\\
`..:'<-.
`
`
`9
`
`‘-
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/013,303
`
`07/21/2014
`
`7,397,363 B2
`
`3482
`
`RAYMOND A. mo, ESQ.
`122 BELLEVUE PLACE
`R1MELL=5AMUEL G
`YONKERS, NY 10703
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`07/29/2015
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`JCMS — EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`
`Comrnis-sinner for Patents
`United States Patent and Tradernark Office
`F'.O. Elu;~t145I:i
`Alexaridria, VA 2231 3-1 450
`vuvu-wuspro.gmr
`
`
`
`I TJIKII THU 93 '.['ATE'F_-1 PATEN T AND TRADEE-‘IARK QFFI CE
`5'-L
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSM|'|'|'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/013 303.
`
`PATENT NO. 7397363 B2 E.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`PTOL—465 (Rev.07—04)
`
`JCMS — EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue
`
`90/013303
`
`7»397s353 32 E
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Examiner
`
`SAMUEL RIMELL
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Status
`No
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`1. IX! Prosecution on the merits is (or remains) closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding. This proceeding is
`subject to reopening at the initiative of the Office or upon petition. Cf. 37 CFR 1 .313(a). A Certificate will be issued
`in view of
`
`(a)
`
`IXI Patent owner’s communication(s) filed: 01 June 2015.
`El Patent owner’s failure to file an appropriate timely response to the Office action mailed:
`I:I Patent owner’s failure to timely file an Appeal Brief (37 CFR 41.31).
`|:I The decision on appeal by the |:I Board of Patent Appeals and interferences |:I Court dated
`
`(e)
`
`IXI Other: Reasons for Patentabi/itz(Attached).
`
`Change in the Specification:
`Change in the Drawing(s):
`Status of the Claim(s):
`
`(1) Patent claim(s) confirmed: a.
`(2) Patent claim(s) amended (including dependent on amended claim(s)):
`(3) Patent claim(s) canceled:
`.
`(4) Newly presented claim(s) patentable:
`.
`(5) Newly presented canceled claims:
`(6) Patent claim(s)
`|:I previously I:| currently disclaimed:
`(7) Patent claim(s) not subject to reexamination:
`
`3. I] A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`4. IX] Note the attached statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation. Any comments considered necessary
`by patent owner regarding reasons for patentability and/or confirmation must be submitted promptly to avoid
`processing delays. Such submission(s) should be labeled: “Comments On Statement of Reasons for Patentability
`and/or Confirmation.”
`
`5. IX Note attached NOTICE OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO—892).
`
`6. IX Note attached LIST OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO/SB/08 OI’ PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`
`7. I] The drawing correction request filed on
`
`is: I] approved
`
`I:l disapproved.
`
`8. I:l Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119( )-(d) or (f).
`a)I:I All
`b)I:l Some*
`c)I:I None
`of the certified copies have
`I:I been received.
`I] not been received.
`.
`I:l been filed in Application No.
`.
`I] been filed in reexamination Control No.
`I] been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No.
`
`* Certified copies not received: j
`
`9. CI Note attached Examiner’s Amendment.
`
`10. CI Note attached Interview Summary (PTO-474).
`
`1 1. D Other:
`
`All correspondence relating to this reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at
`the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`cc: Re uester (if third o art re uester)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-469 (Rev. 08-13)
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Part of Paper No 20150707
`
`Sam Rimell/
`
`Primary Examiner
`* rt Unit: 3992
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,303
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Reasons for Patentability
`
`Claim 21 is the single claim subject to reexamination in this proceeding.
`
`
`(a) Office Action of March 31 2015: Claim 21 was rejected under pre—AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over Spaur et al (U.S. Patent 5,732,074) in View of Kniffen et al
`
`(U.S. Patent 6,072,402). Upon further analysis of Patent Owner's arguments of June 1, 2015, and
`
`reconsideration of the facts and evidence, it has been found that this rejection would result in a
`
`system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and thus would not have been obvious. See In re
`
`G0m'c>iz, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`111 particular, the prior art combination
`
`wouid result in a system w.‘uere.
`
`the third device (see office acti<_m at p. 3) would lack a
`
`mechanism to receive or szontr-:,~E the direction of signals to the appr-:,~pri ate devices on the vehicle.
`
`The proposed combination would thus produce a device which is esseutiaily non--crperationai,
`
`anti thus unsatisfactory for its inteiideti purpose. Accerdiiagiy, this rejection is hereby ‘v"<1€.7{it(-Ed.
`
`(b) Spaur et a1 + Kniffen et a1 + Add a duplicate
`
`phone to device #3: Examiners
`
`considered the question of whether it would have been obvious to further modify the
`
`combination of Spaur et al and Kniffen et al to place a duplicate cellphone at the third device.
`
`However, upon making this analysis, it was found that the proposed combination would still be
`
`non—operational. In particular, a second cell phone added to the third device (office action at p.3)
`
`would be capable of receiving signals, but have no capacity to determine where the received
`
`signals are supposed to be directed. The proposed CO.ml_?_i!“i§i‘i.i0‘U wouid thus produce a device
`
`which rerhains IIOH-O}3‘tL1‘13.'li,%3'f1£ii, and thus uusati.sfactoi'y for its itttentied purpose.
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`JCMS — EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,303
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`(c) Spaur et al + Kniffen et al + Add a duplicate phone to device #3 + Add a controller to
`
`Device #3: Examiners considered the question of whether it would have been obvious to further
`
`modify the combination of Spaur et al and Kniffen et al to place a duplicate cellphone at the third
`
`device, as well as a controller to direct signals to the appropriate devices. However, this would
`
`result in multiple equipment redundancies that are not suggested by either Spaur et al or Kniffen
`
`et al. The combination would also not otherwise provide definable advantages or improvement
`
`so as to suggest obviousness to the person of ordinary skill in the art. in re Ser:mi<e:t*, 702 F.3d
`
`EH39, 994-95, 217 U.‘§iPQ l, 5~6 (Fed. Cir. E983). See also i3_w:a:" 'I+'2,s*zi:ffti:"ben (Ls‘mb}f <32: C0.
`
`f)€I,£i'.§'(3:7'EZai'i(l" KG v. CH1 f’atri(?ic, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368. 80 'i_l'Sl)Qj2Cl 1.641, 3651 (‘Fed Cir. 2006f:
`
`In re 1’!/1:130:25)‘, 411 F.2d 1321, 1323, 162 USPQ 98, 100 (CCFA l9<i-9). KSR inf’? Ca. V. Teiefie.t
`
`Ina, 550 US. 398. «=3-.15—/12],. 82 USPQ2d 1385, 139597 (2007).
`
`(d) (Ether Relevant Prior Art: iiiizaarninem: have also eonsit}e1‘ed the ;:=ri-or art ret'erence to
`
`Raniono (US Patent 5,070,320). Claim 21 recites:
`
`“..wherein the first processing device determines whether an action or an operation
`
`associated with information contained in the second signal,
`
`to at least one of activate, de-
`
`activate, disable re—enable, and control an operation of, the at least one of a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a
`
`vehicle appliance,
`
`is an authorized or an allowed action or an authorized or an allowed
`
`operation,..”
`
`Ramono recites a mobile security device 18 used by authorized personnel, but not a
`
`processing device where “the first processing device determines whether an action or an
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`JCMS — EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,303
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`operation associated with information contained in the second signal... is an authorized or an
`
`allowed action or an authorized or an allowed operation,..”'
`
`(e) Given these considerations, claim 21 is confirmed as patentable over the prior art of
`
`record in this proceeding.
`
`Reasons for NIRC Action
`
`MPEP 2287 states:
`
`the examiner must prepare a
`“Upon conciusion oi‘ the we pame reexamination pl‘-J§&3€€.£il,l’1§_£/,
`“l‘\lnE,ice oi’ lnteni.
`to lssene Ex P¢:;rre Rf.?€:.>§a.f}:}_i}‘1£i‘i‘.l-011 Certifiea.ie” (l‘\llRC) by eonnfaietirig form
`P'i"OL--469. If appropriate, an e)»:aminer’s amendment will also he prepared. Where elainis are
`found patentable, reasons must be given for each eiaiin fotind pa.tenta'bie.’”
`
`Since claim Iii is the only claim subject to reexainiiiation and has been "found patentable,
`
`prc-secution is hence eonciuded by issiiaiiee of this l‘~.?lE'{C action.
`
`/Sam Rimell/
`
`Primary Examiner
`CRU Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/JEFFREY CARLSON/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`/Woo H. Choi/
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`JCMS — EXHIBIT 2002