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 . 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.
Claims 1-5, 11-15 and 21-24 are pending, claims 1-5 and11-15 are amended, claims 6-10 and 16-20 are canceled, and claims 21-24 are newly added.
In light of applicant’s amendments rejection of claims under 35 USC 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on 09-09-2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
835 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea.
Claim 1 for example, recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
The claim recites the limitations of: “receiving, by an autonomous vehicle, a pick-up request for a user associated with a user account for an autonomous vehicle service; capturing, by the autonomous vehicle, sensor data indicative of a biometric information of the user… for a biometric identification of the user in response to the user account indicating use of a selected biometric identification…; decrypting, by the autonomous vehicle using a decryption key…; unlocking, by the autonomous vehicle, a door of the autonomous vehicle in response to the user being identified…; and deleting, by the autonomous vehicle, at least one of the decryption key, the sensor data, or the previously captured biometric information in response to the door of the autonomous vehicle being unlocked”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed performance of the limitation in a human mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a human simply receives a pickup request, obtains biometric information of the user for example, on a piece of paper or by tacking or receiving a picture of the user, decrypting a previously obtained biometric information by using a key, unlocking a door of the autonomous vehicle when the user being identified based on for example, result of comparison of the obtained biometric information or picture and previously obtained picture, and deleting or destroying the key written on a piece of paper.
Claim when analyzed under step 2A-Prong 2, recites additional element of: “ receiving, by autonomous vehicle…capturing, by autonomous vehicle …decrypting, by autonomous vehicle… unlocking, by autonomous vehicle…deleting, by autonomous vehicle…”. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving request/data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The autonomous vehicle that receiving a pickup request, capturing sensor data, decrypting biometric information, unlocking a door and deleting the decryption key is also recited at a high level of generality. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim further when evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not include anything other than a generic computer component (processors, memory) performing the steps of the claim. The mere “ receiving, capturing, decrypting, unlocking, and deleting, with autonomous vehicle is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claims 11 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and is directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 and 21-24 do not cure the deficiency of the independent claims and are directed to abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0223396), hereinafter Yi, in view of Copeland et al. (US Patent No. 10,147,325 ), hereinafter Copeland, in view of Hruska et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0074056), hereinafter Hruska.
As per claims 1 and 11, Yi discloses a method comprising: receiving, by an autonomous vehicle, a pick-up request for a user [associated with a user account] for an autonomous vehicle service (paragraph [0082], “Security server 630 may send the VAT and the expiation time in a dispatch command to autonomous vehicle 640”); capturing, by the autonomous vehicle, sensor data indicative of a biometric information of the user for a biometric identification of the user in response to receiving a secret key and authentication request (paragraph [0083], “autonomous vehicle 640 may collect passenger biometric information form passenger”); decrypting, by the autonomous vehicle using a decryption key associated with the user account, encrypted biometric information indicative of a previously captured biometric information (par [0083], “Autonomous vehicle 640 may decrypted the passenger secret using the secret key received from user device 610”): unlocking, by the autonomous vehicle, a door of the autonomous vehicle in response to the user being identified using the biometric information of the sensor data and the previously captured biometric information decrypted using the decryption key (par [0083], “Autonomous vehicle 640 may decrypted the passenger secret using the secret key received from user device 610, and compare the information recovered from the passenger secret with the passenger biometric information collected on-site…. If a match is found, passenger 605 may be authenticated by autonomous vehicle 640, and autonomous vehicle 640 may unlock the doors”): and deleting, by the autonomous vehicle, at least one of the decryption key, the sensor data, or the previously captured biometric information in response to the door of the autonomous vehicle being unlocked (par[0077], [0079], “one or more secret key, passenger secret, VAT, and biometric information of the passenger may expire immediately or may be removed from …autonomous vehicle …after the mutual authentication completes”).
Yi does not explicitly disclose, pickup request is for a user associated with a user account. However, in an analogous art, Copeland discloses, pickup request is for a user associated with a user account (column 3, lines 39-43, column 7, lines 34-35, “user of the system 100 requests a rideshare from the system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yi and Copeland. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide customized rideshares to improve ridesharing experiences for the users and reduce the incidence of undesirable rideshare experiences.
Copeland as modified does not explicitly discloses the user account indicating use of a selected biometric identification to unlock the autonomous vehicle. However, in an analogous art, Hruska discloses indicating use of a selected biometric identification (paragraph [0050]-[0052], [0057]-[0058], page 6, claim 1, “causing the application to display on the display screen of the mobile device an option to electronically authenticate using a biometric credential; and receiving, by the server, a selection indicating acceptance of use of authenticating using the biometric credential”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yi and Copeland with Hruska. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the security level by enabling selection of the well-known biometric authentication.
It is noted that although Hruska indicating use of a selected biometric identification (as noted above), Hruska does not explicitly disclose to unlock the autonomous vehicle. In other words, Hruska does not explicitly disclose indication of use of a selected biometric identification is to unlock the autonomous vehicle. However, it is noted that the process for indicating use of a selected biometric identification to unlock the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed by Hruska could have been similarly applied for indication for unlocking autonomous vehicle or providing other types of access, without exercising an inventive step. Therefore such modification would have been obvious and within knowledge of an ordinary skill in the art and does not require an inventive step.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Copeland and Hruska, further in view of Ho (US Publication No. 2020/0007338), hereinafter Ho.
As per claims 2 and 12, Yi as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Ho discloses, wherein a-the decryption key is part of a pair of keys that also includes an encryption key for generating the encrypted biometric information associated with the user (paragraph [0027], “generating, by a key generation unit, a private key and a public key; generating, by a first encrypting unit, first biometric information by encrypting biometric authentication data using the public key; receiving, by a decrypting unit, second biometric information from a shared vehicle, wherein the second biometric information is generated based on user biometric information and the public key; decrypting, by the decrypting unit, the second biometric information using the private key”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Yi with Ho. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide protection for sensitive information.
As pre claims 3 and 13, Yi as modified furthermore discloses, receiving, by the autonomous vehicle, the decryption key from the user device (paragraph [0010], “sending , by user device…the secret key to the vehicle for decryption the passenger secret”). Ho furthermore discloses, wherein the pair of keys is generated by a user device associated with the user during a registration of the user account of the user for the autonomous vehicle (paragraph [0076], “The user registration unit 200 receives biometric information from the user, and encrypts the biometric information using the public key generated by the key generation unit 120 to perform user registration).
The motivation is similar to the motivation provided in claim 2.
As per claims 21 and 23, Yi as modified furthermore discloses, wherein the pick-up request for the user associated with the user account is received from a remote server associated with the autonomous vehicle service (paragraph [0082], security server 630 sends a dispatch command to autonomous vehicle).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Copeland, Hruska and Ho, further in view of Talha et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0073363), hereinafter Talha.
As per claims 4 and 14, Yi as modified discloses, wherein the pair of keys is generated by a user device associated with the user (Ho, paragraph [0075], “the user device 100 may include a key generation unit 120 that generates a private key and a public key”). Yi as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Talha discloses the pair of key is generated in repose to providing the pick-up request associated with the user account of the user(paragraph [0005], “responsive to receiving, from a mobile device, a hailing request including a user passcode, selecting a vehicle to respond to the hailing request…generating an encryption key”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Yi with Talha, in order to achieve the predictable result of authenticating the device of the user with the vehicle.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Copeland, Hruska and Ho, further in view of Shimizu (US Publication No. 2024/0394353), hereinafter Shimizu.
As per claims 5 and 15, Yi furthermore discloses [transmitting, by the autonomous vehicle, a request for the decryption key, wherein, in response to receiving the request]: one of (i) the encrypted biometric information associated with the user or (ii) the decryption key is provided by a user device associated with the user to the autonomous vehicle assigned to pick-up the user (paragraph [0083], user devices receiving from autonomous vehicle a vehicle access token (VAT), in response to receiving VAT providing a secret key (decryption key) to the autonomous vehicle),and the other one of (i) the encrypted biometric information associated with the user or (ii) the decryption key is provided by a remote server associated with the autonomous vehicle service (paragraph [0074], security server sent the passenger secret (encrypted biometric information) to autonomous vehicle).
While Yi discloses user device receiving VAT from the autonomous vehicle and in response providing a secret key, Yi does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art Shimizu discloses, receiving a request for decryption key from autonomous vehicle, in response providing a secret key to autonomous vehicle (paragraph [0050]-[0051], user device receiving a request and providing secret key to the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Yi with Shimizu. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling vehicle to perform authentication.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Copeland, Hruska and Ho, further in view of Kim (US Publication No. 2023/0322251), hereinafter Kim.
As per claims 22 and 24, Yi as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Kim discloses receiving, by the autonomous vehicle, information related to the user account from a remote server associated with the autonomous vehicle service (paragraph [0050], vehicle receives user account information from server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Yi with Kim. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling user authentication using user’s account information. .
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lerner et al. (US Publication No.2020/0342562) discloses, an example operation may include one or more of receiving a request from a requesting device to initiate a transport to perform a transport event at a target location, identifying the transport to perform the transport event, identifying a target device associated with the transport event is located at the target location, receiving location updates of the transport and the target device at a server, determining the transport has initiated the transport event based on the location updates of the transport, determining the target device and the transport are proximate to one another based on the location updates, and monitoring the location updates to identify whether the transport has deviated from a target travel path area.
Blanc-Paques et al. (US Patent No. 10,853,629) discloses, a method for identifying a user entering an autonomous vehicle includes: receiving a ride request from the user, the ride request specifying a pickup location; at the autonomous vehicle, autonomously navigating to the pickup
location, scanning a field near the autonomous vehicle for a human approaching the autonomous vehicle, and, in response to detecting the human proximal the autonomous vehicle, recording an image of the human; detecting a face of the human in the image; accessing a faceprint characterizing facial features of the user; and, in response to the face of the human detected in the image exhibiting features represented in the faceprint, identifying the human as the user and triggering a door of the autonomous vehicle to
unlock for the user.
Abouelenin et al. (US Patent No. 12,067,565) discloses, systems and methods for use in tokenization. One example method includes receiving a request to provision a biometric for biometric transactions to a payment account where, the request includes a cryptogram associated with a transaction to said payment account and/or a transaction ID for the transaction. The method also includes
checking with an issuer whether the payment account is supported for biometric transactions, receiving an indicator of eligibility, and then requesting a biometric from the user. The method further includes receiving biometric data indicative of the user's biometric, and transmitting a request to the issuer to enable biometric transactions for the payment account.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ali Abyaneh whose telephone number is (571) 272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from (8:00-5:00). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. Can be reached on (571) 272-4063. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned as (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).
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437