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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments to application number 18/143,153 filed on 08/19/2025, in which Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9-11, cancels Claim 8, and adds new Claims 13-15.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 0 has been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 2 and 4-9, filed 8/19/2025, with respect to the drawings and claim objections have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The amended drawings and claims address the objections set forth in the office action of 5/7/2025 and these objections are withdrawn. However, the amended drawings introduce new objections for FIG. 5. Further details are provided below. Examiner notes a claim objection in Claim 11. However, with additional corrections required, the objection is made for completeness. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 8/19/2025, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of Claim 11 was acknowledged by the applicant. However, amendments to Claim 11 removes the language originally interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), therefore the claim interpretation of Claim 11 is withdrawn and interpreted as amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-7 and 9-11, filed 8/19/2025, with respect to the original rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for Claims 1 and 2-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the original rejection 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for Claims 1 and 2-9 set forth in the office action of 5/7/2025 has been withdrawn. Additionally, the original rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for Claims 11 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the original rejection 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for Claims 11 and 12 set forth in the office action of 5/7/2025 has also been withdrawn. However, the amended claim language of Claim 11 introduces new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and the amended language of Claim 7 introduces a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-7 and 11, filed 8/19/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection set forth in the office action of 5/7/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-7 and 11-13, filed 8/19/2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because they are directed towards the amendments in Claims 1 and 11. However, Examiner agrees that Jayaraman does not disclose the amended language for “a temporary key that expires after an amount of time.” Therefore, the original rejection for Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made for amended Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and by dependency on Claim 1, Claims 4 and 5. Further details are provided below.
Applicant applies the same argument for the additional independent claims, which recite similar limitations to Claim 1. Examiner would like to note that applicant cites the independent claims as Claim 10 and Claim 12, however, Examiner refers to the independent Claims 10 and Claim 11. The arguments for Claim 11 are addressed above. With respect to Claim 10, the arguments have been fully considered, but Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original claim language of Claim 10 recited a method for controlling a vehicle by authorizing a user by receiving a request using a mobile apparatus and allowing the user to operate the vehicle. Unlike Claim 1, the language of Claim 10 does not describe using a mobile apparatus, or communication interface of the mobile apparatus, to control the vehicle. Therefore, the arguments for Claim 1 cannot be directly applied to Claims 10. Further, the arguments are moot because they are directed towards the amendments in Claim 10. However, Examiner agrees that Miu does not disclose the amended language for “receiving a control signal from the mobile apparatus; and communicating with the mobile apparatus to receive the control signal
A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for Claims 13-15 is made. Further details are provided below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following.
FIG. 5, pg. 12: “step S202 further includes a step S502” is incorrectly shown as “step S203 further includes a step S502” and
FIG. 5, pgs. 12-14: S501 and S503 are shown as input to S203 and S502 and should be shown as S501 and S503 as input to S202 and S502.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 (line 5): "user associate" should be "user associated
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 (lines 1 and 3) is directed to “a mobile apparatus […] comprising,” and (lines 4, 5, and 10) recite additional components, “the communication interface,” “a remote device,” and “a control unit,” respectively. .
Claim 12 is rejected by dependency on Claim 11.
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.
Claim 7 (line 4) recites the limitation "a vehicle.” “A vehicle” is already defined in Claim 1. For clarity, Claim 7 should recite “the .”
Claim 11 (lines 1 and 3) is directed to “a mobile apparatus […] comprising,” and (lines 4, 5, and 10) recite additional components, “the communication interface,” “a remote device,” and “a control unit,” respectively. Claim 11 (lines 7-9) recites method steps for transmitting and receiving not directed to one of the additional components. The claim needs correction to more clearly state which component is performing each of step, or function, and more clearly demonstrate if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method. For examination purposes, Claim 11 will be interpreted similarly to independent Claims 1 and 10. The interpretation is that the mobile apparatus comprises a communication interface for transmitting a digital key. Further, the remote device and control unit are separate components of a system for communicating with the mobile device and for receiving a control signal to control the vehicle, respectively.
Claim 12 is rejected by dependency on Claim 11.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman et al., Patent No. US 10,358,116 B1 (herein "Jayaraman") in view of Miu et al., Patent No. US 10,701,059 B2 (herein "Miu").
Regarding Claim 1, Jayaraman discloses: A method for controlling a vehicle, a mobile apparatus configured to be connected to the vehicle and disconnected from the vehicle through a communication interface to the vehicle [[via]] using the communication interface. See [Jayaraman, Abstract], which describes “a server that, responsive to receiving a remote command for a vehicle from an authorized mobile device, transmits the command to the vehicle. The vehicle responsively executes the command.” See also [Jayaraman, col 6, lines 29-37], which describes vehicle components communicating to the mobile device using wireless transceivers in the devices over a local network, “[…] the vehicle 102 components may be configured to communicate with other devices and systems of the system 100 over the network 110 via a local wireless connection formed between the vehicle 102 wireless transceivers 140C and the mobile device 104 wireless transceivers 230, and via the network110 connection of the mobile device 104.” Finally see [Jayaraman, col 4, lines 55-62], which describes that the vehicle components can also directly communicate with the other devices using the wireless transceivers, “One or more of the vehicle 102 components, such as one or more of the vehicle ECUs 120 and the infotainment system 122, may each be operatively coupled to one or more wireless transceivers 140. The wireless transceivers 140 may be configured to facilitate direct communication with other devices and systems, such as when such devices and systems are local to (e.g., within wireless communication range of) the wireless transceivers 230.”
Jayaraman further discloses: determining that a user associated with the apparatus is authorized to operate the vehicle. See [Jayaraman, col 3, lines 46-51], which describes that the vehicle components can receive and authenticate data, “The gateway unit 118 may be operatively coupled to and located in between the TCU 116 and the one or more in-vehicle networks 114, and may be configured to authenticate data received by the TCU 116 via the network 110 before the data is passed to the one or more in-vehicle networks 114.” See also, [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 22-27], which describes that the authorization can be for the mobile device, “Responsive to receiving the command request, the radio transceiver controller 120A may be configured to transmit the command data (e.g., the desired action and the ID 142 or the ID 144) to the gateway unit 118, 25 which may be configured to responsively determine whether the mobile device 104 or the key fob 105 is authorized to make the command.”
Jayaraman further discloses: transmitting a digital key to the vehicle to request control of the vehicle. See [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 16-19], which explains that “The command request may also include an ID 142 or an ID 144 stored in the mobile device 104 or the key fob 105, respectively. The ID 142 and the ID 144 may each be an alphanumeric code, and may be encrypted.” See also [Jayaraman, col 10, lines 15-22], which explains that the associated user data is also used for identifying permissions for remotely controlling the vehicle, “The user data 218 may include data specific to one or more vehicle 102 users, and may thus enable the provision of features by the vehicle 102 that are customized to specific users. For example, the component data 216 for the vehicle cloud system 108 may include the cloud databases 164, which may include permissions for user mobile devices, such as the mobile device 104, to remotely command the vehicle 102.”
Jayaraman does not disclose: wherein the digital key is a temporary key that expires after an amount of time.
However, Miu teaches: wherein the digital key is a temporary key that expires after an amount of time. See [Miu, col 12, lines 32-39], which explains that an authenticated credential cannot be retransmitted and expires after a period of time, “A copy of verified attributes from an authenticated credential may be transmitted to the onboard vehicle system 110. This copy may be dedicated for a rendering software application on the onboard vehicle system 110. This copy may not be retransmitted from the onboard vehicle system 110. In some instances, the copy may expire and timeout, so that the copy is set to disappear after a period of time.” See also [Miu, cols 14-15, lines 67 and 1-4], which further describes that the authorization allows the user to control the vehicle, “In response to determining that the driver is an authorized user, the onboard vehicle system may unlock the engine system, the ignition system, the brakes system, as well as other control system on the vehicle so that the user may start to operate the vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Miu to use a temporary credential, that expires after a period of time. Doing so prevents a user from using a vehicle within a restricted time period, which could otherwise be dangerous [Miu, col 11, lines 30-33].
Jayaraman further discloses: receiving a control signal from the mobile apparatus; and controlling, after the vehicle has been powered up, the vehicle based upon the control signal . See [Jayaraman, col 1, lines 27-31], which summarizes the connection and authorization of the mobile device with the vehicle, “a system includes a vehicle configured to, responsive to a vehicle power-on event, automatically form a local wireless connection with a mobile device based on authorization data stored in the vehicle” and [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 20-22], which summarizes the command request, “The vehicle 102 may be configured to receive and process 20 the command request when the vehicle 102 is in an off state or in an on state.” Finally see [Jayaraman, col 10, lines 54-64], which further explains that the vehicle is powered-up and then the authorized mobile device is connected, “Responsive to a successful pairing, the infotainment system 122 may be configured to store the ID 142 for the mobile device 104 in the authorized mobile device data of the infotainment system 122. Responsive to subsequent connection attempts by the mobile device 104, which may automatically occur responsive to a vehicle power-on event, the infotainment system 122 may be configured to automatically connect to the mobile device 104 based on receiving the ID 142 from the mobile device 104 and locating the ID 142 in the authorized mobile device data of the infotainment system 122.”
Regarding Claim 4, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman further discloses: prior to determining that the user is authorized to operate the vehicle: receiving information identifying the user or digital credential data from the user, wherein the determining step further comprises a step of authenticating . See [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 49-59], which describes the radio transceiver receives the ID and transmits this to the gateway unit for authorization, which then transmits the enablement signal until the ID is no longer received, “Responsive to receiving the ID 142 or the ID 144, the radio transceiver controller 120A may be configured to 50 transmit the ID 142 or the ID 144 to the gateway unit 118, which may be configured to responsively determine whether the ID 142 or the ID 144 is authorized. If so, then the gateway unit 118 may be configured to enable the access point associated with the receiving wireless transceiver, such 55 as by transmitting an enablement signal to the appropriate vehicle 102 component for the associated access point, at least until the ID 142 or the ID 144 ceases to be received via the associated wireless transceiver.”
Regarding Claim 5, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman further discloses: after the determining step: verifying whether the authorized user controls the vehicle or whether the user is still authorized to operate the vehicle. See again, as stated for Claim 4, [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 49-59], which explains that the gateway unit checks repeatedly for the ID. See also [Jayaraman, col 2, lines 8-19], which explains that the system checks for changes in authorization and deauthorizes mobile devices of users that are no longer registered, “Certain events, such as a transfer of the vehicle 102 from one owner to another, may create a security risk in which a mobile device 104 previously registered with the vehicle is still able to connect with, control, and track the vehicle 102. Accordingly, the system 100 may be configured to detect such an event, such as from third-party Internet data. Responsive to detection of such an event, the system 100 may be configured to automatically deauthorize previously authorized mobile devices 104 from connecting with, controlling, and tracking the vehicle 102, and to clear the vehicle 102 of data specific to previous users, to both secure the vehicle 102 and protect the previous users' privacy.”
Regarding Claim 6, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman further discloses: locating the vehicle using GPS data. See [Jayaraman, col 2, lines 5-8], which explains the system can track the vehicle, “The system 100 may include a vehicle 102 configured for remote services that enable a remote device, such as a mobile device 104, to control and track the location of the vehicle 102,” and [Jayaraman, col 3, lines 16-19], which explains the system uses a GPS, “The TCU 116 may also include a global positioning system ("GPS") module 128 configured to identify vehicle 102 geographical data, such as via communicating with one or more satellites over a satellite link network.”
Jayaraman does not disclose: verifying if, in accordance with a location of the vehicle, the user is authorized to operate the vehicle at this location.
However, Miu teaches: verifying if, in accordance with a location of the vehicle, the user is authorized to operate the vehicle at this location. See [Miu, col 11, lines 16-20], which explains there are pre-selected regions for defining user privileges, “Accordingly, the user 202c may have further restrictions on privileges compared to the user 202b given his/her provisional driver license status and user type ( e.g., speed limit restrictions, pre-selected regions for driving, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Miu to restrict vehicle control to specific areas. Doing so would allow owners to further restrict user control capability based on driver ID to ensure that the user is not limited from controlling a vehicle in specific regions based on conditions such as an insurance policy, a driver status, age restrictions, or a provisional license [Miu, col 11, lines 2-20].
Regarding Claim 13, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman does not explicitly disclose: determining that a plurality of users is authorized to operate the vehicle; and verifying if, in accordance with a time period, a user of the plurality of users is authorized to operate the vehicle. However, [Jayaraman, col 10, lines 15-22], does explain that the user data includes data for one more users for permissions to control the vehicle, “The user data 218 may include data specific to one or more vehicle 102 users, and may thus enable the provision of features by the vehicle 102 that are customized to specific users. For example, the component data 216 for the vehicle cloud system 108 may include the cloud databases 164, which may include permissions for user mobile devices, such as the mobile device 104, to remotely command the vehicle 102.”
However, Miu teaches: determining that a plurality of users is authorized to operate the vehicle; and verifying if, in accordance with a time period, a user of the plurality of users is authorized to operate the vehicle. See [Miu, FIG. 2 and cols 10-11, lines 44-67 and 1-4], which explains that multiple users can be authorized and the authorization can include information on restrictions, such as allowed time periods, “FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates examples of user accounts associated with information that is displayed on an onboard vehicle system. As depicted, the onboard vehicle system 110 may receive transmissions from user devices associated with users 202a, 202b, and 202c and display respective user information associated each of the users 210a, 210b, and 210c. The users 202a, 202b, and 202c may be different users that use a single vehicle […]. The users 202a, 202b, and 202c may be associated with user accounts 204a, 204b, and 204c, respectively, that are stored on the digital identification server 140. […]. Accordingly, the user 202c may have further restrictions on privileges compared to the user 202b given his/her provisional driver license status and user type (e.g., speed limit restrictions, pre-selected regions for driving, etc.). […]. In this regard, user information transmitted from the digital identification 122 can be used to initially classify users, and provide the appropriate level of vehicle access based on the classification. For example, as described above, a vehicle owner may utilize the onboard vehicle system 110 to specify a set of parental safety options that prevents a restricted user from using a vehicle in a dangerous manner ( e.g., speeding beyond a preset threshold speed limit, accessing the vehicle during certain time periods, or using the vehicle beyond a set threshold distance amount).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Miu to have multiple authorized users of the vehicle, with restrictions, such as the time, for each user. Doing so allows the same vehicle and authorization system to manage multiple users of a shared vehicle, such as a family vehicle or a company vehicle, and further ensure that the users are restricted based on their status, such as being only an acquaintance to the vehicle owner, age, dangerous behavior record, or legal restrictions to their status or license [Miu, cols 1-11, lines 44-67 and 1-4].
Regarding Claim 14, Jayaraman as modified teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman further discloses: wherein controlling the vehicle further comprises performing a function that affects a drivetrain of the vehicle. See again [Jayaraman, Abstract], which describes “a server that, responsive to receiving a remote command for a vehicle from an authorized mobile device, transmits the command to the vehicle. The vehicle responsively executes the command,” and [Jayaraman, col 6, lines 29-37], which describes vehicle components communicating to the mobile device using wireless transceivers in the devices over a local network and [Jayaraman, col 4, lines 55-62] directly with the other devices. See also [Jayaraman, col 3, lines 26-33 and 57-61], which further explains that the components include control units for controlling the drivetrain, “The vehicle ECUs 120 may be configured to monitor and manage various functions of the vehicle 102 under the power of the vehicle 102 battery and/or drivetrain. The vehicle ECUs 120 may include, but are not limited to, a radio transceiver controller 120A configured to communicate with mobile devices 104, key fobs 105, and other local vehicle 102 devices; a powertrain controller 120B configured to monitor and manage engine operating components; […]. […]. For example, the TCU 116 or the radio transceiver controller 120A may receive a remote command for the vehicle 102 initiated from the mobile device 104 that, if processed by the vehicle 102, would result in operation of the vehicle 102 (e.g., unlocking, locking, remote start).”
Claims 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman in view of Miu and further in view of Boulton, EP 3,674,162 A1 (herein "Boulton").
Regarding Claim 2, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman does not disclose: the function is implemented by an operating system having a first portion executed in the mobile apparatus and a second portion that differs from the first portion executed in a computing device of the vehicle.
However, Boulton teaches: the function is implemented by an operating system having a first portion executed in the mobile apparatus and a second portion that differs from the first portion executed in a computing device of the vehicle. See [Boulton, pg. 4, para 0017, lines 2-3], which explains that the vehicle devices contain memory with an operating system for executing the vehicle autopilot commands, “The memory 114 can store an operating system (OS) of the vehicle 120 and various other computer-executable software programs for performing one or more of the processes, steps, or actions described above.” See also [Boulton, pg. 4, para 0020, lines 20-25], which explains that the external devices, includes the user mobile device, “Some of the components of the vehicle 120 can be implemented on a device that is associated with the vehicle 120. For example, the driver security determination unit 112 can be implemented on a portable electronic device that is connected with the vehicle 120 over NFC, BT, USB, or any other wireless or wireline communication technologies. The portable electronic device may include, without limitation, any of the following: endpoint, computing device, mobile device, mobile electronic device, user device, mobile station, […], or other electronic device.” And finally, see [Boulton, pg. 10, para 0053, lines 1-2 and 45-49], which defines that the disclosed devices contain individual, or combinations of, operating systems, “The terms "data-processing apparatus," "computer," or "electronic computer device" encompass all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data [...]. [...] The apparatus can optionally include code that creates an execution environment for computer programs, for example, code that constitutes processor firmware, a protocol stack, a database management system, an operating system, or a combination of execution environments. The present disclosure contemplates the use of data processing apparatuses with or without conventional operating systems, for example LINUX, UNIX, WINDOWS, MAC OS, ANDROID, IOS, or any other suitable, conventional operating system.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Boulton to utilize an operating system in both the vehicle and external devices, or an operating system in combination with the devices. Doing so, allows utilization of the operating system to perform the steps [Boulton, pg. 4, para 0017, lines 2-3] which is a conventional method for use of the data processing apparatuses as described [Boulton, pg. 10, para 0053, line 49].
Regarding Claim 3, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman does not disclose: prior to the controlling step comprises: generating [[a]] the control signal based on data received from a sensing device of the vehicle.
However, Boulton teaches: prior to the controlling step comprises: generating [[a]] the control signal based on data received from a sensing device of the vehicle. See [Boulton, pg. 2, lines 12-14, para 003], which explains that, “The vehicle may also include an autopilot processing platform that generates autopilot commands. The autopilot processing platform can receive inputs from one or more sensors installed on the vehicle. The autopilot processing platform may include one or more autopilot processors that generate autopilot commands based on these inputs.” See also [Boulton, pg. 4, lines 8-11, para 0018], which explains that the security unit, which can be a portable device such as user device, can also generate the autopilot commands, “The communication subsystem 116 can receive a driving information response from the server 130 and forward it to the driver security determination unit 112. The driver security determination unit 112 can generate vehicle operation control commands that prevent or limit the driver from operating the vehicle 120 according to the driving information of the driver included in the driving information response.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Boulton to generate vehicle control commands using data from the sensing devices of the vehicle. Doing so would allow utilization of the sensors and inputs already available on the vehicle to generate the commands [Boulton, pg. 2, lines 9-11, para 0002], especially for autonomous vehicles. This would include scenarios where authentication steps confirm that the user can control the vehicle and will generate control signals, with or without the assist of the autopilot commands [Boulton, pg. 2, lines 46-50, 0008].
Jayaraman further discloses: the controlling step comprises: transmitting the control signal to an actuator device of the vehicle to enable the actuator device to perform the function. See [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 8-16], which describes the mobile device can transmit a command, via a transceiver, to a transceiver of the vehicle to actuate a feature, “As an example, responsive to a user interaction with the mobile device 104 […], the mobile device 104 […], respectively, may be configured to directly 10 and wirelessly transmit a command request to the radio transceiver controller 120A via the wireless transceivers 140A. The command request may indicate a desired action for the vehicle 102, such as an unlock request, a trunk open request, a lock request, a remote start request, or a panic 15 request.” See also [Jayaraman, col 5, lines 28-37], which further describes the transmission pathway to actuate various vehicle features, after authentication, “[…] the gateway unit 118 may be configured route the command to the vehicle 102 component configured to implement the command. For example, if the 30 command is an unlock request, the gateway unit 118 may be configured to route the command to the body controller 120C, which may be configured to responsively unlock the vehicle 102. If the command if a remote start request, the gateway unit 118 may be configured to transmit the command to the powertrain controller 120B, which may be configured to responsively start the vehicle 102 engine.”
Regarding Claim 15, Jayaraman as modified teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman does not disclose: wherein controlling the vehicle further comprises performing a function that affects a braking system of the vehicle.
However, Boulton teaches: wherein controlling the vehicle further comprises performing a function that affects a braking system of the vehicle. See [Boulton, pg. 2, para 0003], which explains that the system for controlling the vehicle based on driver information and authorization includes an autopilot platform for controlling the vehicle, including the brakes, “The vehicle may also include an autopilot processing platform that generates autopilot commands. The autopilot processing platform can receive inputs from one or more sensors installed on the vehicle. The autopilot processing platform may include one or more autopilot processors that generate autopilot commands based on these inputs. These autopilot commands are directed to components of the vehicle to control the movements of the vehicle. Examples of the components include without limitation steering wheel, brakes, accelerator, lights, and the like.” See also [Boulton, pg. 4, para 0020], which explains the system can be implemented on a mobile device, “Some of the components of the vehicle 120 can be implemented on a device that is associated with the vehicle 120. For example, the driver security determination unit 112 can be implemented on a portable electronic device that is connected with the vehicle 120 over NFC, BT, USB, or any other wireless or wireline communication technologies. The portable electronic device may include, without limitation, any of the following: [...], , cellular phone, personal data assistant (PDA), smart phone, [...], or other mobile communications devices having components for communicating voice or data via a wireless communication network,” and [Boulton, pg. 8, para 0035], which explains that a mobile device can be used to control the autopilot platform, “At 206, the vehicle controls the operation of the vehicle based on the driving information of the driver received in the driving information response. [...]. In some cases, if the driver is prevented from operate the vehicle, the driver may authorize the vehicle to travel to a destination under the control of the autopilot processing platform of the vehicle."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Boulton to include control of the brakes. Doing so allows for the vehicle to be fully autopiloted, or self-driving [Boulton, pg. 2, para 0003], which accounts for driving safety by ensuring a driver is qualified or accounting for prior violations [Boulton, pg. 2, paras 0007-0008].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman in view of Miu and further in view of Penilla et al., PG Pub US-2015/0210287-A1 (herein "Penilla").
Regarding Claim 7, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman further discloses: generating an alert signal rendered in the vehicle […] when a predefined condition is met. As described above for Claim 4, see [Jayaraman, col 2, lines 8-19], which explains that the system checks for changes in authorization and deauthorizes mobile devices of users no longer registered. See also [Jayaraman, col 14, lines 48-53], which explains that after clean-up of the deauthorized devices, the vehicle infotainment system will provide a prompt upon request for connection of a mobile device, “Responsive to a subsequent power-on event of the vehicle 102 after the clean-up signal is received and executed, and to receiving a connection request by the mobile device 104, the infotainment system 122 may be configured to prompt for permission to connect to the mobile device 104,” and [Jayaraman, col 14, lines 62-67] “the GUI shown by infotainment system 122 may include a series of screens prompting for user input […], and whether the user would like to pair a mobile device 104.” See also [Jayaraman, col 15-16, lines 64-67 and 1-5], which explains that the mobile device may also receive a notification that it has been deauthorized, “the deauthorization of user data 218 on the cloud and on the vehicle 102 may be reported to the mobile 65 device 104. In particular, the vehicle cloud system 108 may be configured to transmit a message to the mobile device 104, such as a text message or a data message […] indicative of the deauthorization. The mobile device 104 may be configured to responsively display an indication of the deauthorization, such as in a text message or as a push-notification.”
Jayaraman does not disclose: or configured to be transmitted to a distant third party […] wherein the predefined condition includes at least a determination that a vehicle is outside a geographic region.
However, Penilla teaches: wherein the predefined condition includes at least a determination that a vehicle is outside a geographic region. See [Penilla, pg. 11, para 0124], which explains that system for authorizing and providing access to a user includes restrictions and warnings that can be provided to a remote device or administrator, or in vehicle, “[…], the vehicle can be loaned to a child of driving age […], and the child can be provided with restricted use of the vehicle. When the child exceeds or does not follow the restrictions of the vehicle, automatic notifications can be provided to the user that is the administrator of the vehicle. The notifications can be by […], mobile device, text messages, phone calls, […], audible sounds, vibrations, and commendations thereof. […]. The history use can provide the user with information as to where the vehicle has been, the speed or events, violations that occurred when use of the vehicle etc. The configuration can also provide messages to the driver warning the driver of when the vehicle has exceeded a restriction, or is approaching a restriction in use, driving area, speed, etc.” See also [Penilla, pg. 13, para 0142], which further explains that the restriction and notification can be provided based on a predefined region, “A user may set the valet login to alert the user that left the vehicle with a valet that the car has traveled beyond the allowed radius or has reached a speed greater than 100 mph, for example. This alert can be sent wirelessly to an email address, texted via mobile phone number or sent to a mobile device having a login-profile mobile application capable of sharing current vehicle location, speed, fuel status among other metrics. The last logged in user of the vehicle or vehicle administrator can send visual, audio or auto override notifications to the valet letting them know they need their car back, they are traveling too fast or even auto shut down to prevent theft.” Finally see [Penilla, pg. 13, para 0148], which describes FIG. 2 and explains that certain users can provide the restrictions, which can explicitly include geographic locations, “FIG. 2 shows two different types of users and an example of how the user is organized, in accordance with one embodiment. In this example, User 1 is an administrator of a vehicle login system over vehicles he or she owns. […]. In this case, a family member "User 2" is shown. […]. User 1 may only want User 2 to have access to the vehicle for the purposes of traveling between school and home. In this case User 1 has created a role that is applied to User 2, which only allows the vehicle to travel within certain restrictions and geographical locations.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Penilla to include restrictions and notifications, including to a third party, based on geographic region. Doing so allows for managing vehicle control based on age or driving history and further, by providing notifications to warn an administrator or warn the driver they are approaching their restriction [Penilla, pg. 11, para 0124]. Using a geographic region restriction further allows theft prevention such as for valet users [Penilla, pg. 13, para 0142] and intended use restrictions, such as for users travelling to and from school [Penilla, pg. 13, para 0148].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman in view of Miu and further in view of Elangovan et al., PG Pub US-2018/0215345-A1 (herein "Elangovan") and Patil et al., WO-2017120518-A1 (herein "Patil").
Regarding Claim 9, Jayaraman as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Jayaraman does not disclose: prior to the determining step: determining that the user associated with the apparatus is on a seat of the vehicle by receiving data associated with at least one of a pressure sensor or a seat belt.
However, Miu teaches: prior to the determining step: determining that the user associated with the apparatus is on a seat of the vehicle. See [Miu, col 10, lines 55-59], which explains that the vehicle seat sensor can be used to identify a driver associated with a user and user account, “The users[...] may be associated with user accounts [...], that are stored on the digital identification server 140. Through seat sensors, biometric information may be taken from the driver and hence the actual driver can be identified.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Miu to include using seat sensors to further verify that the seated user is authorized to use, or control, the vehicle. Doing so would allow the user to be identified using seat sensors as the driver, not a passenger, and associated with an account that is authorized to drive, as opposed to other users with different privilege levels [Miu, col 10, lines 51-63].
However, Elangovan teaches: by receiving data associated with at least one of a pressure sensor. See [Elangovan, pg. 5, para 0041], which explains that the vehicle authorization and control system includes a seat pressure sensor for ensuring the user is seated, “The sensors 404 are arranged in and around the vehicle 100 to monitor properties of the vehicle 100 and/or an environment in which the vehicle 100 is located. […]. For example, the sensors 404 include […], biometric sensors and/or sensors of any other suitable type. In the illustrated example, the sensors 404 include a door-ajar sensor 414 and a load sensor 416 (e.g., a seat-pressure sensor). For example, the door-ajar sensor 414 detects when one or more of the doors 106 is opened, and the load sensor 416 is positioned within and/or under a driver seat of the vehicle 100 to detect when a driver (e.g., the user 112) is present in the vehicle 100.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Penilla to include a seat pressure sensor. Doing so allows the vehicle system to ensure that the user is stead prior to allowing control [Elangovan, pg. 5, para 0041].
However, Patil teaches: or a seat belt. See [Patil, pg. 5, para 0034], which explains that the system for identifying occupants may use a seat belt sensor, “The infotainment system may also identify the presence of unknown occupants based on sensors configured in the vehicle, such as sensors in the seats of the vehicles and/or sensors to detect whether the seat belts of the vehicles are buckled up.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jayaraman with Patil to use a seat belt sensor. Doing so allows the system to identify multiple additional, and potentially unknown, occupants and their seating position [Patil, pg. 5, para 0034].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miu in view of Jayaraman.
Regarding Claim 10, Miu discloses: A method for controlling a vehicle, the method and determining that the user is authorized to operate the vehicle. See [Miu, col 9, lines 34-38], which summarizes that “The digital identification server 140 may coordinate and administer the backend processes that are involved in provisioning a digital identification to the plurality of users that have been issued a physical identification from the identification issuing authority.”
Miu further discloses: receiving a request from a mobile apparatus associated with a user for permission to operate the vehicle. See [Miu, cols 6-7, lines 45-58, 66-67, and 1-5], which describes the on-board vehicle system which includes a device, or mobile device, for receiving user input for signals to control other components of the system, “The onboard vehicle system 110 may be a collection of hardware and software components that are installed into a vehicle and configured to operate based on receiving user input. For instance, the onboard vehicle system 110 may include a display device 112, an interface 114, an audio system 116, and a communication module 118. The display device 112 may be an automotive navigation system that is typically used to provide position data during a routing operation. The display device 112 may include additional features such as receiving and transmitting phone calls via the user device 120, or providing signals to operate the other hardware or software components of the onboard vehicle system 110. […]. In some implementations, the onboard vehicle system 110 may function on a mobile operating system that provides the capability to download and install mobile applications. In such implementations, the interface 114 may be displayed within a mobile application that is configured to exchange communications with a mobile application on the user device 110.” See also [Miu, col 7, lines 51-58], which further explains that the user device also communicates with the digital identification server to receive and transmit data, “The user device 120 may exchange communications with the digital identification server 140 to receive and transmit user information related to the digital identification 122, user data that is included in the digital identification, credential data used from the digital identification 122, and/or configuration settings that adjust the display of the digital identification 122 on the user device 120 and/or the onboard vehicle system 110.” Finally see [Miu, col 8, lines 8-17], which further explains that the mobile device can have an application which exchanges data with the digital identification server, “[…] the user device 120 may include a mobile application that exchanges communications to the digital identification server 140 as an application server and the onboard vehicle system 110 as a client. For example, the mobile application may be associated with a user account that is stored on the digital identification database 142. In addition, the mobile application may periodically exchange information related to the security status assigned by the digital identification server 140 to determine whether the digital identification 122 is valid.”
Miu further discloses: transmitting a digital key to the vehicle to request control of the vehicle, wherein the digital key is a temporary key that expires after an amount of time. See also [Miu, col 12, lines 23-39], which explains that the user information digital identification includes an authenticated credential, which further cannot be retransmitted and expires after a period of time, “The process 300A may include receiving user information from the user device (312). For instance, the onboard vehicle system 120 may receive user information included in the digital identification 122 on the user device 120 over the established connection. For example, as described with respect to FIG. 1A, the user information may include driver license information, […], security setti