DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
The present application’s priority under Provisional US Application Number 62/957,285 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 14-15, and 21-27 are pending.
Claims 8-11 and 21-24 have been amended.
Claims 12-13 and 16-20 were previously canceled.
Response to Amendment
Objection to Specification (Abstract): Applicant has submitted a replacement Abstract that fails to address the concerns with regards to the Abstract. The Abstract states “energizing/de-energizing the smartkey” and “energizes the smartkey”, but the amended claims no longer describe energizing / de-energizing a smartkey but instead describe energizing / de-energizing a VCS, simulating a smartkey. The objection to the specification is maintained.
Objection to Claims: Applicant has submitted amendments to claims 1, 21, and 24 that address the concerns with regards to the claims. The objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: The amendments to claims 1 and 21 overcome the rejection of record. Independent claims 1 and 21 now recite “allowing access to the vehicle by the VCS, in response to the grant access signal, including at least one of unlocking the vehicle and disarming an alarm system”, which is an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The rejection to claims 1-11, 14-15, and 21-27 is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claims 1 and 21 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites “and including the identification of the second mobile device”, and amended claim 21 recites “allowing access to the vehicle by the VCS, in response to the grant access signal, including at least one of unlocking the vehicle and disarming an alarm system installed in the vehicle”, which changes the scope of the claimed invention. Furthermore, claim 8 has been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claim 8 recites “the identification in”, which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant's arguments filed 5/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the last paragraph starting on pg 3 of remarks, applicant argues that “Davidsson, at most, teaches a second user initially sending a message to an authorized user”, and that “Davidsson is silent as to the method if initially receiving the first message by authorized user that prompts … the second message to be sent.” However, examiner maintains that Davidsson et al. (US 20150332531 A1) teaches sending a second message in response to a first message in scenario (c) of FIG. 7. Scenarios (a) and (b) feature a first message sent to an authorized user.
Applicant further argues in the first full paragraph on pg 4 of remarks that the prior art of record does not teach the claim language related to a third message “including the identification of the second mobile device and validating the identification of the second mobile device”. However, examiner maintains that secondary reference Ammoura et al. (US 10878490 B2) teaches a third message (see Ammoura FIG. 3 step 302) that contains an identifier identifying an allowed device. Examiner interprets this message of Ammoura as a third message, where the first message comprises communication between the user device and a cloud-based system when creating an account, and the second message comprises the cloud-based system sharing the identifier with the user device.
For the prompt language added to claim 9, maintains that Ammoura teaches a prompt to gain access to the vehicle (see Ammoura FIG. 2 GUI 202: “Please Enter Your Code”). Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach terminating access when a termination condition is met. However, examiner maintains that Davidsson teaches removing access when a time expires (see Davidsson [0015]).
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the “second message from the cloud-based system comprises textural information regarding the predetermined time sharing duration”. However, examiner maintains that applicant’s arguments are moot because examiner relies on at least paragraphs [0016] ad [0151] of new reference Tokunaga et al. (US 20180103022 A1), previously presented in the conclusion of previous rejection, to teach this limitation.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach the identification of claim 1 comprises a password exchange, as described in amended claim 8. However, examiner maintains that applicant’s arguments against Yi et al. (KR 20190124377 A) in regards to claim 8 are moot because Ammoura et al. (US 10878490 B2) is not relied on to teach this limitation, in light of the amendment. Please see 103 section below for details.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract describes energizing a smartkey, but the claims only describe energizing a VCS to simulate the presence of a smartkey. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the limitation “validating the identification of the second mobile device, at the cloud-based system, the third message as coming from the second mobile device”, the underlined portion is unnecessary. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 14, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidsson et al. (US 20150332531 A1) in view of Ammoura et al. (US 10878490 B2) and Tessier et al. (US 20110291797 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davisson teach A method of sharing a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1a: vehicle 1) including a Vehicle Control System (VCS) (see at least FIG. 2, [0081]: “remotely operable lock 111”) installed in the vehicle, the vehicle including a vehicle computer configured to perform one or more smartkey-enabled features (see at least [0009]: “unlocking/locking of the remotely operable lock”) responsive to a smartkey in or near the vehicle generating a successful response to a challenge from the vehicle computer, the method comprising:
receiving, at a cloud based system (see at least FIG. 2: intermediate system 41) comprising one or more remote servers (see at least [0017]: “The intermediate system may refer to … a remotely located server”), a first message (see at least FIG. 7 scenario (c): first message 2123) from a first mobile (see at least [0071]: “smart phone”) device (see at least FIG. 2: owner device 21) of an authorized user (see at least FIG. 1c: owner 2) of a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1c: vehicle 1), the first message comprising identification (see at least [0024]: “The “permission message” may be transmitted … indirectly via the intermediate system to the user device”) *Examiner’s interpretation: the permission message must include identification information of the user device for the intermediate system to know where to pass along the permission information* of a second mobile device (see at least FIG. 2: user device 31) of a second user (see at least FIG. 1c: temporary user 3);
in response to receiving the first message, sending a second message (see at least FIG. 7: second message 4122) from the cloud-based system to the second mobile device, the second message comprising information regarding availability of the vehicle for sharing (see at least FIG. 7, [0134]: “the permission message 2121 being represented by … the second message 4122”;FIG. 7, [0122]: “permission message 2121 comprising access parameters”; [0023]: “access parameters” may be represented by any arbitrary parameters indicating conditions of the intended provision of temporary access, relating for instance to access timing and vehicle identity”);
receiving, at the cloud-based system, a third message (see at least FIG. 7: request message 3121) from the second mobile device, the third message requesting access to the vehicle (see at least FIG. 2, [0073]: “a request message 3121 to open the lock 111”);
sending a grant access signal (see at least FIG. 7: unlock message 4121; FIG. 4 step 1007: transmit an unlock message) from the cloud-based system to the VCS (see at least FIG. 2, [0081]: “remotely operable lock 111”);
receiving, at the VCS, the grant access signal (see at least FIG. 6 step 1007’: transmit an unlock message); and
allowing access to the vehicle by the VCS, in response to the grant access signal, including at least one of unlocking (see at least [0120]: “the unlock message 4121 to the vehicle 1 to open the lock 111, wherein the lock 111 is enabled to be unlocked based on the access parameters”) the vehicle and disarming an alarm system installed in the vehicle.
However, Davidsson does not explicitly teach including a vehicle computer;
generating a successful response to a challenge from the vehicle computer;
and including the identification of the second mobile device;
validating the identification of the second mobile device, at the cloud-based system, the third message as coming from the second mobile device;
in response to validation of the third message
responsive to the grant access signal and with the smartkey absent from the vehicle, selectively simulating with the VCS the presence of the smartkey in or near the vehicle by:
sending a command corresponding to the one or more smartkey-enabled features from the VCS to the vehicle computer,
receiving by the VCS the challenge from the vehicle computer, and
generating at the VCS an appropriate response to the challenge for the vehicle computer to make it appear to the vehicle computer that the smartkey is in or near the vehicle for causing the one or more smartkey-enabled features to be performed by the vehicle computer.
Ammoura teach the third (see at least (24) column 4 lines 29-31: “the user 106 creates an account with the orchestration service 104.”; (35) column 5 lines 63-65: “information can be gathered … in the orchestration service 104 when the user 106 creates an account”; (24) column 4 lines 34-36: “The orchestration service 104 can generate a unique identifier for the user 106 during the account creation process.”; (26) column 4 lines 44-46: “unique identifier for the user 106 that is stored … on the mobile device 108.”) message including the identification (see at least Column 7 line 67 – Column 8 line 1: “an identifier received from a mobile device”; FIG. 3 step 302: “a message from a mobile device … , message comprises an identifier”) of the second mobile device (see at least FIG. 1: mobile device 108);
validating the identification of the second mobile device, (see at least FIG. 4A step 402: “Performing a first type of authentication for a user based on an identifier received from a mobile device”), at the cloud-based system (see at least FIG. 4A, Column 7 lines 54-65: “This method is performed by an example orchestration service of the present disclosure.”; FIG. 1, Column 3 lines 49-50: “the orchestration service 104 can be implemented as a cloud-based service”), the third message *Examiner’s interpretation: the message of FIG. 3 step 302 of Ammoura is sent to gain user access to a shared vehicle, similar to the request message 3121 taught by Davidsson. The first message of Ammoura is a message that sends from the user device to the orchestration service during account creation, and the second message of Ammoura sends the unique identifier from the orchestration service to the user device.* as coming from the second mobile device; and
in response to validation of the third message, sending a grant access signal (see at least Column 8 lines 6-8: “the orchestration service can transmit an unlock command to the vehicle controller when the first type of authentication is complete”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to validate a message requesting access to a vehicle from a user granted temporary access to the vehicle. Doing so would “provide for secure access to vehicles,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 2 line 52.
Tessier teach the vehicle including a vehicle computer (see at least FIG. 2: CPU 40 within bypass module 2; [0025]: “the bypass module 2 is integrated within the remote vehicle starter 4”);
generating a successful response (see at least FIG. 5 step 58: “answer question”) to a challenge (see at least FIG. 5 step 56: “receive question?”) from the vehicle computer;
responsive to the grant access signal (see at least FIG. 5 step 54: “remote starter activation?”) and with the smartkey absent from the vehicle, selectively simulating with the VCS (see at least FIG. 1: bypass module 2) the presence of the smartkey in or near the vehicle by:
sending a command (see at least [0029]: “the immobilizer 8 communicates … upon an ignition request received from a remote vehicle starter 4”) corresponding to the one or more smartkey-enabled features from the VCS to the vehicle computer,
receiving by the VCS the challenge (see at least FIG. 5, [0034]: “the bypass module 2 enters Read 56 mode and waits to receive the security information requests of the immobilizer 8. In particular, the bypass module 2 demodulates the RF signal transmitted from the immobilizer 8 and the microcontroller 32 analyses and decodes the signal containing the security information request.”) from the vehicle computer, and
generating at the VCS an appropriate response (see at least FIG. 5, [0034]: “the bypass module 2 Answers 58 the security information request of the immobilizer 8 and Returns 60 the appropriate information requested by immobilizer 8, such as a code, a challenge response”) to the challenge for the vehicle computer to make it appear (see at least [0034]: “The present invention, therefore, emulates a vehicle key 28 bearing a transponder 26 to thus permit the remote start of a vehicle.”) to the vehicle computer that the smartkey is in or near the vehicle for causing the one or more smartkey-enabled features (see at least [0034]: “remote start”) to be performed by the vehicle computer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Tessier to include a challenge / response sequence to enable smartkey features. Doing so would prevent theft of a vehicle key embedded inside a vehicle to share vehicle access by removing the need for a physical key, as recognized by Tessier in paragraph [0006].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Davidsson further teach wherein the first message (see at least [0028]: “the permission message may be comprised in at least one Short Message Service, SMS, message”), the second message (see at least FIG. 7, [0134]: “the permission message 2121 being represented by the first message 2123 and the second message 4122”), and the third message (see at least [0074]: “The request message 3121 may be comprised in at least one short message service, SMS, message”) are Short Message Service (SMS) messages.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Davidsson further teach wherein the first message (see at least [0028]: “the permission message may be comprised in at least one Short Message Service, SMS, message”), the second message (see at least FIG. 7, [0134]: “the permission message 2121 being represented by the first message 2123 and the second message 4122”), and the third message (see at least [0074]: “The request message 3121 may be comprised in at least one short message service, SMS, message”) are text messages.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Davidsson further teach further comprising: receiving, at the cloud-based system, a fourth *Examiner’s interpretation: request message 3121 sent again after being sent a first time (third message) would count as a separate message (fourth message)* message (see at least FIG. 7: unlock message 4121; FIG. 4 step 1007’: transmit an unlock message) from the second mobile device, the fourth message comprising a request to activate the one or more smartkey-enabled (see at least [0014]: “allow someone else, not in possession of a key thereto, a restricted and/or conditioned access to the vehicle”) features (see at least FIG. 2, [0073]: “a request message 3121 to open the lock 111”);
sending a feature activation signal from the cloud-based system to the VCS, wherein the feature activation signal causes the VCS to activate the one or more smartkey-enabled features (see at least [0129]: “to open the lock 111”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 4.
Ammoura further teach further comprising validating (see at least FIG. 4A step 402: “Performing a first type of authentication for a user based on an identifier received from a mobile device”), at the cloud-based system (see at least FIG. 4A, Column 7 lines 54-65: “This method is performed by an example orchestration service of the present disclosure.”; FIG. 1, Column 3 lines 49-50: “the orchestration service 104 can be implemented as a cloud-based service”), the fourth message (see at least Column 7 line 67 – Column 8 line 1: “an identifier received from a mobile device”) as coming from the second mobile device (see at least FIG. 1: mobile device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to validate a message requesting access to a vehicle from a user granted temporary access to the vehicle. Doing so would “provide for secure access to vehicles,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 2 line 52.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 5.
Ammoura further teach wherein the one or more smartkey-enabled features comprises activating at least one of a sound emitting device of the vehicle or of the VCS, and activating a light emitting device (see at least FIG. 1, Column 4 lines 16-20: “the orchestration service 104 can assist the user 106 in locating the vehicle 102 by causing the vehicle controller 112 to activate any of the horn 124 and/or the light(s) 126.”) of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to shine lights or honk a horn based on a command from a user granted temporary shared access. Doing so would “assist the user 106 in locating the vehicle,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 4 lines 17-18.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Ammoura further teaches the identification in the first message (see at least column 5 lines 63-65: “This information can be gathered and stored in the orchestration service 104 when the user 106 creates an account.”) further comprises a password (see at least (35) column 5 lines 58-61: “a code that is embedded into the application 130 of the mobile device 108.”); and
the step of validating the third message comprises sending a request for verification message from the cloud-based system to the second mobile device, receiving by the cloud-based system a message containing a response to the request for verification *Examiner’s interpretation: in Ammoura, the code embedded into the application of the mobile device would only be accessible by the orchestration service through communication exchanged between the two systems*, and comparing the password to the response to the verification (see at least (35) column 5 lines 58-61: “the user 106 can be authenticated a second time by other data such as … a code that is embedded into the application 130 of the mobile device 108.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to authenticate a user before granting vehicle access. Doing so would “provide for secure access to vehicles,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 2 line 52.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Davidsson further teaches wherein the message comprises a prompt (see at least [0027]: “the permission message may comprise a user selectable web link connecting to the remote intermediate system, which web link is adapted to, upon being selected, initiate the request message to be transmitted to the intermediate system.”) for activating the one or more smartkey-enabled features via the third message.
Ammoura further teaches wherein the second message from the cloud-based system comprises a prompt (see at least [0027]: “the permission message may comprise a user selectable web link connecting to the remote intermediate system, which web link is adapted to, upon being selected, initiate the request message to be transmitted to the intermediate system.”) for activating the one or more smartkey-enabled features via the third message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to prompt a user for authentication input. Doing so would “provide for secure access to vehicles,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 2 line 52.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Davidsson further teach wherein the step of allowing access to the vehicle comprises unlocking (see at least [0129]: “to open the lock 111”) the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
Davidsson further teach further comprising: determining whether a required condition for terminating access is satisfied (see at least [0015]: “the “temporary access” is intended to refer to the temporary user being allowed access to the locked space, which access is restricted by conditions, e.g. regarding access time frame”); and
terminating access to the vehicle. *Examiner’s interpretation: outside of access time frame, access will not be granted.*
Regarding claim 21, Davisson teach A system for use with a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1a: vehicle 1) configured to perform one or more smartkey-enabled features (see at least [0009]: “unlocking/locking of the remotely operable lock”) responsive to a simulated presence of a smartkey in or near the vehicle, the system comprising:
a cloud computing system (see at least FIG. 2: intermediate system 41) comprising one or more remote servers (see at least [0017]: “The intermediate system may refer to … a remotely located server”) configured to
receive a first message (see at least FIG. 7 scenario (c): first message 2123) from a first mobile (see at least [0071]: “smart phone”) device (see at least FIG. 2: owner device 21) of an authorized user (see at least FIG. 1c: owner 2) of the vehicle (see at least FIG. 1c: vehicle 1), the first message comprising identification (see at least [0024]: “The “permission message” may be transmitted … indirectly via the intermediate system to the user device”) *Examiner’s interpretation: the permission message must include identification information of the user device for the intermediate system to know where to pass along the permission information* of a second mobile device (see at least FIG. 2: user device 31) of a second user (see at least FIG. 1c: temporary user 3), the;
in response to receiving the first message, send a second message (see at least FIG. 7: second message 4122) to the second mobile device, the second message comprising information regarding availability of the vehicle for sharing (see at least FIG. 7, [0134]: “the permission message 2121 being represented by … the second message 4122”;FIG. 7, [0122]: “permission message 2121 comprising access parameters”; [0023]: “access parameters” may be represented by any arbitrary parameters indicating conditions of the intended provision of temporary access, relating for instance to access timing and vehicle identity”);
receive a third message (see at least FIG. 7: request message 3121) from the second mobile device, the third message requesting access to the vehicle (see at least FIG. 2, [0073]: “a request message 3121 to open the lock 111”);
generate a send a grant access signal (see at least FIG. 7: unlock message 4121; FIG. 4 step 1007’: transmit an unlock message); and
a Vehicle Control System (VCS) (see at least FIG. 2, [0081]: “remotely operable lock 111”) to be installed in the vehicle and configured to
receive (see at least FIG. 7: unlock message 4121; FIG. 4 step 1007’: transmit an unlock message) the grant access signal from the cloud computing system, and
receiving, at the VCS, the grant access signal (see at least FIG. 6 step 1007’: transmit an unlock message);
allowing access to the vehicle by the VCS, in response to the grant access signal, including at least one of unlocking (see at least [0120]: “the unlock message 4121 to the vehicle 1 to open the lock 111, wherein the lock 111 is enabled to be unlocked based on the access parameters”) the vehicle and disarming an alarm system installed in the vehicle; and
in response to a termination condition being met (see at least [0015]: “the “temporary access” is intended to refer to the temporary user being allowed access to the locked space, which access is restricted by conditions, e.g. regarding access time frame”), terminating access *Examiner’s interpretation: outside of access time frame, access will not be granted.* to the one or more smartkey-enabled features.
However, Davidsson does not explicitly teach including a vehicle computer;
generating a successful response to a challenge form the vehicle computer;
validate the third message as coming from the second mobile device;
with the smartkey absent from the vehicle, selectively simulate the presence of the smartkey in or near the vehicle by:
sending a command corresponding to the one or more smartkey-enabled features to the vehicle computer,
receiving the challenge from the vehicle computer, and
generating an appropriate response to the challenge for the vehicle computer to make it appear to the vehicle computer that the smartkey is in or near the vehicle for causing the one or more smartkey-enabled features to be performed by the vehicle computer.
Ammoura teach (see at least FIG. 4A step 402: “Performing a first type of authentication for a user based on an identifier received from a mobile device”; FIG. 4A, Column 7 lines 54-65: “This method is performed by an example orchestration service of the present disclosure.”; FIG. 1, Column 3 lines 49-50: “the orchestration service 104 can be implemented as a cloud-based service”), the third message (see at least Column 7 line 67 – Column 8 line 1: “an identifier received from a mobile device”; FIG. 3 step 302: “a message from a mobile device … , message comprises an identifier”) *Examiner’s interpretation: the message of FIG. 3 step 302 of Ammoura is sent to gain user access to a shared vehicle, similar to the request message 3121 taught by Davidsson. The first message of Ammoura is a message that sends from the user device to the orchestration service during account creation, and the second message of Ammoura sends the unique identifier from the orchestration service to the user device.* as coming from the second mobile device (see at least FIG. 1: mobile device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to validate a message requesting access to a vehicle from a user granted temporary access to the vehicle. Doing so would “provide for secure access to vehicles,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 2 line 52.
Tessier teach the vehicle including a vehicle computer (see at least FIG. 2: CPU 40 within bypass module 2; [0025]: “the bypass module 2 is integrated within the remote vehicle starter 4”);
generating a successful response (see at least FIG. 5 step 58: “answer question”) to a challenge (see at least FIG. 5 step 56: “receive question?”) from the vehicle computer;
a Vehicle Control System (VCS) (see at least FIG. 1: bypass module 2) configured to
with the smartkey absent from the vehicle, selectively simulating the presence of the smartkey in or near the vehicle by
sending a command (see at least [0029]: “the immobilizer 8 communicates … upon an ignition request received from a remote vehicle starter 4”) corresponding to the one or more smartkey-enabled to the vehicle computer,
receiving the challenge (see at least FIG. 5, [0034]: “the bypass module 2 enters Read 56 mode and waits to receive the security information requests of the immobilizer 8. In particular, the bypass module 2 demodulates the RF signal transmitted from the immobilizer 8 and the microcontroller 32 analyses and decodes the signal containing the security information request.”) from the vehicle computer, and
generating an appropriate response (see at least FIG. 5, [0034]: “the bypass module 2 Answers 58 the security information request of the immobilizer 8 and Returns 60 the appropriate information requested by immobilizer 8, such as a code, a challenge response”) to the challenge for the vehicle computer to make it appear (see at least [0034]: “The present invention, therefore, emulates a vehicle key 28 bearing a transponder 26 to thus permit the remote start of a vehicle.”) to the vehicle computer that the smartkey is in or near the vehicle for causing the one or more smartkey-enabled features (see at least [0034]: “remote start”) to be performed by the vehicle computer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Tessier to include a challenge / response sequence to enable smartkey features. Doing so would prevent theft of a vehicle key embedded inside a vehicle to share vehicle access by removing the need for a physical key, as recognized by Tessier in paragraph [0006].
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The system of claim 21.
Davidsson further teaches wherein the termination condition includes a predetermined time sharing duration (see at least [0015]: “Furthermore, the “temporary access” is intended to refer to the temporary user being allowed access to the locked space, which access is restricted by conditions, e.g. regarding access time frame”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The system of claim 21.
Davidsson further teach wherein the cloud computing system is further configured to:
receive a fourth *Examiner’s interpretation: request message 3121 sent again after being sent a first time (third message) would count as a separate message (fourth message)* message (see at least FIG. 7: unlock message 4121; FIG. 4 step 1007’: transmit an unlock message) from the second mobile device, the fourth message comprising a request to activate the one or more smartkey-enabled (see at least [0014]: “allow someone else, not in possession of a key thereto, a restricted and/or conditioned access to the vehicle”) features (see at least FIG. 2, [0073]: “a request message 3121 to open the lock 111”);
send a feature activation signal from the cloud-based system to the VCS, the VCS being configured to activate the one or more smartkey-enabled features (see at least [0129]: “to open the lock 111”) responsive to the feature activation signal.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The system of claim 24.
Ammoura further teach wherein the cloud computing system (see at least FIG. 4A, Column 7 lines 54-65: “This method is performed by an example orchestration service of the present disclosure.”; FIG. 1, Column 3 lines 49-50: “the orchestration service 104 can be implemented as a cloud-based service”) is further configured to validate (see at least FIG. 4A step 402: “Performing a first type of authentication for a user based on an identifier received from a mobile device”) the fourth message (see at least Column 7 line 67 – Column 8 line 1: “an identifier received from a mobile device”) as coming from the second mobile device (see at least FIG. 1: mobile device 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to validate a message requesting access to a vehicle from a user granted temporary access to the vehicle. Doing so would “provide for secure access to vehicles,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 2 line 52.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The system of claim 25.
Ammoura further teach wherein the one or more smartkey-enabled features comprises activating at least one of a sound emitting device of the vehicle or of the VCS, and activating a light emitting device (see at least FIG. 1, Column 4 lines 16-20: “the orchestration service 104 can assist the user 106 in locating the vehicle 102 by causing the vehicle controller 112 to activate any of the horn 124 and/or the light(s) 126.”) of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to shine lights or honk a horn based on a command from a user granted temporary shared access. Doing so would “assist the user 106 in locating the vehicle,” as recognized by Ammoura in Column 4 lines 17-18.
Claims 7, 15, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidsson et al. (US 20150332531 A1) in view of Ammoura et al. (US 10878490 B2), Tessier et al. (US 20110291797 A1), and Yi et al. (KR 20190124377 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier does not explicitly teach wherein: the identification of the second mobile device comprises a telephone number of the second mobile device; and
the step of validating the third message comprises extracting a telephone number of a sending device from the third message, and comparing the telephone number of the sending device to the telephone number of the second mobile device.
Yi teach wherein: the identification of the second mobile device comprises a telephone number (see at least [0020]: “a unique number of the smart device”) of the second mobile device; and
the step of validating the third message comprises extracting a telephone number of a sending device from the third message, and comparing the telephone number of the sending device to the telephone number of the second mobile device (see at least [0074]: “The gateway 210 may determine whether a connection is established by matching the received unique number with a pre-stored number”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Yi to compare a number associated with a smart device to a pre-stored number to screen for accessibility. Doing so would “impart[] reliability through user smart device wireless communication authentication”, as recognized by Yi in paragraph [0030].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 14.
However, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier does not explicitly teach the step of terminating access to the vehicle comprises at least one of locking the vehicle and arming the alarm system.
Yi teach the step of terminating access to the vehicle comprises at least one of locking (see at least [0087]: “When the gateway 210 turns off the valet mode, it may transmit a door lock control signal to the vehicle system 230”) the vehicle and arming the alarm system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Yi to lock the vehicle door when access to temporary user has been terminated. Doing so would “impart[] reliability through user smart device wireless communication authentication”, as recognized by Yi in paragraph [0030].
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The system of claim 21.
However, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier does not explicitly teach wherein: the identification of the second mobile device comprises a telephone number of the second mobile device; and
the step of validating the third message comprises extracting a telephone number of a sending device from the third message, and comparing the telephone number of the sending device to the telephone number of the second mobile device.
Yi teach wherein: the identification of the second mobile device comprises a telephone number (see at least [0020]: “a unique number of the smart device”) of the second mobile device; and
the step of validating the third message comprises extracting a telephone number of a sending device from the third message, and comparing the telephone number of the sending device to the telephone number of the second mobile device (see at least [0074]: “The gateway 210 may determine whether a connection is established by matching the received unique number with a pre-stored number”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Yi to compare a number associated with a smart device to a pre-stored number to screen for accessibility. Doing so would “impart[] reliability through user smart device wireless communication authentication”, as recognized by Yi in paragraph [0030].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidsson et al. (US 20150332531 A1) in view of Ammoura et al. (US 10878490 B2), Tessier et al. (US 20110291797 A1), and Galicia Rodriguez (US 20190359172 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier does not explicitly teach wherein the step of allowing access to the vehicle comprises disarming an alarm system installed in the vehicle.
Galicia Rodriguez teach wherein the step of allowing access to the vehicle comprises disarming an alarm system (see at least [0026] “allowing the vehicle’s owner to generate and transmit information, in particular SMS messages … to …disable the vehicle alarm system”) installed in the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Galicia Rodriguez to disarm an alarm system through SMS. Doing so would “provide a vehicle monitoring and anti-theft alarm system with improved security and reliability”, as recognized by Galicia Rodriguez in paragraph [0020].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidsson et al. (US 20150332531 A1) in view of Ammoura et al. (US 10878490 B2), Tessier et al. (US 20110291797 A1), and Tokunaga et al. (US 20180103022 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Davisson, Ammoura, and Tessier teach The system of claim 22.
However, the combination of Davidsson, Ammoura, and Tessier does not explicitly teach wherein the second message from the cloud-based system comprises textural information regarding the predetermined time sharing duration.
Tokunaga teaches wherein the second message from the cloud-based system comprises textural (see at least [0016]: ““Computer communication”, as used herein, refers to a communication between two or more computing devices … and may be … a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) transfer”) information regarding the predetermined time sharing duration (see at least [0151]: “send (e.g., transmit) a permission signal to the one or more secondary portable devices 110. The permission signal may provide the one or more secondary portable devices 110 with accessing privileges … to the vehicle 102 based on the level of accessing privileges … granted by the primary driver”; [0082]: “The time based vehicle accessing privileges may be set by the primary driver to allow the one or more respective authorized users to unlock and lock at least one lock of one or more locations of the vehicle 102 for a determined period of time that is determined by the primary driver and classified as a predetermined period of time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidsson to incorporate the teachings of Tokunaga to provide textural information regarding time duration of sharing. Doing so would overcome the challenge of having to provide keys to other users to provide them with vehicle access, as recognized by Tokunaga in paragraph [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Previously presented prior art:
Reiser (US 20140266594 A1) teaches a system that smart key emulator outputting correct codes to unlock doors and start vehicle ignition (see paragraph [0169]).
Vincenti et al. (US 20190164367 A1) teach a system that allows for vehicle sharing over text message (see at least [0071]).
Peirce et al. (US 20150100197 A1) teach a system that verifies whether a device has access to a vehicle using information included in a text message (see at least [0038])
Joao et al. (US 20150298654 A1) teach a system that allows a user to temporarily share vehicle access with a valet (see at least [0108]).
Galdo et al. (US 20210250355 A1) teach a system that deals with granting vehicle access electronically to others.
Weng et al. (US 9162648 B1) teach using a mobile device as a smart key device to access a vehicle.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/G.A.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662