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 .
This written action is responding to the amendment dated on 11/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are submitted for examination.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request for continued examination filed on November 13, 2025 has claims 1-20 as previously presented. Amended claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent ones.
Applicant’s remark, filed on November 13, 2025, from pages 9 to 15 indicates, “… With this Amendment and Reply, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite "determining if the operator is provided with full access, limited access, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, (b) an expiration date of a training license of the operator, and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment," and "wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time." Support for these amendments can be found in at least [0096] and [0098], and FIGS. 1C, 1D, and 8 of the present application. Applicant submits that the prior art, alone or in proper combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest "determining if the operator is provided with full access, limited access, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, (b) an expiration date of a training license of the operator, and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment," or "wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time," as recited in amended claim 1 . . . Harvey generally mentions safety considerations, stating "authorization may be based on safety considerations, e.g., whether an operator is trained or qualified to use a particular piece of equipment, etc.," but fails to make any mention regarding determining if an operator is provided with full, limited, or emergency access based on "an expiration date of a training license of the operator," as recited in amended claim 1. Accordingly, Harvey fails to cure the deficiencies of Walton and Yang with reference to "determining if the operator is provided with full access, limited access, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, (b) an expiration date of a training license of the operator, and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment," or "wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time," as recited in amended claim 1. … Ishikawa fails to cure the deficiencies of Walton, Yang, and Harvey with reference to determining if an operator is provided with full, limited, or emergency access based on "an expiration date of a training license of the operator," as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant further submits that Walton, Yang, Harvey, and Ishikawa, alone or in proper combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest "wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time," as recited in amended claim 1. … Ishikawa provides that in an emergency operating mode "at least the traveling capability of the vehicle is restricted such as limitations on the speed or driving time, thereby diminishing the risk of being stolen and at the same time allowing anyone to move the vehicle in the time of emergency." Ishikawa, col. 5 lines 18-23. Ishikawa further discusses a travel restricted mode "where at least traveling capability of the vehicle is prohibited, for instance disabling a gear of the vehicle so as to prohibit forward/backward move of the vehicle, disabling the engine so that the vehicle is not turned on, or locking the parking break so that the parking break cannot be released." Ishikawa, col. 54-59. Applicant respectfully submits that neither the emergency operating mode nor the travel restricted mode of Ishikawa would amount to any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion of "an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline." Ishikawa fails to make any disclosure whatsoever regarding an "incline”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand a restriction on speed, driving time, supply of fuel, use of the acceleration pedal past a certain degree, or operating time to amount to any suggestion of any sort of mode "in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline," as recited in claim 1. Ishikawa simply fails to discuss or even suggest prevention of being driven up an incline. While the Examiner argues at page 7 of the Office Action that "the asserted feature limitation relating to limiting a vehicle from been driven up an incline is rendered obvious by the teachings of Ishikawa as it is simply predictable use of known equipment functionality to render a predictable result based on the KSR vs Teleflex rationale," Applicant respectfully disagrees and believes that the Examiner has misconstrued KSR vs. Teleflex. The Examiner appears to inappropriately assert that KSR's holding that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," implies that the Office is not required to show that the prior art teaches each element of the claim. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, even were the cited portions of Ishikawa, Walton, Yang, and Harvey obvious to combine in order to yield predictable results, such a combination would not render amended claim 1 obvious because the combination of Ishikawa, Walton, Yang, and Harvey would not predictably result in any sort of mode "in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is allowable over Walton, Yang, Harvey, and Ishikawa. Claims 9 and 17 are allowable for similar and/or analogous reasons. Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 depend from amended claims 1, 9, and 17, and are allowable for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Claims 1-20 are in condition for allowance and respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection be withdrawn. Applicant believes that the application is in condition for allowance. Favorable reconsideration is respectfully requested.”
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but are not found persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges that prior art references by Harvey and Ishikawa does not teach the amended feature “determining if the operator is provided with full access, limited access, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on both (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, (b) an expiration date of a training license of the operator, …”. However, prior art by Walton, in paragraphs [0005], [0052] and [0058], discloses the determination method to provide access to an operator or driver to access the vehicle and drive it. Specifically, Walton discloses the requirement of a valid license (i.e., has not expired at specific expiration date), training, licensure, certifications, experience, and the like. Therefore, Examiner submits that Walton in combination with Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa disclose the feature amended on independent claims 1, 9 and 17. See rejection below.
Examiner further respectfully traverses the Applicant’s argument that the prior art by Ishikawa (US 8,514,055) fails to disclose or suggest the limitation, "wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time". Examiner would like to first point out that the prior-art reference by Harvey (US 20090219135) teaches, in Parag. [0018], that operating a vehicle by limiting the operating time. However, Harvey does not expressly teach an emergency mode where the operator is able to drive or move the heavy machine for a second time period shorter than the claimed first operating time. Ishikawa, on the other hand, clearly teaches, in Col. 2, lines 31-34, an emergency mode in which the vehicle is temporarily operable. Additionally, Col. 5, lines 12-30 of Ishikawa discloses, "In the emergency operating mode, at least the traveling capability of the vehicle is restricted such as limitations on the speed or driving time, thereby diminishing the risk of being stolen and at the same time allowing anyone to move the vehicle in the time of emergency". In addition, Examiner submits that teaching, in col. 10, lines 8-12, of Ishikawa discloses, "In the step S21, the normal operating mode with some restrictions (i.e., claimed limited access) is selected, in which the control unit 10 may send instructions to an engine controller to restrict the rotation speed of the drive unit 31 so as to lower the total output of the traveling and cargo-handling....". Therefore, based on the explanation above, a person of ordinary skills in the art would understand that Ishikawa cures the deficiencies presented in Harvey and clearly demonstrate that the normal mode with some restriction disclosed by Ishikawa as the claimed limited access mode because the operation has been limited, but not as comparable to the emergency operating mode that limits the movement for an even shorter period of time. As the result, the examiner submits that the combined teaching clearly renders the further amended limitations relating to an emergency mode having a second time period shorter than a first period of time obvious, and the rejection to the pending independent claim 1 is maintained. Please refer to detailed rejection below.
Applicant further asserts that Ishikawa fails to disclose preventing the vehicle from being driven up an incline. Examiner submits that Ishikawa explicitly states, in Col. 5, lines 51-59, the control system may be further configured to permit the equipment to be operated in a restricted mode if no valid credentials are detected. The restricted mode may limit the vehicle to move to a predefined area, operating mode, or functionality. Although Ishikawa may not explicitly teach preventing movement up an incline, a person of ordinary skills in the art would understand from the specific teaching in Ishikawa that restricted functionality and moving ability would include limiting the vehicle moment into unsafe or restricted terrain, including uphill of certain grades. Another evidence that Ishikawa’s teaching would render the claimed emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline obvious would be having the rotation speed of the engine to be lower than a normal speed in order to effectively lower the total output of the traveling. This is clearly described in col. 10, lines 15-18 of Ishikawa. Therefore, the asserted feature limitation relating to limiting a vehicle from been driven up an incline is rendered obvious by the teaching of Ishikawa as it is simply combining known elements/function restriction with a known method (i.e., restriction on Ishikawa movement to a predefined area by having lower engine rotation speed) to yield a predictable result, based on the KSR vs Teleflex rationale or would have been an obvious design choice, motivated by safety and theft prevention considerations already articulated by Ishikawa.
Finally, Examiner respectfully submits that previous applied references by Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa, in combination, disclose the additional claim limitations in independent claim 1 and would render the amended features obvious.
Applicant further recites similar remarks as listed above for independent claims 9 and 17. See the aforementioned response on item 8, which addresses how the combination of prior-art references by Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa would still render the claimed limitations obvious.
Applicant further recites similar remarks as listed above for dependent claims. Please refer to the aforementioned response, which addresses how the combination of prior-art references by Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa, along with Sherif, Beale and Newman, would still render the claimed limitations obvious.
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 1-2, 4, 8-10, 12, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al. (US 2016/0219061) hereinafter Walton in view of Yang (CN 109598858; translation is included) and further in view of Harvey et al. (US 2009/0219135) hereinafter Harvey and Ishikawa (US 8,514,055).
As per claim 1, Walton teaches a method for providing access to an operator for a heavy equipment (Walton, Parag. [0003]; “Although various types and forms of keys exist to access equipment and machinery operable by a user, keys in the current state of the art are typically passive items that merely allow for the use of equipment and machinery based upon the presence of the key.” … Parag. [0016]; “An operable apparatus, equipment, or machinery as used herein can refer to any device operable by a user, wherein it is desirable to restrict access to the device for safety or business reasons. Exemplary devices include, but are not limited to: industrial equipment, vehicles, electronic equipment, entry doors, safes, airplanes, forklifts, cranes, robots, drones, and the like.” … Parag. [0018]; “Key devices currently in use can verify identity, or determine that the key corresponds to an apparatus in order to provide access to the apparatus.”), the method comprising:
receiving [equipment data] and a first set of operator identification data from the operator (Walton, Parag. [0047]; “The key device can identify the user of the apparatus (vehicle or commercial equipment). In various embodiments, the identification can be as simple as a pin code that is input by the user. For more sensitive apparatus, the identification of the user can be more precise, and make use of various sensors or software to implement biometric identification such as facial recognition, fingerprint, retinal scans, voice recognition, and the like. It is contemplated that behavioral analysis can be implemented to aid in or be the primary means of identifying a user.”),
the operator identification data comprising an identity of the operator (Walton, Parag. [0047]; “The key device can identify the user of the apparatus (vehicle or commercial equipment). In various embodiments, the identification can be as simple as a pin code that is input by the user. For more sensitive apparatus, the identification of the user can be more precise, and make use of various sensors or software to implement biometric identification such as facial recognition, fingerprint, retinal scans, voice recognition, and the like. It is contemplated that behavioral analysis can be implemented to aid in or be the primary means of identifying a user.” … Parag. [0078]; “In embodiments, the data storage 260 can comprise a module 264 for identifying a user based upon behavioral patterns. Behavioral patterns can include physical traits such as stride length, manner of sitting, manner of standing, and the like. In embodiments, behavioral patterns can include learned behaviors or habits, such as a consistent order in which tasks are accomplished, a manner of completing a task, a manner of beginning a task, and the like”. Claim 18; “… identifying the user is biometric.”) and a level of heavy equipment training completed by the operator, the level of heavy equipment training completed by the operator indicating which of a plurality of different heavy equipment the operator is trained to operate (Walton, Parag. [0027]; “Other conditions may include … user is not authorized to operate the apparatus, user has not completed appropriate training, and the like”. Parag. [0048]; “The apparatus may be a specific piece of machinery, such as a lathe, power tool, a bulldozer, a backhoe, etc. In embodiments, the apparatus can be a specific vehicle in a fleet of vehicles”. Parag. [0051-0052]; “Prerequisite conditions may be contingent upon subconditions, and alter the behavior of the key device based upon various factors. Exemplary conditions and sub conditions include: The specific user of the key device. The key device may operate differently based upon the user of the key device. Factors specific to the user such as training, licensure, alertness, certifications, level of authorization, hours of continuous service, health, experience, tenure, level of security clearance, and the like can all affect whether the prerequisite condition is met, or even dictate what the prerequisite condition is”. Parag. [0057-0058]; “The above exemplary but non-limiting list of prerequisite conditions, in combination with a required proximity of the key device can be used to enable or disable certain functions of the apparatus. … For example, a commercial truck driver … if his license has expired …. The operator of a bulldozer may not be allowed to start the vehicle …”);
[verifying that the operator identification data can be registered with the equipment data];
[registering the identity of the operator with the equipment data such that the operator is registered to operate the heavy equipment];
receiving a second set of operator identification data (Walton, Parag. [0047]; “The key device can identify the user of the apparatus (vehicle or commercial equipment). In various embodiments, the identification can be as simple as a pin code that is input by the user. For more sensitive apparatus, the identification of the user can be more precise, and make use of various sensors or software to implement biometric identification such as facial recognition, fingerprint, retinal scans, voice recognition, and the like It is contemplated that behavioral analysis can be implemented to aid in or be the primary means of identifying a user. … Parag. [0078]; “In embodiments, the data storage 260 can comprise a module 264 for identifying a user based upon behavioral patterns. Behavioral patterns can include physical traits such as stride length, manner of sitting, manner of standing, and the like. In embodiments, behavioral patterns can include learned behaviors or habits, such as a consistent order in which tasks are accomplished, a manner of completing a task, a manner of beginning a task, and the like.”) [from the operator at a future time];
determining if the operator is provided with full access, [limited access, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator], (b) an expiration date of a training license of the operator, (Walton, Parag. [0005]; “the user has been certified for that specific piece of equipment. A key used to start and operate a vehicle could determine whether the user has a valid license, or has fulfilled certain safety tasks.” … Parag. [0052]; “Factors specific to the user such as training, licensure, alertness, certifications, level of authorization, hours of continuous service, health, experience, tenure, level of security clearance, and the like can all affect whether the prerequisite condition is met, or even dictate what the prerequisite condition is.” … Parag. [0058]; “For example, a commercial truck driver may not be allowed to put the vehicle into gear without completing a pre-trip inspection, if his license has expired, if the truck has a mechanical defect, etc. The operator of a bulldozer may not be allowed to start the vehicle if he is inputting data on his phone.”) [and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment];
[wherein the operator is provided with limited access by operating the heavy equipment in a limited access mode in which one or more functionalities of the heavy equipment are disabled and the heavy equipment is operable by the operator for a first period of time]; and
[wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time].
Walton does not expressly teach:
receiving equipment data;
verifying that the operator identification data can be registered with the equipment data;
registering the identity of the operator with the equipment data such that the operator is registered to operate the heavy equipment;
receiving a second set of operator identification data from the operator at a future time period; and
determining if the operator is provided …, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, …, and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment;
wherein the operator is provided with limited access by operating the heavy equipment in a limited access mode in which one or more functionalities of the heavy equipment are disabled and the heavy equipment is operable by the operator for a first period of time; and
wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time.
However, Yang teaches:
receiving equipment data (Yang, page 8, parag. 13-14; “The owner terminal may receive vehicle status information from the vehicle via step 404, and the owner may view the vehicle status information to determine whether the vehicle is suitable for being lent. In one case, if the owner determines that the vehicle cannot currently loan the vehicle based on the vehicle status information, such as the vehicle status information indicating insufficient fuel or abnormal tire pressure, the owner may reject the renter's request by, for example, clicking a reject button displayed on the owner's terminal screen.” … page 9, parag. 2; “In another case, if the owner determines that all the vehicles are normal and can lend themselves according to the vehicle status information, the owner can confirm the vehicle status information. Through step 405, when the owner terminal receives a confirmation instruction for the vehicle state information, the vehicle state information and the first notification message may be transmitted to the requesting terminal. Wherein the first notification message is used to indicate that the vehicle lease was successful.”);
verifying that the operator identification data can be registered with the equipment data (Yang, page 5, parag. 4; “ When the renter has a demand for renting the vehicle, a renting request can be sent to a vehicle owner terminal (such as a mobile phone of the vehicle owner), and the vehicle owner terminal can receive the renting request. Wherein the lease request may include the user biometric information of the leaser. The user biometric information may be, for example, a fingerprint, a voiceprint, an iris, face information, etc.” … page 5, parag. 6; “The owner can check the received lease request through the owner terminal, and according to the lease request, the owner can select whether to approve the lease request and input a user authorization instruction aiming at the lease request through the owner terminal. When the owner terminal receives the user authorization instruction aiming at the lease request, the vehicle use permission finally authorized by the owner can be determined according to the user authorization instruction. Yang, page 8, parag. 9; “After the owner terminal determines the authorized vehicle use authority, the owner terminal can send authorization information to the vehicle communicated with the owner terminal. The authorization information may include, among other things, the biometric information of the renter's user and authorized vehicle usage rights.” … page 8, parag. 13-14; “The owner terminal may receive vehicle status information from the vehicle via step 404, and the owner may view the vehicle status information to determine whether the vehicle is suitable for being lent. In one case, if the owner determines that the vehicle cannot currently loan the vehicle based on the vehicle status information, such as the vehicle status information indicating insufficient fuel or abnormal tire pressure, the owner may reject the renter's request by, for example, clicking a reject button displayed on the owner's terminal screen.” … page 9, parag. 2; “In another case, if the owner determines that all the vehicles are normal and can lend themselves according to the vehicle status information, the owner can confirm the vehicle status information. Through step 405, when the owner terminal receives a confirmation instruction for the vehicle state information, the vehicle state information and the first notification message may be transmitted to the requesting terminal. Wherein the first notification message is used to indicate that the vehicle lease was successful.”);
registering the identity of the operator with the equipment data such that the operator is registered to operate the heavy equipment (Yang, page 2, parag. 10; “According to a third aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a vehicle lending method applied to a vehicle, the method including: receiving authorization information sent by an owner terminal communicating with the vehicle, wherein the authorization information comprises user biological information of a renter and authorized vehicle use permission; storing the authorization information; when the user biological information of the user is collected, determining whether the user is authorized to use the vehicle according to the collected user biological information, the stored user biological information of the renter and the authorized vehicle use authority; performing a vehicle unlocking operation upon determining that the user has the right to use the vehicle.”); and
receiving a second set of operator identification data from the operator at a future time period (Yang, page 5, parag. 11; “Illustratively, the renter may input the user biometric information through, for example, a requesting terminal, such as a fingerprint information acquisition module of the requesting terminal (e.g., the renter's phone) where the renter is located. For another example, the requesting terminal may store the biometric information of the user of the renter, for example, for a mobile phone with a fingerprint unlocking function, the mobile phone stores the fingerprint information of the renter, and only needs to acquire the fingerprint information, and does not need to be manually input by the user. In addition, the request terminal can also acquire the vehicle use authority requested by the renter, and the renter can input the requested vehicle use authority, such as a desired vehicle borrowing time period, a desired vehicle function and the like, through the request terminal.” page 6, parags. 10-12; In step 303, when the biometric information of the user is collected, it is determined whether the user is authorized to use the vehicle based on the collected biometric information of the user (i.e., a second set of biometric identification data is collected for vehicle rental in a later time) … When the user biological information of the user is collected, whether the user is authorized to use the vehicle can be determined according to the collected user biological information, the stored user biological information of the renter ….”).
Walton and Yang are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Yang into the invention of Walton for the purpose of implementing operator usage restrictions based on a rental or lease contract. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, such a combination of known methods (combining multiple security authentications) to produce a predictable result (multi-factor authentication and increased security based on a contract).
The combination of Walton and Yang does not expressly teach:
determining if the operator is provided …, limited access, emergency access, or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, …, and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment;
wherein the operator is provided with limited access by operating the heavy equipment in a limited access mode in which one or more functionalities of the heavy equipment are disabled and the heavy equipment is operable by the operator for a first period of time; and
wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time.
However, Harvey teaches:
determining if the operator is provided …, limited access, [emergency access], or no access to the heavy equipment based on (a) the second set of operator identification data comprising biometric data that is indicative of the identity of the operator, …, and (c) whether the future time is during a time period and at a time of day permitted by a rental contract of the heavy equipment (Harvey, Parag. [0012]; “A digital key code, also referred herein and shown as digital access key 2, is assigned to an individual driver (not shown) of a vehicle or operator of a piece of equipment shown generally as box 3. For example, in one embodiment, box 3 may include vehicle 4 which is illustrated in FIG. 1 as a tractor trailer truck having cab 6 connected to trailer 10.” … Parag. [0014]; “In some embodiments, a biometric reader may be used to verify the identity of a driver as a precondition to the transmission of a digital key code to vehicle 4. Thus, a biometric login is provided. FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of MCT 12 connected to biometric reader 25 comprising one or more of a fingerprint reader, retinal scanner, voice analyzer, etc. MCT 12 receives biometric data from biometric reader 25 and transmits it to a remote site such as NMF 14 which relays the data for verification to a site remote from vehicle 4, such as authorization server 23, using one of the foregoing described communication systems. At the remote site, the biometric data received is matched with a corresponding digital access key or code (i.e. full access).” … Parag. [0018]; “The digital access code in addition to causing access grant for vehicle or equipment use, can additionally define a number of parameters such as vehicle or equipment use and geographical boundaries or times. Consequently, the access code can circumscribe the place, time and extent of vehicle or equipment operation. One operator may have permission to drive a truck within a 30 mile radius of its current location, while another operator may have permission to operate a crane only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (i.e. limited access).” … Parag. [0019]; “For instance, should a driver be dismissed from his/her employ, the foregoing system easily permits denial of access to a vehicle by the dismissed driver. Further, rental equipment use can easily be controlled. For instance, upon expiration of a rental agreement, access to rental equipment may be denied.” … Parag. [0033]; “Additionally, the authorization of equipment may be linked to an employee's work schedule, a job site schedule, a geofence operation schedule involving an authorized job site, etc. Further, authorization may be based on safety considerations, e.g., whether an operator is trained or qualified to use a particular piece of equipment, etc.”);
wherein the operator is provided with limited access by operating the heavy equipment in a limited access mode in which [one or more functionalities of the heavy equipment are disabled] and the heavy equipment is operable by the operator for a first period of time (Harvey, Parag. [0018]; “The digital access code in addition to causing access grant for vehicle or equipment use, can additionally define a number of parameters such as vehicle or equipment use and geographical boundaries or times. Consequently, the access code can circumscribe the place, time and extent of vehicle or equipment operation. One operator may have permission to drive a truck within a 30 mile radius of its current location, while another operator may have permission to operate a crane only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (i.e. limited access).” … Parag. [0019]; “For instance, should a driver be dismissed from his/her employ, the foregoing system easily permits denial of access to a vehicle by the dismissed driver. Further, rental equipment use can easily be controlled. For instance, upon expiration of a rental agreement, access to rental equipment may be denied.” … Parag. [0033]; “Additionally, the authorization of equipment may be linked to an employee's work schedule, a job site schedule, a geofence operation schedule involving an authorized job site, etc. Further, authorization may be based on safety considerations, e.g., whether an operator is trained or qualified to use a particular piece of equipment, etc.”);
Walton, Yang and Harvey are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Harvey into the invention of Walton-Yang for the purpose of implementing operator usage restrictions based (different access levels) on a biometric profile and a rental or lease contract. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, such combination of known methods known methods (combining multiple security authentications) to produce a predictable result (multi-factor authentication and increased security based on a contract).
The combination of Walton, Yang and Harvey does not expressly teach:
determining if the operator is provided with …, emergency access;
… a limited access mode in which one or more functionalities of the heavy equipment are disabled …; and
wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time.
However, Ishikawa teaches:
determining if the operator is provided with …, emergency access (Ishikawa, Col. 2, lines 31-34; “an emergency operating mode where at least the traveling capability of the vehicle is restricted is selected upon receiving a prescribed operation signal from the emergency mode indicating unit.” … Col. 5, lines 12-30; “In order to handle emergency situations when the vehicle is parked in the middle of the street with the operator being away temporarily and the cargo-handling vehicle cannot be moved without knowing the password, provided is the emergency operating mode which can be turned on by turning on an emergency operating mode indicating device without knowing the normal mode password. In the emergency operating mode, at least the traveling capability of the vehicle is restricted such as limitations on the speed or driving time, thereby diminishing the risk of being stolen and at the same time allowing anyone to move the vehicle in the time of emergency. This emergency operating mode may have restrictions on not only traveling capability but also cargo handling capability. For example, the restrictions can be made on rotation of the engine, supply of the fuel, use of acceleration pedal past a certain degree, and operating duration. And when the vehicle being electrically driven, the rotation speed of the motor can be restricted instead of the rotation speed of the engine.”);
… a limited access mode in which one or more functionalities of the heavy equipment are disabled … (Ishikawa, Col. 5, lines 51-59; “When neither the normal operating mode nor emergency operating mode is selected within a predetermined specific amount of time or within a specific number of times of operation, the vehicle is switched to a travel prohibited mode where at least traveling capability of the vehicle is prohibited, for instance disabling a gear of the vehicle so as to prohibit forward/backward move of the vehicle, disabling the engine so that the vehicle is not turned on, or locking the parking break so that the parking break cannot be released.”… Col. 10, lines 8-12; “In the step S21, the normal operating mode with some restrictions is selected (i.e., the limited access mode), in which the control unit 10 may send instructions to an engine controller to restrict the rotation speed of the drive unit 31 so as to lower the total output of the traveling and cargo-handling.”);
wherein the operator is provided with emergency access by operating the heavy equipment in an emergency access mode in which the heavy equipment is drivable yet prevented from being driven up an incline and is operable by the operator for a second period of time that is shorter than the first period of time (Ishikawa, Abstract; “an emergency operating mode where at least the travel capability of the vehicle is restricted, and a travel prohibited mode where neither the normal operating mode nor the emergency operating mode is selected.” … Col. 1, lines 6-11; “The present invention relates to a vehicle for cargo handling such as a forklift or bulldozer, especially those equipped with a theft prevention mode and an emergency operating mode where at least the traveling capability of the vehicle is restricted while theft of the vehicle is prevented in the event of an emergency such as earthquake and fire.” … Col 1, lines 22-25; “However, recently theft of the cargo handling vehicles from factories or construction sites became noticeable. The vehicle is stolen on a truck and is used to destroy a building or equipment that is normally unbreakable.” … Col. 5, lines 12-30; “In order to handle emergency situations when the vehicle is parked in the middle of the street with the operator being away temporarily and the cargo-handling vehicle cannot be moved without knowing the password, provided is the emergency operating mode which can be turned on by turning on an emergency operating mode indicating device without knowing the normal mode password. In the emergency operating mode, at least the traveling capability of the vehicle is restricted such as limitations on the speed or driving time (i.e., shorter time period of operation compared to normal or limited access), thereby diminishing the risk of being stolen and at the same time allowing anyone to move the vehicle in the time of emergency. This emergency operating mode may have restrictions on not only traveling capability but also cargo handling capability. For example, the restrictions can be made on rotation of the engine, supply of the fuel, use of acceleration pedal past a certain degree, and operating duration. And when the vehicle being electrically driven, the rotation speed of the motor can be restricted instead of the rotation speed of the engine.” … Col. 10, lines 10-19; “to restrict the rotation speed of the drive unit 31 so as to lower the total output of the traveling …. Subsequently, in a step S22, in the emergency operating mode, the warning unit 20 gives a warning which the operator should be aware of in a form of a voice warning or display items in the display device 11 such that the rotation speed of the engine is lower than a normal speed, the operating time being set extremely lower than normal (i.e., shorter time period of operation for emergency mode when compared to the time period for operation under the normal or limited access), the weight limit of cargos being restricted, or the height of the lift for lifting the cargo being restricted.” Examiner submits restricted functionality includes limiting vehicle moment into unsafe or restricted terrain/hill by having the rotation speed of the engine that is lower than a normal speed.).
Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Ishikawa into the invention of Walton-Yang-Harvey for the purpose of implementing operator usage restrictions based on an emergency operation mode. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, such a combination of known methods is simply to produce a predictable result.
As per claim 2, the combination of Walton, Yang and Harvey teach the method of Claim 1. Harvey teaches wherein the method further comprises: providing a notification to the operator indicating that the operator is provided full access to operate the [heavy] equipment (Harvey, Parag. [0012]; “A digital key code, also referred herein and shown as digital access key 2, is assigned to an individual driver (not shown) of a vehicle or operator of a piece of equipment shown generally as box 3. For example, in one embodiment, box 3 may include vehicle 4 which is illustrated in FIG. 1 as a tractor trailer truck having cab 6 connected to trailer 10.” … Parag. [0013]; “Digital key codes are transmitted to vehicle 4 (i.e., the associated communications device of vehicle 4) in connection with providing driver authorizations for use of the vehicle.”); and
Yang teaches:
unlocking one or more locks on the heavy equipment that prevent operation of the [heavy] equipment (Yang, page 3, parag. 2; “the stored user biological information of the renter and the authorized vehicle use authority when the user biological information of the user is acquired; and the unlocking module is used for executing vehicle unlocking operation when the user is determined to be authorized to use the vehicle.” … page 9, parag. 12; “after the vehicle performs the unlocking operation, the function permitted to be used by the user may be set to the usable state and the function prohibited to be used by the user may be set to the unusable state according to the function use authority included in the authorized vehicle use authority. In this way, the user's use of vehicle functions may be severely restricted, avoiding the user from triggering an unavailable vehicle function.”).
In addition, Walton teaches:
the heavy equipment (Walton, Parag. [0003]; “Although various types and forms of keys exist to access equipment and machinery operable by a user, keys in the current state of the art are typically passive items that merely allow for the use of equipment and machinery based upon the presence of the key.” … Parag. [0016]; “An operable apparatus, equipment, or machinery as used herein can refer to any device operable by a user, wherein it is desirable to restrict access to the device for safety or business reasons. Exemplary devices include, but are not limited to: industrial equipment, vehicles, electronic equipment, entry doors, safes, airplanes, forklifts, cranes, robots, drones, and the like.” … Parag. [0018]; “Key devices currently in use can verify identity, or determine that the key corresponds to an apparatus in order to provide access to the apparatus”. Parag. [0048]; “The apparatus may be a specific piece of machinery, such as a lathe, power tool, a bulldozer, a backhoe, etc. In embodiments, the apparatus can be a specific vehicle in a fleet of vehicles”).
As per claim 4, the combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the method of Claim 1, wherein receiving equipment data and the first set of operator identification data from the operator. Walton further teaches the method comprises receiving [the equipment data] and the first set of operator identification data via a mobile device of the operator (Walton, Parag. [0017-0018]; “The present invention comprises a key device for communicating with at least one apparatus operable by a user, wherein the at least one apparatus must be enabled for use. The apparatus can range from personally carried devices, such as cellular phones, to large pieces of machinery, such as construction equipment or vehicles. Key devices currently in use can verify identity, or determine that the key corresponds to an apparatus in order to provide access to the apparatus.”).
Yang additionally teaches receiving equipment data … via a mobile device of the operator (Yang, page 3, parags. 4-11; “When the renter has a demand for renting the vehicle, a renting request can be sent to a vehicle owner terminal (such as a mobile phone of the vehicle owner) …. For another example, the requesting terminal may store the biometric information of the user of the renter, for example, for a mobile phone with a fingerprint unlocking function, the mobile phone stores the fingerprint information of the renter”. Page 8, parags. 13-14; “The owner terminal may receive vehicle status information from the vehicle via step 404, and the owner may view the vehicle status information to determine whether the vehicle is suitable for being lent. In one case, if the owner determines that the vehicle cannot currently loan the vehicle based on the vehicle status information, such as the vehicle status information indicating insufficient fuel or abnormal tire pressure, the owner may reject the renter's request by, for example, clicking a reject button displayed on the owner's terminal screen.” … Page 9, parag. 2; “In another case, if the owner determines that all the vehicles are normal and can lend themselves according to the vehicle status information, the owner can confirm the vehicle status information. Through step 405, when the owner terminal receives a confirmation instruction for the vehicle state information, the vehicle state information and the first notification message may be transmitted to the requesting terminal. Wherein the first notification message is used to indicate that the vehicle lease was successful.” Examiner submits that mobile phone may be used to send/receive the data from the renter/operator.).
As per claim 8, The combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the method of Claim 1. Harvey teaches wherein determining that the operator is provided full access to operate the heavy equipment (Harvey, Parag. [0012]; “A digital key code, also referred herein and shown as digital access key 2, is assigned to an individual driver (not shown) of a vehicle or operator of a piece of equipment shown generally as box 3. For example, in one embodiment, box 3 may include vehicle 4 which is illustrated in FIG. 1 as a tractor trailer truck having cab 6 connected to trailer 10.” … Parag. [0013]; “Digital key codes are transmitted to vehicle 4 (i.e., the associated communications device of vehicle 4) in connection with providing driver authorizations for use of the vehicle.”).
Harvey further teaches the method comprises: determining the identity of the operator based on the biometric data (Harvey, Parag. [0014]; “In some embodiments, a biometric reader may be used to verify the identity of a driver as a precondition to the transmission of a digital key code to vehicle 4. Thus, a biometric login is provided. FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of MCT 12 connected to biometric reader 25 comprising one or more of a fingerprint reader, retinal scanner, voice analyzer, etc. MCT 12 receives biometric data from biometric reader 25 and transmits it to a remote site such as NMF 14 which relays the data for verification to a site remote from vehicle 4, such as authorization server 23, using one of the foregoing described communication systems. At the remote site, the biometric data received is matched with a corresponding digital access key or code.”).
In addition, Yang teaches:
determining the identity of the operator based on the biometric data; in response to determining the identity of the operator, determining if the operator is registered to operate the heavy equipment.” (Yang, page 2, parag. 10; “when the user biological information of the user is collected, determining whether the user is authorized to use the vehicle according to the collected user biological information, the stored user biological information of the renter and the authorized vehicle use authority; performing a vehicle unlocking operation upon determining that the user has the right to use the vehicle.”).
As per claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim that recites the limitations that are the same as those in the method claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 1 above.
In addition Walton teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a registration system (Walton, Parag. [0072]; “The key device can also comprise a non-transitory key device data storage 260. The data storage 260 can comprise a nonvolatile data storage medium for storage of information, computer instructions and the like”).
As per claim 10, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 10 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 2 above.
As per claim 12, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 12 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 4 above.
As per claim 16, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 16 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 8 above.
As per claim 17, it is a system claim that recites the limitations that are the same as those in the method claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 1 above.
As per claim 18, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the system of Claim 17. In addition, claim 18 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 2 above.
As per claim 20, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the system of Claim 17. In addition, claim 20 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 4 above.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al. (US 2016/0219061) hereinafter Walton in view of Yang (CN 109598858) and Harvey et al. (US 2009/0219135) hereinafter Harvey and Ishikawa (US 8,514,055), as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17, and in further view of Beale et al. (US 2004/0169076) hereafter Beale.
As per claim 3, The combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the method of Claim 1, wherein receiving equipment data and the first set of operator identification data from the operator.
In addition, Yang teaches:
[receiving a contract number associated with the operation of the heavy equipment;
receiving an operator number associated with the employment of the operator; and]
receiving a first set of facial image data of the operator; and wherein the biometric data is a second set of facial image data of the operator (Yang, page 5, parag. 4; “The user biometric information may be, for example, a fingerprint, a voiceprint, an iris, face information, etc.” … page 9, parag.7; “For example, when the collected user biometric (i.e. second set) information matches the stored user biometric information (i.e. first set) of the renter and the current time is within the authorized vehicle use limit, it may be determined that the user is authorized to use the vehicle.”).
In addition, Walton teaches “heavy equipment” (Walton, Parag. [0003]; “Although various types and forms of keys exist to access equipment and machinery operable by a user, keys in the current state of the art are typically passive items that merely allow for the use of equipment and machinery based upon the presence of the key.” … Parag. [0016]; “An operable apparatus, equipment, or machinery as used herein can refer to any device operable by a user, wherein it is desirable to restrict access to the device for safety or business reasons. Exemplary devices include, but are not limited to: industrial equipment, vehicles, electronic equipment, entry doors, safes, airplanes, forklifts, cranes, robots, drones, and the like.” … Parag. [0018]; “Key devices currently in use can verify identity, or determine that the key corresponds to an apparatus in order to provide access to the apparatus.”).
The combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa does not expressly teach:
receiving a contract number associated with the operation of the heavy equipment; and
receiving an operator number associated with the employment of the operator;
However, in a similar art Beale teaches:
receiving a contract number associated with the operation of the [heavy] equipment; receiving an operator number associated with the employment of the operator (BEALE, [0021]; “FIG. 3 is an illustration of information stored on a preferred access card 49, although other types of access cards may be used. The access card 49 has an access card number 50, issue date 51, expiration date 52, issued by identifier 53, a job identifier 54, a clearance identifier 55, a check value 56, a personal identification number (PIN) 57, a biometric template 58 and a verification threshold 59.” Examiner submits the job identifier of Beale is the “contract number associated with the operation of the heavy equipment” and “the personal identification number” of BEALE corresponds to an “operator number.”).
Walton, Yang, Harvey, Ishikawa and Beale are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Beale into the invention of Walton-Yang-Harvey for the purpose of adding further identifying information like a contract number or an employee ID. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, such combination of known methods (adding more identifying information) to produce a predictable result (more robust multi-factor security).
As per claim 11, the combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 11 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 3 above.
As per claim 19, the combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the system of claim 17. In addition, claim 19 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 3 above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al. (US 2016/0219061) hereinafter Walton in view of Yang (CN 109598858) and Harvey et al. (US 2009/0219135) hereinafter Harvey and Ishikawa (US 8,514,055) as applied to claim 1, and further on view of Sherif et al. (US 10,498,727) hereinafter Sherif.
As per claim 5, the combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the method of Claim 1, wherein receiving equipment data and the first set of operator identification data from the operator.
Walton further teaches the method comprises:
[receiving the equipment data via user inputs from the operator on an interface],
and receiving at least part of the identification data via one or more cameras position on the heavy equipment (Walton, Parag. [0047]; “… For more sensitive apparatus, the identification of the user can be more precise, and make use of various sensors or software to implement biometric identification such as facial recognition, fingerprint, retinal scans, voice recognition, and the like …”. Parag. [0064]; “The device 100 can further comprise a key device 200. The key device can comprise a key device processor 202, a means of transmitting data 204, a means of receiving data 206, and a power source 208 all in electronic communication with each other. Parag. [0069-70]; “The key device 200 can comprise a biometric identification device 214. Exemplary devices can include voice recognition devices, retinal scanners, fingerprint scanners, facial recognition cameras, and the like. In embodiments, the key device 200 can be in communication with a camera 216. The key device can also be in communication with one or more sensors 220. Such as an accelerometer, a heart rate monitor, a health monitoring device, an optical character recognition device, a computer such as a vehicle computer, gyrometer, global positioning sensor, odometer, speedometer, pedometer, breathalyzer, biometer, device to measure behavioral traits, and the like. Other sensors can include sensors for rain, temperature, tire pressure or tread wear, water level, or even data from internet databases (such as health care network data). Persons having ordinary skill in the art can determine sensors or data needed for specific applications.”).
Walton further teaches the heavy equipment (Walton, Parag. [0016]; “An operable apparatus, equipment, or machinery as used herein can refer to any device operable by a user, wherein it is desirable to restrict access to the device for safety or business reasons. Exemplary devices include, but are not limited to: industrial equipment, vehicles, electronic equipment, entry doors, safes, airplanes, forklifts, cranes, robots, drones, and the like.” Parag. [0048]; “The apparatus may be a specific piece of machinery, such as a lathe, power tool, a bulldozer, a backhoe, etc. In embodiments, the apparatus can be a specific vehicle in a fleet of vehicles”).
The combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa does not expressly teach:
receiving the equipment data via user inputs from the operator on an interface,
However, Sherif teaches:
receiving the equipment data via user inputs from the operator on an interface (Sherif, Col. 2, ll. 48-60, “The operations may comprise receiving a request authenticate a user of a mobile device attempting to use application, the request comprising credential information associated with the user and vehicle data . The operations may further comprise determining the vehicle data was obtained from a vehicle via the mobile device, comparing the received vehicle data to stored user vehicle data, comparing the received credential information to stored user data, determining the received vehicle data matches the stored user vehicle data and the received credential information matches the stored user data, and responding to the received request by transmitting a notification that the user has been authenticated”. Col. 5, ll. 43-54; “User device 108 may have an application installed thereon, which may enable user device 108 to communicate with, for example, vehicle system 112, authenticating system 106 and/or third-party system 110 via network 102 and/or a local network. Additionally, user device 108 may connect to authenticating system 106, vehicle system 112, and/or third-party system 110 through use of web browser software via network 102 and/or a local network. In some exemplary embodiments, user device 108 may provide a graphical user interface to enable users to view data from the user device”. Col. 9, ll. 47-50; “Vehicle data may include data received from or associated with vehicle system 115. Vehicle data may include data associated with vehicle system 115 received by user device 108 and included in the authentication request”. Examiner submits the “vehicle data” of SHERIF is the “equipment data” and is collected via user/operator’s selection/interaction on the graphical user interface of the user device)
Walton, Yang, Harvey, Ishikawa and Sherif are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Sherif into the invention of Walton-Yang-Harvey-Ishikawa for the purpose of providing the vehicle’s data through an user interface to improve the security vehicle scheme of Walton into vehicle biometric authentication of Sherif. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, such combination of using known techniques/methods (combining multiple security authentications) to produce a predictable result (multi-factor authentication and increased security) is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 13, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 13 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al. (US 2016/0219061) hereinafter Walton in view of Yang (CN 109598858) and Harvey et al. (US 2009/0219135) hereinafter Harvey and Ishikawa (US 8,514,055), as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of Kawaai (JP 2005-166064; translation is included).
As per claim 6, the combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the method of Claim 1, wherein verifying that the operator identification data can be registered with the equipment data.
The combination of Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa does not expressly teach the method comprises: querying a database to determine if the operator identification data is valid; and in response to determining that the operator identification data is valid, associating the operator identification data with a contractor number.
However, in a similar art, Kawaai teaches:
querying a database to determine if the operator identification data is valid; and in response to determining that the operator identification data is valid, associating the operator identification data with a contractor number (Kawaai, Page 4, parag. 6-7; “The vehicle lending/returning method and the vehicle lending/returning system according to the present invention confirm the validity of the license, confirm the identity of the user, and confirm that the user is not drunk (non-drinking). The vehicle rental return machine 7 arranged in 8 can be performed. As a result, in unmanned sales offices as well as manned sales offices, it is possible to check the status of rental car service users at the time of lending rather than at the time of lending reservation, and it is possible to reliably grasp the users Become. The vehicle lending/returning method and the vehicle lending/returning system according to the present invention are based on a membership system. In particular, an individual member operates based on a membership card which is an IC card with fingerprint authentication that can definitely authenticate the member himself / herself. It is characterized by being. The objects that can use the service are individuals and corporations, and it is a condition of the system user that an individual can use a payable card such as a credit card or an immediate payment type card. In addition, regardless of individuals and corporations, it is a condition of the user to accept that they comply with the membership rules. In addition, as a member agreement, for example, registering the contents of a license, permitting recording of images and fingerprints, shortage fuel usage fee shall be settled after use with a payable card, damage due to accident etc. For example, it is necessary to declare, if the license has expired or not be suspended, and not drive drunk. As a result, members who are rental car service users are limited to credit card holders with credit, and the payment of usage fees is based on card payments in principle. The crime prevention property is enhanced, and the feasibility of unmanned sales offices is enhanced.” Examiner submits that the membership of the operator is related to an assigned number or code that is different to each contractor.”)
Walton, Yang, Harvey, Ishikawa and Kawaai are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Kawaai into the invention of Walton-Yang-Harvey-Ishikawa by adding a database of information containing valid biometric data that users can authenticate against in order to be associated with a number. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, combination of a known technique (aggregating data) to produce a predictable result (having a single place to search whether users meet authentication criteria ).
As per claim 14, Walton, Yang, Harvey and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 14 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton et al. (US 2016/0219061) hereinafter Walton in view of Yang (CN 109598858) and Harvey et al. (US 2009/0219135) hereinafter Harvey and Ishikawa (US 8,514,055), as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of Newman (US 2018/0204399).
As per claim 7, The combination of Walton, Yang and Harvey teach the method of Claim 1.
Harvey teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: determining a level of access for the operator using a multi-tiered access structure, the multi-tiered structure comprising the full access, the limited access, the emergency access, and the denied access (Harvey, Parag. [0012]; “A digital key code, also referred herein and shown as digital access key 2, is assigned to an individual driver (not shown) of a vehicle or operator of a piece of equipment shown generally as box 3. For example, in one embodiment, box 3 may include vehicle 4 which is illustrated in FIG. 1 as a tractor trailer truck having cab 6 connected to trailer 10.” … Parag. [0014]; “In some embodiments, a biometric reader may be used to verify the identity of a driver as a precondition to the transmission of a digital key code to vehicle 4. Thus, a biometric login is provided. FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of MCT 12 connected to biometric reader 25 comprising one or more of a fingerprint reader, retinal scanner, voice analyzer, etc. MCT 12 receives biometric data from biometric reader 25 and transmits it to a remote site such as NMF 14 which relays the data for verification to a site remote from vehicle 4, such as authorization server 23, using one of the foregoing described communication systems. At the remote site, the biometric data received is matched with a corresponding digital access key or code.” … Parag. [0018]; “The digital access code in addition to causing access grant for vehicle or equipment use, can additionally define a number of parameters such as vehicle or equipment use and geographical boundaries or times. Consequently, the access code can circumscribe the place, time and extent of vehicle or equipment operation. One operator may have permission to drive a truck within a 30 mile radius of its current location, while another operator may have permission to operate a crane only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.” … Parag. [0019]; “For instance, should a driver be dismissed from his/her employ, the foregoing system easily permits denial of access to a vehicle by the dis missed driver. Further, rental equipment use can easily be controlled. For instance, upon expiration of a rental agreement, access to rental equipment may be denied.” … Parag. [0033]; “Additionally, the authorization of equipment may be linked to an employee's work schedule, a job site schedule, a geofence operation schedule involving an authorized job site, etc. Further, authorization may be based on safety considerations, e.g., whether an operator is trained or qualified to use a particular piece of equipment, etc.”);
The combination of Walton, Yang and Harvey does not expressly teach:
and wherein the multi-tiered access structure performs top-down hierarchy authentication to determine the level of access for the operator.
However, in a similar art Newman teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: … using a multi-tiered access structure, the multi-tiered structure comprising the full access, the limited access, the emergency access and the denied access (Newman, Parag. [0132]; “For example, the usage license can have varying degrees of usage, such as a silver-level user, a gold–level usage, and a platinum-level usage. Based on this information, one or more of the various vehicle systems can be enabled and/or disabled. For example, a platinum-level user would have access to all vehicle systems. A gold-level user, may have access to only a portion of the vehicle systems and/or functionality. A silver-level user, may only have access to basic vehicle functionality, not including, for example, vehicle infotainment, climate control, or the like.”); and
wherein the multi-tiered access structure performs top-down hierarchy authentication to determine the level of access for the operator (Newman, Parag. [0132]; “… For example, a platinum-level user would have access to all vehicle systems. A gold-level user, may have access to only a portion of the vehicle systems and/or functionality.” Examiner submits that the platinum is the top level of a hierarchy and going down a tier to “gold” removes functionality. Therefore all the privileges of “gold” are included in “platinum” and is therefore “a top-down hierarchy authentication”.)
Walton, Yang, Harvey and Newman are in the similar field of endeavor and both related to the technology of secure authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described in Newman into the invention of Walton-Yang-Harvey for the purpose limiting access based on tiers. Based on the KSR v. TELEFLEX rationale, using a known method/technique (defining user permissions as tiered statuses) to produce a predictable result (exercising fine grain control over what users can do with the system based on the user’s role).
As per claim 15, Walton, Yang and Harvey teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 9. In addition, claim 15 recites limitations that are similar to the ones of the method claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied to claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bauchot et al. (US 7,876,201): A vehicle authorization method and system. The method includes transmitting, by a computing system in a vehicle, a first request for enabling the vehicle for a driver. The computing system receives vehicle identification data associated with the vehicle. The computing system identifies the driver. The computing system transmits a second request for information associated with the driver. The computing system receives driver's license data associated with the driver, a list comprising authorized drivers for the vehicle, and insurance data associated with the driver and the vehicle. The computing system analyzes the vehicle identification data, the driver's license data, the list, and the insurance data. The computing system performs specified functions associated with the vehicle. The computing system generates and stores a report indicating the specified functions.
Brewer et al. (US 2018/0107817): Aspects of an embodiment of the present invention disclose an approach for automated vehicle authorization. In one embodiment, a processor receives a first set of credentials from at least a first near field communication device, wherein the first set of credentials indicates information about a person. In one embodiment, a processor receives a second set of credentials from at least a second near field communication device, wherein the second set of credentials indicates information about a vehicle. In one embodiment, a processor compares the first set of credentials to the second set of credentials. In one embodiment, a processor determines whether the person indicated by the first set of credentials has authority to operate the vehicle, based on, at least, the comparison of the first set of credentials to the second set of credentials.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX D CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/A.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/YIN CHEN SHAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2498