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 Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the unit” in line 3. It is presumed to recite “the portable unit”.
Claim 1 recites “and or” in line 6. It is presumed to recite “and/or”.
Claim 2 recites “the device” in line 1. It is presumed to recite “the phone reminder device”.
Claim 3 recites “the unit” in line 3. It is presumed to recite “the portable unit”.
Claim 4 recites “the lock mechanism” in line 2. It is presumed to recite “the door lock mechanism”.
Claim 5 recites “the device” in line 1. It is presumed to recite “the phone reminder device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng (US 7,880,613 B1) in view of Brueckner (US 2021/0231766 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maeng discloses a phone reminder device (see at least Figure 1, items 100, 101 and 103 | col. 2, lines 42-56, note the OIDDM 101 can be placed on or near a door of a vehicle, and the object identification tag 103 may be coupled to a mobile phone desired to not be forgotten as a user exits or leaves the vehicle) comprising:
a portable unit contained in a housing, the housing placeable in, or attachable to, a door of a vehicle (see at least Figures 1-2, items 101 and 201 | col. 2, lines 52-53 | Figure 3 | col. 8, lines 20-22), the unit including:
a sensor comprising an accelerometer, the sensor constructed and arranged to detect acceleration in a direction that is common with a direction of movement of the door when the door is opened and or closed (see at least col. 3, lines 1-11, note the OIDDM 101 is operable to identify at least one object identification tag 103 in response to activating a discrimination operating mode of OIDDM 101, wherein the discrimination operating mode may be activated by sensing movement of a door of the vehicle | Figure 2, item 206 | col. 4, lines 53-58, note the sensor 206 of the OIDDM 101may be positioned to detect if the door of the vehicle is opening by detecting the movement of the door);
a wireless communications link to a cell phone (see at least Figures 1-2, items 104 and 207 | col. 2, lines 61-64, note if the user is leaving without one or more object identification tag(s) 103, the OIDDM 101 determines that a user does not have one or more object identification tag(s) 103 and alerts the user via speaker 102 that the mobile phone has been forgotten | col. 6, lines 31-33, note the object identification tag 103/211 can be integrated into the mobile phone | col. 6, lines 3-8, note the OIDDM 101/201 may also use other radio frequency (RF) mediums as the communication medium 207, such as radio frequency transmitters that have communication technologies or protocols including Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11x);
at least one audio and/or visual indicator (see at least col. 3, lines 48-54, note the OIDDM 101/201 includes a speaker 205, a Liquid Crystal Diode (LCD) display 201, and at least a first object identification tag indicator 208 | col. 4, lines 1-8, note an audio alarm via speaker 205 and/or a visual alarm via display 201 and/or object identification tag indicators 208, 209, and/or 210 may be provided to a user); and
a controller coupled to the sensor, the wireless communications link, and the at least one audio and/or visual indicator and providing unit operation (see at least Figure 3, items 302, 301, 307, 303, 304 and 305 | col. 8, lines 20-40, note the motion sensor 301, the Bluetooth/RF enabled object identification detector 307, the speaker 303, the display 304 and warning lights 305 are coupled to the processor 302).
However, Maeng does not specifically disclose an accelerometer constructed and arranged to detect acceleration in a direction that is common with a direction of movement of the door when the door is opened and or closed.
It is known to detect the motion of a vehicle door in different ways. For example, Brueckner teaches a system comprising an accelerometer constructed and arranged to detect acceleration in a direction that is common with a direction of movement of a door when the door is opened and or closed (see at least [0088] note an acceleration sensor is used to detect the movement of the vehicle 12, such as movement caused by a person entering or exiting the vehicle via slamming shut of the door of the vehicle 12, wherein evaluating the provided evaluation signals may include comparing movement frequencies or vibration frequencies of the detected movement of the vehicle 12 | [0004] note alerting a user that they may have forgotten their mobile terminal | [0084] note a warning light lights up in the dashboard of the vehicle 12 | [0083] note loudspeaker of the vehicle 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Brueckner into Maeng. This provides a known alternative motion sensor that can be used in place of, or in addition to Maeng’s motion sensor while providing predictable results. In addition, by evaluating the movement or vibration frequencies, Brueckner may allow Maeng’s system to more clearly identify or distinguish the vehicle door movement from other vibrations, thus improving system performance.
Regarding claim 2, Maeng in view of Brueckner teach wherein the device actuates an audible alarm or light of the vehicle (see at least [0084] of Brueckner, note a warning light lights up in the dashboard of the vehicle 12 | [0083] of Brueckner, note loudspeaker of the vehicle 12).
Regarding claim 5, Maeng in view of Brueckner teach wherein the device differentiates door opening or closing from car turns or potholes (see at least [0088] of Brueckner, note the system compares the movement frequencies or vibration frequencies of the acceleration sensor to the known or programmed movement frequencies or vibration frequencies a person entering or exiting the vehicle via slamming shut of the door of the vehicle 12, that is, car turns or pothole movement frequencies or vibration frequencies will not match the known or programmed movement frequencies or vibration frequencies a person entering or exiting the vehicle via slamming shut of the door of the vehicle 12).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng (US 7,880,613 B1) in view of Brueckner (US 2021/0231766 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kharbawi (US 2018/0053398 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Maeng in view of Brueckner do not specifically teach wherein the vehicle includes an electronics system, and the unit is functionally integrated with the vehicle electronics system.
It is known to integrate reminder systems with a vehicle electronics system. For example, Kharbawi teaches a system wherein a vehicle includes an electronics system, and the unit is functionally integrated with the vehicle electronics system (see at least [0028-0030] note the reminder system 5 can be built-in inside the door and in communication with the central computer of the vehicle | [0025] note the system can be a shelf or aftermarket product | [0031] | [0002]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kharbawi into Maeng in view of Brueckner. This provides the ability to alert the user via a horn of the vehicle in the event the user does not hear Maeng in view of Brueckner’s audible alert via the phone reminder device’s speaker.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng (US 7,880,613 B1) in view of Brueckner (US 2021/0231766 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Belhadia (US 2017/0011573 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Maeng in view of Brueckner teach wherein the sensor is operative to monitor the movement of one or more elements of a door lock mechanism (see at least col. 4, lines 49-53 of Maeng, note detecting a turning of a handle of the door).
However, Maeng in view of Brueckner do not specifically teach establishing a signal profile unique to the lock mechanism.
It is known to monitor a door in different ways. For example, Belhadia teaches a system wherein the sensor is operative to monitor the movement of one or more elements of a door lock mechanism and establish a signal profile unique to the lock mechanism (see at least [0061-0063] note the accelerometer can detect whether a bolt of a door lock mechanism has moved (e.g., by comparing sensed acceleration with a known acceleration profile)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Belhadia into Maeng in view of Brueckner. This provides a known alternative monitored door lock mechanism that can be used in place of Maeng in view of Brueckner’s monitored door lock mechanism while providing predictable results. In addition, this allows Maeng in view of Brueckner’s to be customized for the specific door it is attached to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights