self-destruct module configured to destroy the immobilizer transponder when tampering is detected. The upgrade kit 100 can also trigger the self-destruct module when the upgrade ignition key is improperly removed (i.e., without authorization) from the dock. The wireless jammer 110 can therefore be installed in the upgraded ignition key to substantially prevent operation of the vehicle following tampering of the upgraded ignition key, such as after forced entry into the vehicle. See col. 8, lines 19-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to recognize that the upgrade kit 100 with a dongle 190 is functionally equivalent to the claim hardware adapter because the dongle 190 is wirelessly receives commands or codes from the remote FOB, smartphone and/or RFID for disabling the jammer 110 to allow an owner or authorized person to open/closed the door and to operate the vehicle. The upgrade kit 100 will activate an alarm and prevent operation of the vehicle when the dongle 190 wireless receives code signal that is unauthorized to cause enabling the jammer 110 to deactivate the transponder for disabling the vehicle or preventing operation of the vehicle by an unauthorized person or a thieve.
Claim 2. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, wherein the hardware adapter is coupled to the battery of the vehicle (the key dock 180 can additionally or alternatively source power from the vehicle to charge the battery 160, see Figs. 1, 3, col. 10, lines 9-11).
Claim 3. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 2, comprising a pair of terminals formed on the hardware adapter for coupling the hardware adapter to the battery of the vehicle (the pair of conductive pads, see col. 10, lines 9-16).
Claim 4. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, wherein the hardware adapter is self-powered (the self-powered battery 160, see Fig. 1).
Claim 5. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, comprising a hardware adapter battery stored within the hardware adapter for powering the hardware adapter (read upon the hardware adapter/dongle 190 can source power for these sensors, see Figs. 1, 3, col. 11, lines 18-24).
Claim 6. Standfield et al fails to disclose wherein the hardware adapter uses a two factor authorization to wirelessly send signals to the controller to start the vehicle. However,
Standfield et al teaches that the wireless jammer 110 includes a second transponder arranged adjacent the stock immobilizer transponder within the stock ignition key. In this implementation, the wireless jammer 110 jams the immobilizer transponder by transmitting a second signal simultaneously with the transponder signal such that the receiver within the vehicle cannot discern the transponder signal and authorize ignition of the vehicle. In this implementation, the second transponder can also harvest energy from the wireless signal output by the vehicle and that powers the immobilizer transponder. For example, the second transponder can include an energy harvesting induction coil. In this example, the second transponder can thus output the second signal whenever the immobilizer transponder is powered, and the upgraded ignition key can default to closing a circuit between the energy harvesting induction coil and a wireless radio within the second transponder, but a switch within the wireless jammer 110 can open the circuit between the energy harvesting induction coil and the wireless radio within the second transponder when operation of the vehicle is authenticated. For example, a processor 150 within the upgraded ignition key open the circuit between the energy harvesting induction coil and the wireless radio within the second transponder for one minute, five minutes, or the duration of the vehicle rental period once operation of the vehicle is authenticated to use and operate the vehicle, see Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 50-67, col. 6, lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to recognize that the transmitting a second signal simultaneously with the transponder signal is functionally equivalent to the claim two-factor authorization to wireless sends signal to the controller to the controller to start the vehicle because the transmitting second signal to the second transponder and to the processor for authorized to operate the vehicle.
Claim 7. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, comprising a key frequency operated button (FOB) device paired with the hardware adapter transmitting the authorization code to the hardware adapter (as discussed in claim 1 above, and including pairing with the FOB to start the vehicle, see Figs. 1, 3, col. 9, lines 33-44).
Claim 13. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, wherein the device is used on one of an autonomous vehicle, an electric vehicle, a motorized scooter, or a watercraft (the vehicle, see Figs. 1, 3, 6).
Claim 14. A vehicle anti-theft device for a vehicle, comprising: a controller coupled to an ignition system of the vehicle, the controller having a communication module to wirelessly receive a signal to disable ignition of the vehicle when an individual wirelessly transmits the signal to disable ignition via a computing device; and a hardware adapter wirelessly coupled to the controller, the hardware adapter monitoring for unauthorized movement of the vehicle and allowing only authorized individuals who enter an authorization code to the hardware adapter to drive the vehicle, the hardware adapter wirelessly sending signals to disable ignition to the controller when unauthorized movement of the vehicle is detected or when an improper authorization code is received, wherein the hardware adapter is powered by one of: a vehicle battery or a hardware adapter battery stored within the hardware adapter (as discussed in respect to claims 1 and 4 above).
Claim 15. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 14, comprising a pair of terminals formed on the hardware adapter for coupling the hardware adapter to the battery of the vehicle (as cited in respect to claim 5 above).
Claim 16. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 14, wherein the hardware adapter uses a two-factor authorization to wirelessly send signals to the controller to start the vehicle (as discussed in respect to claim 6 above).
Claim 17. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 14, wherein the communication module is a receiver/transmitter coupled to a communication port of the controller for allowing wireless communication between the hardware adapter and the controller (as discussed in respect to claim 1 above).
Claim 18. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, comprising a key frequency operated button (FOB) device paired with the hardware adapter transmitting the authorization code to the hardware adapter (as cited in respect to claim 7 above).
Claims 8, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al [US 8,841,987] in view of Gelbart et al [US 2017/0039784]
Claim 8. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, wherein a receiver and transmitter coupled to the MCU (the receiver 120 and transmitter 130 coupled to the processor 150 receives the wireless and transmit data information and code with the user’s smart phone, see Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 48-65). But
Standfield et al fails to disclose the hardware adapter comprises: at least one motion sensor, wherein the at least one motion sensor is a gyroscopic sensor. However,
Standfield et al teaches that the upgrade kit 100 including dongle 190 coupled to the OBD port and motion sensor 170 such as accelerometer or orientation sensor, see Figs. 1, 3, col. 7, lines 8-18).
Gelbart et al suggests that the OBD device may be instructed by the server to only
send an alert to the server when the data received and/or processed by the OBD device
indicates that a threshold has been exceeded or reached (i.e., speed threshold), a limit
has been violated (i.e., geofence) or an event has occurred (movement detected in the
vehicle by an onboard OBD gyroscope or accelerometer). In another example, the OBD
may be instructed to send an alert only when multiple events have occurred, such as
both the speed threshold limit has been exceeded or reached and the geofence has
been breached/violated. The OBD device may monitor if: (a) the accelerometer and/or
GPS antenna/system and/or gyroscope reports the vehicle is being tilted and/or lifted.
(See Fig. 1, para [0038, 0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to substitute the OBD gyroscope of Gelbart et al for the upgrade kit 100 including dongle coupled to the OBD port and the motion accelerometer or orientation sensor of Standfield et al for tracking the motion and movement of the legacy relay box and vehicle since the accelerometer and/or gyroscope are designed to monitor motion and movement in X, y and z directions.
Standfield et al fails to disclose a microcontroller unit (MCU) coupled to the at least one motion sensor determining when the at least one motion sensor detects unauthorized movement of the vehicle above a predetermined threshold level. However,
Standfield et al teaches that the OBD device may be instructed by the server to only
send an alert to the server when the data received and/or processed by the OBD device
indicates that a threshold has been exceeded or reached (i.e., speed threshold), a limit
has been violated (i.e., geofence) or an event has occurred (movement detected in the
vehicle by an onboard OBD gyroscope or accelerometer). In another example, the OBD
may be instructed to send an alert only when multiple events have occurred, such as
both the speed threshold limit has been exceeded or reached and the geofence has
been breached/violated (see Fig. 1, para [0038, 0089]).
Block 210 can default to activating the wireless jammer 110 whenever vehicle operation is not authorized. For example, Block S210 can default to closing a circuit between a wireless communication energy harvester and the second transponder, and Block S240 can open this circuit for a limited period of time only when a vehicle operation authorization is received from an external device or is currently pending on the upgraded ignition key. Alternatively, Block 210 can interface with a motion sensor (and the processor 150 described above) to determine that the upgraded ignition key is moving and then actively power the wireless jammer 110 if vehicle operation authorization is not current. (See Fig. 6, col. 13, lines 57-67, col. 14, lines 1-19).
Gelbart et al suggests that the OBD device may be instructed by the server to only
send an alert to the server when the data received and/or processed by the OBD device
indicates that a threshold has been exceeded or reached (i.e., speed threshold), a limit
has been violated (i.e., geofence) or an event has occurred (movement detected in the
vehicle by an onboard OBD gyroscope or accelerometer). In another example, the OBD
may be instructed to send an alert only when multiple events have occurred, such as
both the speed threshold limit has been exceeded or reached and the geofence has
been breached/violated (see Fig. 1, para [0038, 0089]).
When the driver transfers their vehicle to the valet attendant, they can initiate valet mode through an application. When the mode is activated, thresholds for, for example, speeding, acceleration, deceleration, geofence, off a route, and odometer are automatically configured. The thresholds may be preconfigured, or may be input by the user. If the thresholds are violated, the user receives an alert. For example, a speed limit of 30 mph, a circular geofence of one mile, and certain acceleration thresholds (see Figs. 4, 9, para [0087, 0168]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add, modify and/or implement the OBD device to send an alert when multiple events have occurred, such as both the geofence or out of route has been breached or violated of Gelbart et al to the upgrade kit processor of Standfield et al for alerting of an attempting vehicle theft when the vehicle is unauthorized moving out of desired geofence or route.
Claim 9. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 8, wherein the receiver transmitter contacts emergency services when the at least one motion sensor senses that the vehicle has been involved in an emergency (as the combination of the motion sensor between Standfield et al and Gelbart et al in respect to claim 8 above).
Claim 12. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 8, wherein the hardware adapter comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit coupled to the MCU (the dongle 190 can further collect vehicle diagnostic data through the connected OBD port, such as vehicle mileage, fuel or energy level, and system diagnostics (e.g., a check-engine status, an oil change alarm, etc.). The dongle 190 can additionally or alternatively include one or more sensors, such as an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a location (e.g., Global Positioning System) sensor (see col. 11, lines 15-21).
Claims 10, 11, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al [US 8,841,987] in view of Gelbart et al [US 2017/0039784] and further in view of Li [US 2020/0344602]
Claim 10. Standfield et al fails to disclose a smoke detection sensor coupled to the MCU, wherein the MCU wirelessly transmits the signal to disable ignition of the vehicle when the smoke detection sensor determines smoke above a predetermined threshold. However,
Standfield et al teaches that Block 210 can default to activating the wireless jammer 110 whenever vehicle operation is not authorized. For example, Block S210 can default to closing a circuit between a wireless communication energy harvester and the second transponder, and Block S240 can open this circuit for a limited period of time only when a vehicle operation authorization is received from an external device or is currently pending on the upgraded ignition key. Alternatively, Block 210 can interface with a motion sensor (and the processor 150 described above) to determine that the upgraded ignition key is moving and then actively power the wireless jammer 110 if vehicle operation authorization is not current. (See Fig. 6, col. 13, lines 57-67, col. 14, lines 1-19).
Li suggests that the Police and Emergency phone number 1946/2046 (in US and
Canada 911 step 1960/2060 will be called and sent voice and text messages by the
Dev 106 when the air bag 226 (FIG. 2) is inflated or its house is on fire (smoke alarm)
304 (FIG. 3), as well as to other registered handsets 102 (see Figs. 19, 20, para [0309]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to add and/or implement the vehicle fire/smoke alarm of Li to the
motion sensor when the vehicle is not authorized to operate of Standfield et al and Gelbart et al for expanding applications and uses of the OBDII detection system to immobilize the vehicle when there is a fire alarm in order to save people from fire or smoke caused by the vehicle.
Claim 11. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 10, wherein the MCU transmits a message to law enforcement when the smoke detection sensor determines smoke above a predetermined threshold (as the combination of the smoke detection alarm between Standfield et al, Gelbart et and Li in respect to claim 10 above, and further Li teaches that the Dev can also allow a third party (police/firefighters/emergency personnel) to take possession over the vehicle when said vehicle has been stolen/hijacked and is being driven dangerously without regard for public safety. This can be accomplished by transmitting a third party control and monitor command (with a MSK) to said third party by its registered handset and at the same time the Dev receives a notice with a MSK verification key from said registered handset that said command has been transmitted to said third party or by the Dev itself transmitting said third-party control and monitor command to said third party (see Li, para [0017]).
Claim 19. The vehicle anti-theft device of Claim 1, wherein the hardware adapter comprises: at least one motion sensor, wherein the at least one motion sensor is a gyroscopic sensor; a microcontroller unit (MCU) coupled to the at least one motion sensor determining when the at least one motion sensor detects unauthorized movement of the vehicle above a predetermined threshold level (as the combination between Standfield et al and Gelbart et al in respect to claim 8 above). But
Standdield et al fails to disclose a receiver and transmitter coupled to the MCU; and a smoke detection sensor coupled to the MCU, wherein the MCU wirelessly transmits the signal to disable ignition of the vehicle when the smoke detection sensor determines smoke above a predetermined threshold (as the combination between Standfield et al and Gelbart et al in respect to claim 10 above).
Claim 20. A vehicle anti-theft device for a vehicle, comprising: a controller coupled to an ignition system of the vehicle, the controller having a communication module to wirelessly receive a signal to disable ignition of the vehicle when an individual wirelessly transmits the signal to disable ignition via a computing device; and a hardware adapter wirelessly coupled to the controller, the hardware adapter monitoring for unauthorized movement of the vehicle and allowing only authorized individuals who enter an authorization code to the hardware adapter to drive the vehicle, the hardware adapter wirelessly sending signals to disable ignition to the controller when unauthorized movement of the vehicle is detected or when an improper authorization code is received wherein the hardware adapter is powered by one of: a vehicle battery or a hardware adapter battery stored within the hardware adapter, wherein the hardware adapter comprises: at least one motion sensor, wherein the at least one motion sensor is a gyroscopic sensor; a microcontroller unit (MCU) coupled to the at least one motion sensor determining when the at least one motion sensor detects unauthorized movement of the vehicle above a predetermined threshold level; a receiver and transmitter coupled to the MCU, wherein the receiver transmitter contacts emergency services when the at least one motion sensor senses that the vehicle has been involved in an emergency; a smoke detection sensor coupled to the MCU, wherein the MCU wirelessly transmits a signal to a server of a smoke event within the vehicle; and
a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit coupled to the MCU (as the combination between Standfield et al and Gelbart et al and Li in respect to claims, 1, 8, 10, 11 above, and including the remote server, see Standfield et al, col. 2, lines 48-58, col. 3, lines 1-7, col. 10, lines 61-67, col. 11, lines 1-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marolia et al discloses the apparatus for managing information regarding an inventory of vehicles on an automobile dealership lot includes vehicle tracking devices installed in the vehicles. The tracking devices utilize a GPS receiver for generating vehicle location data and an accelerometer for generating vehicle motion data. Data from the vehicle tracking devices are received by a central server that uses the data to determine whether a vehicle is on a test drive, the identity of a salesperson who is with the vehicle, and the estimated time that the vehicle will return to the dealership. Preferred embodiments establish a geofence around the dealership location, detect when vehicles exit and reenter the geofence, and communicate the exit/return events back to the central server. The central server communicates the information to smartphones of dealership personnel to indicate availability of a particular vehicle. [US 11,210,627]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from 99number is (571) 2722972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached on (571) 272-3114.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
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.
/VAN T TRIEU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
07/21/2026
Prosecution Insights