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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims 1-10, 1and 2-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive in light of the amendments. For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner has interpreted the claims to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed. Claim limitations associated with the login authentication procedure processed by the first identification device would be impossible to perform in the event that the user was determined as a guest user. Similarly, claim limitations associated with determination of guest user information vie the second identification device would be impossible to perform in the event that the user was determined as a registered. user. Therefore, the rejection, as updated in response to the claim amendments has been maintained. (See Claim Interpretation for compact prosecution in 35 USC § 112(b) rejections, infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determining, by a user device, a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a first identification device;
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determining information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information transmitted by the user device and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object;
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 14-17 would be performed when the user is determined as a registered user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 14-17 in the case that the type of user is determined as a registered user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determining, by a user device, a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a second identification device
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determining a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device, wherein the login authentication procedure comprises identifying the registered user based on the user information transmitted by the user device;
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 10-13 would be performed when the user is determined as guest user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 10-13 in the case that the type of user is determined as a guest user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determine a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmit the user information to a second identification device
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determine a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device, wherein the login authentication procedure comprises identifying the registered user based on the user information transmitted by the user device;
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 16-19 would be performed when the user is determined as guest user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 16-19 in the case that the type of user is determined as a guest user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determine a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmit the user information to a first identification device
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determine information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information transmitted by the user device and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 20-24 would be performed when the user is determined as a registered user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 14-17 in the case that the type of user is determined as a registered user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determine a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmit the user information to a second identification device
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determine a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device;
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 17-18 would be performed when the user is determined as guest user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 17-18 in the case that the type of user is determined as a guest user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determine a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmit the user information to a first identification device
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determine information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information transmitted by the user device and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 19-23 would be performed when the user is determined as a registered user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 19-23 in the case that the type of user is determined as a registered user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determining, by a user device, a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a second identification device
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determining a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device, wherein the login authentication procedure comprises identifying the registered user based on the user information transmitted by the user device;
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 14-17 would be performed when the user is determined as guest user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 14-17 in the case that the type of user is determined as a guest user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require only the limitations associated with the determined type of user to be performed
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the following limitations in Lines .
determining, by a user device, a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a first identification device;
However, the claim further recites the following limitation in Lines .
determining information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information transmitted by the user device and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object;
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. It is unclear how the limitation recited in Lines 18-21 would be performed when the user is determined as a registered user. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the specification and claims do not provide for a case in which the type of user is simultaneously determined as a registered user and a guest user. This makes it impossible to perform the limitation of Lines 18-21 in the case that the type of user is determined as a registered user.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims are dependent from claim , such that claims also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim is rejected.
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 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 1-10, 12-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Ikeda et al. (US 2008/0215209), hereinafter “Ikeda et al.”, in view of Penilla et al. (US 2019/0199800), hereinafter, “Penilla et al”.
Regarding Claim (as best understood by the Examiner),
disclose:
A method of operating a moving object, the method comprising:
determining a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device (¶¶0080-0089), wherein the login authentication procedure comprises identifying the registered user based on the user information transmitted by the user device (¶¶0062, 0066-0073, 0085-0088; “the personal identification device 41 identifies the facial feature information belonging to the driver (the facial feature information of the user who rides the vehicle 100), among the facial feature information items which are received from the in-vehicle device 10.”);;
determining information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information transmitted by the user device and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object; (¶¶0009, 0083-0084, 0112-0123) and
controlling the moving object based on moving object control information corresponding to the registered user identified by the first identification device or controlling the moving object based on the user information corresponding to the guest user determined by the second identification device (¶¶),
wherein the at least one of the first identification device or the second identification device is utilized according to the type of user (¶¶).
fail to explicitly disclose:
determining, by a user device, a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a first identification device;
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a second identification device
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the moving object control information comprises common information corresponding to the plurality of users registered in the identification device and user-specific information corresponding to each of the plurality of users registered in the identification device (: ¶¶0253, 0268; “In Step S1318, when it is determined that the contents of the environment setup information item are partially matching with each other, the flow proceeds to Step S1319. After transmitting, to the various control units 51-59, only the identical portion shared among the environment setup information item, the flow proceeds to Step S1320. As a result, only the identical portion which is common among the driving environment for each of users identified as the driver is set up.”; “Even when there exist two or more users who satisfy the identical determination condition, if there is a portion which is mutually common in the driving environment for each user, the in-vehicle device 10 sets up the driving environment of the vehicle 100 for the common portion, regardless of the external operation. For this reason, a part of the driving environment of the vehicle 100 can be set as the driving environment for the driver, without requesting the user to perform the selection operation.”).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the moving object control information is updated based on moving object operation information registered user identified by the first identification device (: ¶¶0254-0255).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein when at least one of the plurality of users registered in the identification device operates the moving object,
the common information and the user-specific information are stored, managed and updated based on the moving object operation information of the at least one of the plurality of users (: ¶¶0246, 0254-0256, 0269).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein when at least one of the plurality of users is registered in the identification device, the identification device receives user registration information corresponding to unique information of the user who has requested user registration (: ¶¶0244-0247, 0253-0255), and
performs a registration authentication procedure with respect to the user based on registration authentication information (¶¶0246) (: See Figs 18A and 18B).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein when the registration authentication procedure is completed, initial user information is generated based on the user registration information (: ¶¶0072-0073).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the registration authentication information corresponds to information capable of being acquired from a user authorized for registration (: ¶¶0072-0073).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the moving object control information is generated based on the initial user information (: ¶¶0072-0073).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein when a user is additionally registered in the identification device, a server receives an additional request from the identification device and performs an additional authentication procedure with respect to the additionally registered user based on information received from a user device (: ¶¶0140-0145).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the identification device is embedded in the moving object (: ¶¶0062).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the second identification device is detachable (: ¶¶0088, 0101)
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein when the moving object is turned on or riding of a user is detected, the moving object recognizes the identification device (: ¶¶0080-0089).
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein when end of use of the moving object by the identified user is detected, the moving object control information is updated (: ¶¶0101-0107).
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the identification device receives the user information from the moving object or a user device and performs the login authentication procedure (: ¶¶0080-0089).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of references further disclose:
wherein the first identification device receives user information from a user device via a network and performs a login authentication procedure with respect to the user, in a state in which the moving object is turned off or riding of the user is not detected (:¶¶0140-0145).
Regarding Claim 18 (as best understood by the Examiner),
Ikeda et al. disclose:
A moving object comprising:
a transceiver (13) configured to transmit and receive a signal (¶¶0067, 0080); and
a processor configured to control the transceiver (¶¶0080; “control unit 11 transmits an identification information-sending request which is a request to the portable device 20 for the transmission of the user identification information, using a short distance radio communication in order to detect that the user is in a state of riding the vehicle 100. Consequently, when the portable device 20 exists in the communications area (when a user who possesses the portable device 20 has ridden the vehicle 100), the user identification information stored in the portable device 20 is transmitted to the in-vehicle device 10 concerned (Step S302 in the information-transmitting processing (FIG. 4) described later)”),
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device (¶¶);
determine a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device, wherein the login authentication procedure comprises identifying the registered user based on the user information (¶¶0062, 0066-0073, 0085-0088; “the personal identification device 41 identifies the facial feature information belonging to the driver (the facial feature information of the user who rides the vehicle 100), among the facial feature information items which are received from the in-vehicle device 10.”);
determine information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object (¶¶0009, 0083-0084, 0112-0123); and
control the moving object based on moving object control information corresponding to the registered user identified by the first identification device or control the moving object based on the user information corresponding to the guest user determined by the second identification device (¶¶),
wherein the at least one of the first identification device or the second identification device is utilized according to the type of user (¶¶).
fail to explicitly disclose:
determine a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a first identification device;
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a second identification device
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 19 (as best understood by the Examiner),
Ikeda et al. disclose:
A system of operating a moving object (100), the system comprising:
the moving object (100);
a first identification device; and a second identification device (See at least: ¶¶0069, 0072, 0080, 0112; “The portable device 20 is a portable terminal which the user who rides the vehicle 100 can carry, and is possessed by a user who uses the present driving-environment setup system (a user who can drive the vehicle 100). When there are two or more users who use the present driving-environment setup system, each user possesses one portable device 20.”; “The storage unit 22 prestores user identification information, which is identification information unique to a user or an associated user who possesses the portable device 20, facial feature information, which is indicative of the user's facial feature point, and environment setup information, which is indicative of the driving environment for the user.”; “Moreover, even when two or more users, each possessing the portable device 20, ride in the vehicle 100, the in-vehicle device 10 can set the driving environment of the vehicle 100 as the driving environment for the driver by identifying the driver based on the facial feature point.”),
wherein the moving object (100) is configured to:
determine a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device (¶¶0080-0089);
determine information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object (¶¶0009, 0083-0084, 0112-0123);
control the moving object based on moving object control information corresponding to the registered user identified by the first identification device or control the moving object based on the user information corresponding to the guest user determined by the second identification device (¶¶),
wherein the at least one of the first identification device or the second identification device is utilized according to the type of user (¶¶).
wherein the first identification device is configured to:
identify the registered user based on the user information, and perform the login authentication procedure with respect to the registered user (¶¶0062, 0085-0088; “the personal identification device 41 identifies the facial feature information belonging to the driver (the facial feature information of the user who rides the vehicle 100), among the facial feature information items which are received from the in-vehicle device 10.”).
fail to explicitly disclose:
determine a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a first identification device;
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a second identification device
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 20 (as best understood by the Examiner),
Ikeda et al. disclose:
A method of operating a moving object, the method comprising:
determining a result of a login authentication procedure with respect to the user information processed by the first identification device (¶¶0080-0089), wherein the login authentication procedure comprises identifying the registered user based on the user information (¶¶0062, 0085-0088; “the personal identification device 41 identifies the facial feature information belonging to the driver (the facial feature information of the user who rides the vehicle 100), among the facial feature information items which are received from the in-vehicle device 10.”);
determining information of the guest user by the second identification device without the login authentication procedure, wherein the information of the guest user is identified according to the user information transmitted by the user device and operates the moving object instead of the registered user, and the guest user is not registered for the moving object (¶¶0009, 0083-0084, 0112-0123); and
controlling the moving object based on moving object control information corresponding to the registered user identified by the first identification device or controlling the moving object based on the user information corresponding to the guest user determined by the second identification device (¶¶),
wherein the at least one of the first identification device or the second identification device is utilized according to the type of user (¶¶)
wherein the second identification device is detachable from the moving object (Ikeda et al.: ¶¶0069, 0072, 0080, 0101, 0112.)
fail to explicitly disclose:
determining, by a user device, a type of user using the moving object, wherein the type of user is either a registered user or a guest user, the type of user being determined according to user information received in a login procedure;
in response to determining that the user is the registered user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a first identification device;
in response to determining that the user is the guest user, transmitting, by the user device, the user information to a second identification device
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to set driving privileges in accordance with an operator type See at least ¶¶. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. and as applied above, in view of Pan et al. (US 2021/0354686), hereinafter Pan et al.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein when end of use of the moving object by the user is detected, the moving object is locked.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art method upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
Pan et al. teach:
a prior art method using a known technique that is applicable to the method of Ikeda et al. Namely, the technique of locking a moving object when end of use of the moving object by the user is detected (¶¶0083-0085) in order to enhance security.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by Pan et al. to the method of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved method. Namely, a method that would lock a moving object when end of use of the moving object by the user is detected in the combination of references to enhance security. (See: MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
Moving object - vehicle (including an autonomous vehicle and an automated vehicle), a drone, a mobility, a mobile office, a mobile hotel, or a personal air vehicle (PAV). (See PgPub: ¶¶0056)
Identification device - identification device may be at least one of a smart device, a smart module, a user identification module, and an identification module. In other words, the identification device may be a hardware configuration. Also, as an example, the identification device may be used for the above-described identification in a software configuration. Herein, as an example, the identification device may be a subscriber identity module (SIM). For example, the SIM applied to the moving object as the identification device may be at least one of a Mobility SIM (M-SIM), a Vehicle SIM (V-SIM), an embedded SIM (E-SIM) or a nano SIM. (See PgPub: ¶¶0058)
User device - user device may mean a device supporting a communication function and possessed by the user except for the moving object. Herein, the user device may comprise a smartphone, a smart watch, a tablet PC, etc. and include all devices capable of performing communication with the identification device, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. (See PgPub: ¶¶0096)
Guest Identification device - a detachable external identification device 1132. (See PgPub: ¶¶0158)
Login information - user login information may mean information for enabling a user identified from another user to access this identification device. Herein, the user login information may comprise a user ID, a password corresponding to the user ID, the iris information of the user, the fingerprint information of the user, information generated by the photo and image of the user, etc., brainwave information received from a brain-computer interface (BCI), but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. (See PgPub: ¶¶0100)
Common information - the common information may correspond to common information considering moving object identification even when a plurality of users is registered in one identification device 820. Herein, since it is unnecessary to distinguish each user with respect to the common information, the identification device may autonomously manage this. For example, vehicle status information may not differ between users and thus may be common information. (See PgPub: ¶¶0128)
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747