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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 04/16/2026 for response of the office action mailed on 02/20/2026. Claims 16, 20 and 33 have been amended. Claims 17 and 25-26 have been cancelled. Claims 35-38 are newly added. Claims 16, 18-24 and 27-38 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 16, 18 and 19-24, 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasquez et al. (US 8,736,438 B1), Vasquez hereinafter, and Modadugu et al. (IN 201741030697), Modadugu hereinafter, and further in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2019/0135229), Ledvina hereinafter.
Re. Claim 16, Vasquez teaches a vehicle comprising: (Fig. 1 – Please see 106);
a first wireless communication device configured to perform communication for a keyless access or keyless go functionality of the vehicle; (Fig. 1 & ¶6 - The functionalities of the vehicle that may be controlled using the computing device may include, but are not limited to, locking and/or unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle, opening and closing assisted doors and windows of the vehicle, activating an ignition system of the vehicle, and controlling the motor (e.g., engine) of the vehicle). ¶11 - Short-range wireless communication module 102 in computing device 100 may communicate with one or more short-range wireless communication modules 108 in vehicle 106 via short-range wireless communication, such as NFC or RFID. Examiner interprets short-range wireless communication module 108 as first wireless communication device);
a separate second wireless communication device configured to perform communication for a hands-free functionality, a media playback functionality, and/or a video projection functionality of the vehicle; (Fig. 1 & ¶11 - and wireless communication module 104 in computing device 100 may communicate with wireless communication module 110 in vehicle 106 via wireless communication, such as Bluetooth or WiFi Direct. Such communications between computing device 100 and vehicle 106 may enable computing device 100 to control one or more functionalities of vehicle 106. ¶19 - …including establishing a secure connection between wireless communication module 104 and wireless communication module 110 without further user intervention. Examiner interprets wireless communication module 110 as a second wireless communication device able to perform hands-free functionality (“without further user intervention”));
and control circuitry configured to: perform a first pairing procedure between the first wireless communication device and a mobile device to establish a first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device, (Fig. 1 & ¶53 - In some examples, the first short-range communication protocol may include near-field communication (NFC), and the second short-range communication protocol may include Bluetooth. In some examples, establishing the secure connection with the vehicle further may include receiving a Bluetooth pairing request from a Bluetooth module of the vehicle, and pairing a Bluetooth module of the computing device with the Bluetooth module of the vehicle);
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly perform a second pairing procedure between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device by exchanging pairing information for pairing the second wireless communication device with the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device, wherein, in order to perform the second pairing procedure and establish a second communication channel between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device, the control circuitry is configured to: obtain, at the first wireless communication device, a request for pairing the mobile device with the second wireless communication device from the mobile device via the first communication channel, provide the request for pairing from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, and provide a response to the request for pairing (i) from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device, and then (ii) from the first wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel, and transmit information on one or more capabilities of the second wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches perform a second pairing procedure between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device by exchanging pairing information for pairing the second wireless communication device with the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device, wherein, in order to perform the second pairing procedure and establish a second communication channel between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device, the control circuitry is configured to: obtain, at the first wireless communication device, a request for pairing the mobile device with the second wireless communication device from the mobile device via the first communication channel, (¶0005 - Another example in-vehicle computing system includes a first Bluetooth controller, a second Bluetooth controller in communication with the first Bluetooth controller via a first communication channel, a processor, and memory storing instructions executable by the processor to receive a request to pair the first Bluetooth controller with a mobile device, exchange pairing information between the first Bluetooth controller and the mobile device to pair the first Bluetooth controller with the mobile device, and generate a pairing key at the first Bluetooth controller derived from the pairing information. The instructions are further executable to transmit, via the first communication channel, the pairing key from the first Bluetooth controller to the second Bluetooth controller to pair the second Bluetooth controller with the mobile device, and transmit, from the first Bluetooth controller via a second communication channel different from the first communication channel, first data to the mobile device. ¶0032 - Upon pairing with the mobile device, the Bluetooth controller attempts to automatically pair at least one other secondary Bluetooth controller with the mobile device…);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teaching of Vaquez. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Yet, Vaquez and Modadugu do not explicitly teach provide the request for pairing from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, and provide a response to the request for pairing (i) from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device, and transmit information on one or more capabilities of the second wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel.
However, in the analogous art, Ledvina explicitly teaches provide the request for pairing from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, and provide a response to the request for pairing (i) from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device, and then (ii) from the first wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel and transmit information on one or more capabilities of the second wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel (Fig. 1-3, 5, 9 & ¶0033 - Mobile device 210 and vehicle 205 are assumed to have already been paired, e.g., so that a secure channel has already been established between the two devices via a shared secret. ¶0083 - Once the vehicle and iOS devices are paired, subsequent BT connections can be initiated by the vehicle. The vehicle can also initiate a standard BT encryption handshake to setup an encrypted link using the link keys created during pairing. ¶0086 - For Bluetooth (BT) low energy, the Security Manager Protocol (SMP) carries out the pairing in three phases … More specifically, in phase 2, the two devices use the IO capabilities from the pairing request and pairing response packet in phase 1 to determine which authentication method to use. Four authentication techniques are typically available: Just Works™, Numeric Comparison, Passkey, and Out of band (OOB). In phase 3, each device may distribute to the other device one or more keys for future communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ledvina to the teaching of Vaquez and Modadugu. The motivation would be because embodiments provide a mobile device that securely communicates with a car for authentication and ranging to unlock the doors in a timely fashion when the user is close to the car. Other operations besides unlocking can also be provided, such as turning on lights, engine, heater, air conditioner, or providing information from the car to the mobile device (¶0018, Ledvina).
Re. Claim 18, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 16.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the second pairing procedure is initiated without requiring a confirmation of a code sequence by a user of the mobile device or the vehicle.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the second pairing procedure is initiated without requiring a confirmation of a code sequence by a user of the mobile device or the vehicle (¶0020 - In this way, an end user device (e.g., a mobile device such as a smartphone) may perform all operations with the second Bluetooth device/controller considering the second Bluetooth device/controller to be the same as the first Bluetooth device/controller with which the end user device originally paired, without requiring any further user input for pairing and while maintaining a high level of security. ¶0034 - The MAC address of the original Bluetooth controller may be propagated to any number of additional Bluetooth controllers in order to effectively pair the mobile device with each other Bluetooth controller without further user-driven pairing operations (e.g., without further user input associating with pairing)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claims 19 and 20, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claims 18 and 16.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the second pairing procedure is initiated automatically by providing a prompt to the/a user of the mobile device or the vehicle.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the second pairing procedure is initiated automatically by providing a prompt to the/a user of the mobile device or the vehicle (¶0023 - In the second system 108, which utilizes the key sharing features of the present disclosure, the second user device 110 may be paired with each Bluetooth controller of the second vehicle 112 using only a single pairing process (e.g., with only a single manual code entry). For example, the second user device 110 may pair with the second head unit 120 according to a pairing operation in which a user enters an authentication code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claim 21, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 16.
Vasquez further teaches the first wireless communication device is a first Bluetooth communication device (Fig. 1 & ¶41 - These alternative short-range communication devices may operate according to Bluetooth, Ultra-Wideband radio, or other similar protocols).
Re. Claim 22, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 16.
Vasquez further teaches the first wireless communication device is a first ultra-Wideband communication device (Fig. 1 & ¶41 - These alternative short-range communication devices may operate according to Bluetooth, Ultra-Wideband radio, or other similar protocols).
Re. Claim 23, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 16.
Vasquez further teaches the second wireless communication device is a second Bluetooth communication device (Fig. 1 & ¶11 - … and wireless communication module 104 in computing device 100 may communicate with wireless communication module 110 in vehicle 106 via wireless communication, such as Bluetooth or WiFi Direct) or a communication device for communicating in a Wireless Local Area Network.
Re. Claim 24, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 23.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the second pairing procedure is a Bluetooth pairing procedure or wherein the second pairing procedure is a procedure for joining a Wireless Local Area Network.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the second pairing procedure is a Bluetooth pairing procedure (¶0032 - Upon pairing with the mobile device, the Bluetooth controller attempts to automatically pair at least one other secondary Bluetooth controller with the mobile device using key sharing … if the original Bluetooth controller (e.g., that performs the method 300) pairs with the mobile device using a Bluetooth transport that is the same type as the Bluetooth transport of the other/new Bluetooth controller, the same authentication data may be used for pairing the mobile device with both the original and the other/new Bluetooth controllers) or wherein the second pairing procedure is a procedure for joining a Wireless Local Area Network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claims 27 and 29, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claims 16 and 28.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the request comprises one or more capabilities of the mobile device.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the request comprises one or more capabilities of the mobile device (¶0029 - In pairing with the first vehicle device, device attributes (e.g., identifiers, capabilities, communication rules, etc.) may be exchanged between the mobile device and the first vehicle device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claim 28, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 23.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the control circuitry is configured to obtain a request for pairing the mobile device with the second Bluetooth communication device from the mobile device via the communication channel, to provide the request to the second Bluetooth communication device, and to provide a response to the request from the second Bluetooth communication device to the mobile device via the communication channel.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the control circuitry is configured to obtain a request for pairing the mobile device with the second Bluetooth communication device from the mobile device via the communication channel, to provide the request to the second Bluetooth communication device, and to provide a response to the request from the second Bluetooth communication device to the mobile device via the communication channel (¶0030 - FIG. 3 shows an example method 300 for pairing a Bluetooth controller with a device and sharing keys to pair additional Bluetooth controllers with the device. For example, method 300 may be performed by a Bluetooth controller, such as second head unit 120 of FIG. 1. At 302, the method includes receiving a request to pair with a mobile device. ¶0032 - Upon pairing with the mobile device, the Bluetooth controller attempts to automatically pair at least one other secondary Bluetooth controller with the mobile device using key sharing. Furthermore, if the Bluetooth controller includes multiple Bluetooth transports (e.g., a BR /EDR transport and a BLE transport), the Bluetooth controller may automatically pair the mobile device with other transport(s) by deriving a key based on authentication data exchanged during pairing with a first transport … if the original Bluetooth controller (e.g., that performs the method 300) pairs with the mobile device using a Bluetooth transport that is the same type as the Bluetooth transport of the other/new Bluetooth controller, the same authentication data may be used for pairing the mobile device with both the original and the other/new Bluetooth controllers. ¶0034 - The MAC address of the original Bluetooth controller may be propagated to any number of additional Bluetooth controllers in order to effectively pair the mobile device with each other Bluetooth controller without further user-driven pairing operations (e.g., without further user input associating with pairing). In this way, when a communication is directed to Bluetooth controllers that are paired with the mobile device … each controller may evaluate whether or not that controller is to respond to the communication … At 318, the method includes communicating with the mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claim 30, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 29.
Vasquez further teaches the response comprises information on a cryptographic secret provided by the second Bluetooth communication device (Fig. 1, 3 & ¶20 - Establishing the secure connection between computing device 100 and vehicle 106 may include encrypting communications between wireless communication module 104 included in computing device 100 and wireless communication module 110 included in vehicle 106 using the symmetric encryption key passed by vehicle 106 to computing device 100 … The secure connection between computing device 100 and vehicle 106 may also be established and secured using any other well-known security or cryptography techniques).
Re. Claim 31, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 28.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the request indicates whether the mobile device requests to use a vehicular display for displaying information provided by the mobile device.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the request indicates whether the mobile device requests to use a vehicular display for displaying information provided by the mobile device (¶0030 - FIG. 3 shows an example method 300 for pairing a Bluetooth controller with a device and sharing keys to pair additional Bluetooth controllers with the device. For example, method 300 may be performed by a Bluetooth controller, such as second head unit 120 of FIG. 1. At 302, the method includes receiving a request to pair with a mobile device … In such examples, the Bluetooth controller may display the received code for entry at the mobile device and/or at a display connected to the Bluetooth controller (e.g., a head unit display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claim 32, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 28.
Vasquez further teaches the response comprises information on a cryptographic secret provided by the second Bluetooth communication device (Fig. 1, 3 & ¶20 - Establishing the secure connection between computing device 100 and vehicle 106 may include encrypting communications between wireless communication module 104 included in computing device 100 and wireless communication module 110 included in vehicle 106 using the symmetric encryption key passed by vehicle 106 to computing device 100 … The secure connection between computing device 100 and vehicle 106 may also be established and secured using any other well-known security or cryptography techniques).
Re. Claim 33, Vasquez teaches a method for pairing a mobile device with a first and a second wireless communication device of a vehicle, (Fig. 1, 3 & ¶47 - FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart illustrating a method to use an example computing device, such as computing device 100 of FIG. 1, as a smart vehicle key for an example vehicle, such as vehicle 106 of FIG. 1. The method may include sending, from a computing device to a vehicle via a first short-range communication protocol (e.g., near field communication), a validation request signal (300). ¶48 - The method may further include, after to sending the validation request signal, establishing, by the computing device, a secure connection with the vehicle over a second short-range communication protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) (302));
the first wireless communication device being configured to perform communication for a keyless access or keyless go functionality of the vehicle, (Fig. 1 & ¶6 - The functionalities of the vehicle that may be controlled using the computing device may include, but are not limited to, locking and/or unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle, opening and closing assisted doors and windows of the vehicle, activating an ignition system of the vehicle, and controlling the motor (e.g., engine) of the vehicle). ¶11 - Short-range wireless communication module 102 in computing device 100 may communicate with one or more short-range wireless communication modules 108 in vehicle 106 via short-range wireless communication, such as NFC or RFID. Examiner interprets short-range wireless communication module 108 as first wireless communication device);
the second wireless communication device being configured to perform communication for a hands-free functionality, a media playback functionality or a video projection functionality of the vehicle, (Fig. 1 & ¶11 - and wireless communication module 104 in computing device 100 may communicate with wireless communication module 110 in vehicle 106 via wireless communication, such as Bluetooth or WiFi Direct. Such communications between computing device 100 and vehicle 106 may enable computing device 100 to control one or more functionalities of vehicle 106. ¶19 - …including establishing a secure connection between wireless communication module 104 and wireless communication module 110 without further user intervention. Examiner interprets wireless communication module 110 as a second wireless communication device able to perform hands-free functionality (“without further user intervention”));
the method comprising: performing a first pairing procedure between the first wireless communication device and a mobile device to establish a first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device to enable the mobile device to perform a keyless access or keyless go function of the vehicle; (Fig. 1 & ¶6 - The functionalities of the vehicle that may be controlled using the computing device may include, but are not limited to, locking and/or unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle, opening and closing assisted doors and windows of the vehicle, activating an ignition system of the vehicle, and controlling the motor (e.g., engine) of the vehicle. ¶53 - In some examples, the first short-range communication protocol may include near-field communication (NFC), and the second short-range communication protocol may include Bluetooth. In some examples, establishing the secure connection with the vehicle further may include receiving a Bluetooth pairing request from a Bluetooth module of the vehicle, and pairing a Bluetooth module of the computing device with the Bluetooth module of the vehicle);
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach and performing a second pairing procedure between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device by exchanging pairing information for pairing the second wireless communication device and the mobile device with the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device, wherein the second pairing procedure establishes a second communication channel between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device and includes: obtaining, at the first wireless communication device, a request for pairing the mobile device with the second wireless communication device from the mobile device via the first communication channel, providing the request for pairing from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, providing a response to the request for pairing (i) from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device, and then (ii) from the first wireless communication device to the to the mobile device via the first communication channel, and transmitting information on one or more capabilities of the second wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches and performing a second pairing procedure between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device by exchanging pairing information for pairing the second wireless communication device and the mobile device with the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device, wherein the second pairing procedure establishes a second communication channel between the second wireless communication device and the mobile device and includes: obtaining, at the first wireless communication device, a request for pairing the mobile device with the second wireless communication device from the mobile device via the first communication channel, (¶0005 - Another example in-vehicle computing system includes a first Bluetooth controller, a second Bluetooth controller in communication with the first Bluetooth controller via a first communication channel, a processor, and memory storing instructions executable by the processor to receive a request to pair the first Bluetooth controller with a mobile device, exchange pairing information between the first Bluetooth controller and the mobile device to pair the first Bluetooth controller with the mobile device, and generate a pairing key at the first Bluetooth controller derived from the pairing information. The instructions are further executable to transmit, via the first communication channel, the pairing key from the first Bluetooth controller to the second Bluetooth controller to pair the second Bluetooth controller with the mobile device, and transmit, from the first Bluetooth controller via a second communication channel different from the first communication channel, first data to the mobile device. ¶0032 - Upon pairing with the mobile device, the Bluetooth controller attempts to automatically pair at least one other secondary Bluetooth controller with the mobile device…);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teaching of Vaquez. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Yet, Vaquez and Modadugu do not explicitly teach providing the request for pairing from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, providing a response to the request for pairing (i) from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device, and then (ii) from the first wireless communication device to the to the mobile device via the first communication channel, and transmitting information on one or more capabilities of the second wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device.
However, in the analogous art, Ledvina explicitly teaches providing the request for pairing from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, providing a response to the request for pairing (i) from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device, and then (ii) from the first wireless communication device to the to the mobile device via the first communication channel, and transmitting information on one or more capabilities of the second wireless communication device to the mobile device via the first communication channel between the first wireless communication device and the mobile device (Fig. 1-3, 5, 9 & ¶0033 - Mobile device 210 and vehicle 205 are assumed to have already been paired, e.g., so that a secure channel has already been established between the two devices via a shared secret. ¶0083 - Once the vehicle and iOS devices are paired, subsequent BT connections can be initiated by the vehicle. The vehicle can also initiate a standard BT encryption handshake to setup an encrypted link using the link keys created during pairing. ¶0086 - For Bluetooth (BT) low energy, the Security Manager Protocol (SMP) carries out the pairing in three phases … More specifically, in phase 2, the two devices use the IO capabilities from the pairing request and pairing response packet in phase 1 to determine which authentication method to use. Four authentication techniques are typically available: Just Works™, Numeric Comparison, Passkey, and Out of band (OOB). In phase 3, each device may distribute to the other device one or more keys for future communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ledvina to the teaching of Vaquez and Modadugu. The motivation would be because embodiments provide a mobile device that securely communicates with a car for authentication and ranging to unlock the doors in a timely fashion when the user is close to the car. Other operations besides unlocking can also be provided, such as turning on lights, engine, heater, air conditioner, or providing information from the car to the mobile device (¶0018, Ledvina).
Re. Claim 34, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 33.
Vasquez further teaches a computer program having a program code for performing the method of claim 33, when the computer program is executed on a computer, a processor, or a programmable hardware component (Fig. 1-3 & ¶54 - The techniques described in this disclosure may be implemented, at least in part, in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof. For example, various aspects of the described techniques may be implemented within one or more processors, including one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or any other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry, as well as any combinations of such components. Please also see ¶56).
Re. Claim 35, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 33.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the second pairing procedure is initiated without requiring a confirmation of a code sequence by a user of the mobile device or the vehicle.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the second pairing procedure is initiated without requiring a confirmation of a code sequence by a user of the mobile device or the vehicle (¶0020 - In this way, an end user device (e.g., a mobile device such as a smartphone) may perform all operations with the second Bluetooth device/controller considering the second Bluetooth device/controller to be the same as the first Bluetooth device/controller with which the end user device originally paired, without requiring any further user input for pairing and while maintaining a high level of security. ¶0034 - The MAC address of the original Bluetooth controller may be propagated to any number of additional Bluetooth controllers in order to effectively pair the mobile device with each other Bluetooth controller without further user-driven pairing operations (e.g., without further user input associating with pairing)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claims 36 and 37, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claims 35 and 33.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the second pairing procedure is initiated automatically by providing a prompt to the/a user of the mobile device or the vehicle.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the second pairing procedure is initiated automatically by providing a prompt to the/a user of the mobile device or the vehicle (¶0023 - In the second system 108, which utilizes the key sharing features of the present disclosure, the second user device 110 may be paired with each Bluetooth controller of the second vehicle 112 using only a single pairing process (e.g., with only a single manual code entry). For example, the second user device 110 may pair with the second head unit 120 according to a pairing operation in which a user enters an authentication code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Re. Claim 38, Vasquez and Modadugu and Ledvina teach Claim 33.
Yet, Vasquez does not explicitly teach the request comprises one or more capabilities of the mobile device.
However, in the analogous art, Modadugu explicitly teaches the request comprises one or more capabilities of the mobile device (¶0029 - In pairing with the first vehicle device, device attributes (e.g., identifiers, capabilities, communication rules, etc.) may be exchanged between the mobile device and the first vehicle device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Modadugu to the teachings of Vasquez and Ledvina. The motivation would be because as the number of Bluetooth controllers in a given environment increases, the number of pairing processes that are performed to connect a device to the Bluetooth controllers increases. Since each pairing process may involve user input (e.g., of an authentication code), delays and user effort associated with connecting a device to Bluetooth controllers in a given environment rises, thereby degrading user experience (¶0003, Modadugu).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7673. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571) 270-0422. 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.
/ALYSSA WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights