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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the examination all 20 of the originally filed claims does not present a serious material additional burden on the Office. This is found persuasive because upon further review of the claims, it is determined that all of the claims can be examined together. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797).
Regarding claim 1, Rubinstein discloses a security system for an electronic device connected to a vehicle (paragraph 40, line 6: “automobile integration units”), comprising: an electronic device 102 in FIG. 1A; a first mating connector 104 one of: integrated with the electronic device, and connected by conductors and the first mating connector to the electronic device (paragraph 43, lines 4-5: “The mobile computing device 102 includes a connector port 104 for receiving a connector.”),
wherein the first mating connector 104 includes a security integrated circuit 106 configured to perform authentication (paragraph 44, lines 3-4: “the authentication device 106 is received by the connector port 104 of the mobile computing device 102”);
a second mating connector 110; and a host controller 112 connected by the second mating connector 110 to the electronic device 102 and the first mating connector 104 to the security integrated circuit 106 and the electronic device 102 (paragraph 45, lines 1-3: “The accessory device 112 provides certain functionality to the mobile computing device 102 when the accessory device 112 is interconnected with the mobile computing device 102 via the authentication device 106.”),
wherein the host controller is configured to communicate with the security integrated circuit to authenticate the electronic device (paragraph 45, lines 6-7: “the accessory device 112 is in electrical communication with the mobile computing device 102 via the authentication device 106.”).
Regarding claim 5, Rubinstein discloses that the security integrated circuit is attached to the first mating connector, and the first mating connector and the security integrated circuit are over molded (FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Rubinstein discloses that the security integrated circuit is configured to authenticate a plurality of the electronic device (paragraph 19, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Rubinstein discloses that the security integrated circuit is configured to respond to an authentication message when the authentication message includes a device ID matching a device ID of the security integrated circuit (paragraph 56, lines 1-3: “the authentication controller 200, or an authentication device or accessory device including or utilizing the authentication controller 200, can further include a device identifier and additional circuitry. The device identifier can, for example, pertain to a product identifier and/or a manufacturer identifier.”).
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 (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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of Collins et al. (US 2015/0216525).
Regarding claim 2, Rubinstein fails to disclose that the host controller authenticates the security integrated circuit over a single bidirectional conductor.
However, in an analogous art, Collins discloses that a host controller (corresponding to handle assembly 12 in FIG. 1) authenticates a security integrated circuit (corresponding to chip 36 in FIG. 9) over a single bidirectional conductor (paragraph 45, lines 1-10: “chip 36 includes a secure authentication chip … utilizes a ‘1-wire’ communications interface whereby a single signal conductor is employed … for bidirectional serial communications between chip 36 and handle assembly 12.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rubinstein by incorporating these features taught in Collins for the purpose of reducing hardware complexity and cost while maintaining secure authentication.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of Howard (US 2006/0172577).
Regarding claim 3, Rubinstein fails to disclose that the first mating connector includes a female connector, and the second mating connector includes a male connector.
However, in an analogous art, Howards discloses that a first mating connector includes a female connector 200 in FIG. 8, and a second mating connector includes a male connector 100 in FIG. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rubinstein by incorporating these features taught in Howard for the purpose of ensuring reliable mechanical and electrical coupling between connector interfaces.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of See et al. (US 2008/0105960).
Regarding claims 4, Rubinstein fails to disclose that the security integrated circuit includes: a substrate, wherein the security integrated circuit is mounted to the substrate; bond wires connecting the security integrated circuit to one or more conductors of the first mating connector; and encapsulation material encapsulating the first mating connector, the substrate, the security integrated circuit, and the bond wires.
However, in an analogous art, See discloses that a security integrated circuit (FIGS. 2A to 2D) includes a substrate 206, wherein the security integrated circuit is mounted to the substrate 206; bond wires 209 connecting the security integrated circuit to one or more conductors of a first mating connector 203; and encapsulation material 211 encapsulating the first mating connector 203, the substrate 206, the security integrated circuit, and the bond wires 209 (paragraph 8, lines 5-6: “The die pad 203, bond pad 205, die 207 and wire bond 209 are still encapsulated by the molding compound 211”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rubinstein by incorporating these features taught in See for the purpose of reducing the footprint and thickness of the IC package.
Regarding claim 6, See discloses that the security integrated circuit is attached to the first mating connector, the security integrated circuit is connected by one or more bond wires to conductors of the first mating connector, and the security integrated circuit and the one or more bond wires are covered with a glob-top material (claim 12, lines 1-3: “at least one connection point on the adhesive surface comprises: melting metal wire to form at least one globule”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rubinstein by incorporating these features taught in See for the purpose of protecting the security integrated circuit and bond wires from physical damage.
Claims 9-12, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of Endo (US 2006/0232131).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Rubinstein fails to disclose that the vehicle comprises a telematics system, wherein, after the electronic device has a predetermined number of failed authentication attempts, the host controller is configured to send an authentication failure message via the telematics system of the vehicle and at least one of a vehicle control module and a powertrain control module, wherein, after the electronic device has a predetermined number of failed authentication attempts, the host controller is configured to send a message to the at least one of the vehicle control module and the powertrain control module to alter operation of the vehicle.
However, in an analogous art, Endo discloses that a vehicle comprises a telematics system, wherein, after the electronic device has a predetermined number of failed authentication attempts, the host controller is configured to send an authentication failure message via the telematics system of the vehicle and at least one of a vehicle control module and a powertrain control module, wherein, after the electronic device has a predetermined number of failed authentication attempts, the host controller is configured to send a message to the at least one of the vehicle control module and the powertrain control module to alter operation of the vehicle (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A vehicle theft prevention system switches an engine from an immobilized state to a mobilized state when an ID code received from a mobile device carried by a user matches an ID code registered in advance, and keeps the engine in the immobilized state when the ID code received from the mobile device does not match the ID code registered in advance.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rubinstein by incorporating these features taught in Endo for the purpose of preventing unauthorized operation of the vehicle after repeated failed authentication attempts.
Claims 11 and 12 incorporate the limitations of claim 10, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim 16 incorporates the limitations of claims 5 and 12, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 5 and 12.
Claim 18 incorporates the limitations of claims 9 and 12, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 9 and 12.
Claim 19 incorporates the limitations of claims 11 and 12, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 11 and 12.
Claim 20 incorporates the limitations of claims 7 and 12, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 7 and 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of Endo (US 2006/0232131) and Collins et al (US 2015/0216525).
Claim 13 incorporates the limitations of claims 2 and 12, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 12.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of Endo (US 2006/0232131) and Howard (US 2006/0172577).
Claim 14 incorporates the limitations of claims 3 and 12, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 3 and 12.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein et al. (US 2017/0357797) in view of See et al. (US 2008/0105960) and Endo (US 2006/0232131).
Claim 15 incorporates the limitations of claims 4 and 12, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 4 and 12.
Claim 17 incorporates the limitations of claims 6 and 12, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 6 and 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishijima et al. (US 2013/0091907) discloses a vehicle theft prevention system that uses an authentication key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights