DETAILED ACTION
Amendments/remarks submitted on June 10, 2026 for Application No. 17/831353 are presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
I) On page 1, Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112 rejection should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejection; therefore, it has been withdrawn. However, the amendments have also raised additional 35 USC 112 issues as further shown below.
II) On pages 1-5, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach “wherein the UDI comprises a public key of an asymmetric key pair, and wherein determining that the radio signal was generated by and received from a legitimate user further comprises validating a digital signature included in the radio signal using the public key previously stored at the vehicle”.
Applicant’s arguments are considered moot based on the new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite both a “radio signal” and “a single encrypted radio signal”; however, it is unclear if both radio signals are intended to be the same radio signal. For example, the biometric data and the UDI are sent in the single encrypted radio signal while the new amendment recites that the digital signature is sent in the radio signal. Therefore, it is unclear if the UDI (public key), the biometric data, and the digital signature are all sent in the “single encrypted radio signal”. For clarity, the Examiner suggests amending “wherein the biometric data and the UDI are transmitted in a single encrypted radio signal” to be “wherein the radio signal is a single encrypted radio signal” or similar amendment to show that the UDI (public key), the biometric data, and the digital signature are all sent in the “single encrypted radio signal”.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite transmitting the UDI (which is defined as a public key) and also validating a digital signature using “the public key previously stored at the vehicle”. Therefore, it is unclear if the transmitted UDI (public key) and the previously stored public key are intended to be the same public key. For example, if the public key and the digital signature are transmitted together to the vehicle and then the vehicle validates the digital signature using the received public key, it is unclear how the digital signature could ever not be validated. The written description paragraph 58 shows that the public key used to validate the digital signature is stored during a registration process and, therefore, may not be the same public key that is sent in the radio signal. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the public key being transmitted as a UDI and the public key used to validate the digital signature as potentially being different public keys where the validation ensures that the valid key is being used.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as cited above and for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “the public key of the key fob”; however, the previous claims have never stated that the public key is from the key fob. Therefore, it is unclear if this public key is the same public key as defined in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
The examiner has cited particular examples of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant check the claims for further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections in the event that it was inadvertently missed by the examiner to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watters (US 2017/0309098) in view of Wang (US 2002/0023215) and further in view of Hua (US 2023/0162544).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Watters discloses A method comprising:
receiving a radio signal by a wireless transceiver installed in a vehicle (Watters, paragraphs 12, 16, and 18-21, teaches a PAAK unit in the vehicle that receives a signal from the PAAK app installed on a mobile phone that is acting as a key fob.);
determining that the radio signal was generated by and received from a legitimate user based on a biometric data of the legitimate user and a unique device identifier (UDI) included in the radio signal, wherein the biometric data and the UDI are transmitted in a single … radio signal (Watters, paragraph 19, teaches determining if the PAAK app and mobile device are authorized to access the vehicle. The PAAK app generates an authorization token based on a hash of the user fingerprint (biometric data) and a unique numeric value stored by the PAAK app (unique device identifier). The authorization token is sent from the PAAK app to the vehicle. As the user fingerprint and the unique numeric value are transmitted in a single token they are transmitted in a single radio signal.);
enabling access to the vehicle (Watters, paragraphs 18-21, teaches unlocking the vehicle using key fob commands from the PAAK app if the mobile device executing the PAAK app has been authorized.);
and enabling ignition of the vehicle based on the biometric data and the UDI (Watters, paragraphs 18-21, teaches allowing ignition of the vehicle when an authorized device is present inside of the vehicle. The authorization is based on the user fingerprint and unique numeric value stored by the PAAK app.)
However, Watters does not specifically teach that the biometric data and the UDI are transmitted in an encrypted radio signal.
Wang discloses an encrypted radio signal (Wang, paragraph 108, teaches encrypting the authorization token.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Watters. Watters teaches authenticating a user before granting access to a vehicle by sending an authorization token containing a hash of the user’s fingerprint and a device ID from a mobile device (or key fob) to the vehicle. Wang teaches encrypting an authorization token. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the teachings of Watters by adding the encryption of the authorization token of Wang as this would have prevented unauthorized access to the authorization token.
However, Watters in view of Wang does not specifically teach “wherein the UDI comprises a public key of an asymmetric key pair, and wherein determining that the radio signal was generated by and received from a legitimate user further comprises validating a digital signature included in the radio signal using the public key previously stored at the vehicle”.
Hua discloses wherein the UDI comprises a public key of an asymmetric key pair, and wherein determining that the radio signal was generated by and received from a legitimate user further comprises validating a digital signature included in the radio signal using the public key previously stored at the vehicle (Hua, Figures 4A-4B and associated texts such as paragraphs 2-3, 7-8, 23, 31-32, 35, 47, and 49-50, teaches sending the vehicle a first digital signature and a first public key and also sending the mobile device (key fob as shown in paragraph 32) a second digital signature and a second public key. Access to the vehicle is allowed when both the first digital signature and the second digital signature are verified.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Hua with the teachings of Watters in view of Wang. Watters in view of Wang teaches sending a unique identifier from the key fob to the vehicle for authentication. Hua similarly teaches sending a public key and digital signature to the vehicle and to the key fob for authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the key fob to send the public key and the digital signature to the vehicle to allow for the signature to be verified to show that the key fob is authorized to access the vehicle.
Claim 8 recites the additional limitations of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a computer processor, the computer program instructions defining steps of …” (Watters, paragraphs 30-31, teaches a medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor.)
Claim 15 recites the additional limitations of “A device comprising: a wireless transceiver; and a processor configured to …” (Watters, paragraphs 30-31, teaches a medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor. Watters, paragraphs 12, 16, and 18-21, teaches a PAAK unit in the vehicle that receives a signal from the PAAK app installed on a mobile phone that is acting as a key fob.)
As per claims 7, 14, and 20, Watters in view of Wang and Hua discloses wherein determining that the radio signal was generated by and received from a legitimate user further comprises determining a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the radio signal meets a threshold (Watters, paragraphs 20 and 35, teaches using the RSSI signal strength value to determine if the key fob is approaching the vehicle and is also authorized before going into operational power mode to allow the key fob to perform functions of the vehicle such as keyless entry or remote starting of the vehicle.)
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan (US 2021/0309182), and further in view of Wagner (US 2020/0220870).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Watters in view of Wang and Hua discloses wherein the radio signal includes first user biometrics stored at a key fob (Watters, paragraph 19, teaches determining if the PAAK app and mobile device are authorized to access the vehicle. The PAAK app generates an authorization token based on a user fingerprint (biometric data) and a unique numeric value stored by the PAAK app (unique device identifier).),
and writing the UDI to a … memory in the vehicle (Watters, paragraph 19, teaches determining if the PAAK app and mobile device are authorized to access the vehicle. The PAAK app generates an authorization token based on a user fingerprint (biometric data) and a unique numeric value stored by the PAAK app (unique device identifier). As the unique device identifier is transmitted to the vehicle it must, at least temporarily, be stored in memory.)
However, Watters in view of Wang and Hua does not specifically disclose “the vehicle further stores second user biometrics and the method further comprises: confirming that the first user biometrics match the second user biometrics”
Rangunathan discloses the vehicle further stores second user biometrics and the method further comprises: confirming that the first user biometrics match the second user biometrics (Ragunathan, paragraphs 11-13, teaches the key fob scanning a user’s fingerprint and transmitting the fingerprint to the ECU of the vehicle for authentication. Ragunathan, paragraph 14, teaches when the biometric data matches the stored biometric data of an authorized user that the requesting user is authenticated. The stored biometric data can be stored at the vehicle as shown in paragraph 14. The ECU can also be located within the vehicle as also shown in paragraph 14.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Ragunathan with the teachings of Watters in view of Wang and Hua. Watters in view of Wang and Hua teaches authenticating a user before granting access to a vehicle by sending a hash of the user’s fingerprint from a mobile device (or key fob) to the vehicle, but is silent regarding comparing or authenticating the user’s fingerprint. Ragunathan teaches authenticating a user before granting access to the vehicle, but additionally recites the specifics of comparing the received biometric data with stored biometric data of an authorized user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have compared the user fingerprint (of Watters) with a known fingerprint of an authorized user (as in Ragunathan) as this would have been a simple substitution of one known form of authorization using a fingerprint for another to yield the predictable results of comparing a user fingerprint to ensure the user is an authorized user before granting the user access to the vehicle.
However, Watters in view of Wang, Hua, and Ragunathan does not specifically teach storing the UDI or second user biometrics (as in claim 16) to a secure memory.
Wagner discloses a secure memory (Wagner, paragraph 43, teaches storing data such as biometrics, identifiers, “and any other relevant data” in a secure memory.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Wagner with the teachings of Watters in view of Wang, Hua, and Ragunathan. Watters in view of Wang, Hua, and Ragunathan teaches storing the user biometrics and the unique identifier. Wagner teaches storing biometrics, identifiers, and other relevant data in a secure memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have stored the user biometrics and unique identifier in a secure memory in order to protect the stored data.
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner discloses wherein transmitting the first user biometrics and the UDI of the key fob to the vehicle comprises transmitting the first user biometrics and the UDI of the key fob to the vehicle via a short-range wireless network (Watters, paragraphs 12, 16, and 18-21, teaches a PAAK unit in the vehicle that receives a signal from the PAAK app installed on a mobile phone that is acting as a key fob. The PAAK app generates an authorization token based on a user fingerprint (biometric data) and transmits the authorization token to the PAAK unit in the vehicle for authorization. Watters, paragraph 14, teaches using the Bluetooth protocol for transmission.)
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner discloses wherein confirming that the first user biometrics match the second user biometrics comprises determining if the first user biometrics are similar to the second user biometrics based on a threshold (Ragunathan, paragraphs 11-13, teaches the key fob scanning a user’s fingerprint and transmitting the fingerprint to the ECU of the vehicle for authentication. Ragunathan, paragraph 14, teaches when the biometric data matches the stored biometric data of an authorized user that the requesting user is authenticated. The Examiner would note that it is inherent that biometric/fingerprint comparisons must use some threshold in order to determine a match as shown in related prior art Allyn, Tussy, and Arora as listed below in the Related Prior Art section.)
As per claims 6 and 13, Watters in view Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner discloses further comprising transmitting a second UDI of the vehicle to the key fob after writing the UDI to the secure memory (Hua, paragraphs Figures 4A-4B and associated texts such as paragraphs 2-3, 7-8, 23, 31-32, 35, 47, and 49-50, teaches sending the vehicle a first digital signature and a first public key and also sending the mobile device (key fob as shown in paragraph 32) a second digital signature and a second public key. Access to the vehicle is allowed when both the first digital signature and the second digital signature are verified. It would have been an obvious design choice to exchange the public keys and signatures at the same time or one at a time. Hua, paragraph 47, teaches the vehicle storing the public key and digital signature. Hua, paragraph 47, teaches transmitting the public key and digital signature to the user device (key fob) “at any suitable time”. Wagner, paragraph 43, teaches storing data such as biometrics, identifiers, “and any other relevant data” in a secure memory.)
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, Wagner, and further in view of Mondello (US 2020/0312136).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner discloses wherein the public key of the key fob is generated based on a value of … the key fob (Watters, paragraph 19, teaches determining if the PAAK app and mobile device are authorized to access the vehicle. The PAAK app generates an authorization token based on a user fingerprint (biometric data) and a unique numeric value stored by the PAAK app (unique device identifier). Hua, paragraphs Figures 4A-4B and associated texts such as paragraphs 2-3, 7-8, 23, 31-32, 35, 47, and 49-50, teaches generating the digital signatures and the public keys based on the vehicle identifier and the mobile application (of the mobile device/key fob) identifier and then sending the vehicle a first digital signature and a first public key and also sending the mobile device (key fob as shown in paragraph 32) a second digital signature and a second public key. Access to the vehicle is allowed when both the first digital signature and the second digital signature are verified.)
However, Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner does not specifically teach “wherein the public key of the key fob is generated based on a value of a physically unclonable function (PUF) of the key fob”.
Mondello discloses wherein the public key … is generated based on a value of a physically unclonable function (PUF) … (Mondello, paragraphs 6 and 250, teaches using a PUF for key generation such as for generating a public key.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Mondello with the teachings of Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner. Watters in view of Wang, Hua, Ragunathan, and Wagner teaches using public key for authentication between the vehicle and the key fob. Mondello teaches generating public keys using a PUF. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the public keys to have been generated using a PUF in order to introduce more randomness into the public key generation and provide more secure public keys.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Jacob (US 2014/0329513) – teaches capturing a drivers fingerprint to transmit from a key fob to a vehicle to be compared to a second fingerprint to authenticate a user prior to allowing access to a wireless communications device of the vehicle.
Ragunathan (US 2021/0309182) – teaches a key fob scanning a user’s fingerprint and transmitting the raw biometric data to the ECU of the vehicle for authentication before unlocking the doors or remotely starting the vehicle.
Alsina (US 2018/0262494) – teaches storing biometric data in a secure memory.
Jergess (US 2018/0053360) – teaches using the RSSI signal strength value to determine if the key fob is within range of the vehicle and authorized before activating the keyless entry. Jergess also teaches transmitting data from the key fob to the vehicle using short-range communications.
Der Ghazarian (US 2002/0084130) – teaches using a voice recognition breathalyzer in a key fob to transmit a signal to the vehicle before starting the vehicle.
Allyn (US 2016/0283703) – teaches comparing fingerprints using a threshold.
Tussy (US 2019/0213311) – teaches comparing biometrics using a threshold.
Arora (US 2020/0250679) – teaches comparing biometrics, such as facial recognition, using a threshold.
McNelley (US 2007/0233614) – teaches a financial institution transmitting raw biometric data.
Bhatt (US 2019/0087825) – teaches optionally transmitting biometric data as encrypted biometric data, non-encrypted biometric data, raw biometric data, or a representation of the biometric data.
Weight (US 2019/0220859) – teaches optionally transmitting raw biometric data or processed biometric data.
Johnsgard (US 2012/0252411) – teaches sending user biometric data and a device ID in a single message via a secure channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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 on 5712728878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights