DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 3/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 Arguments
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 14 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the claim requires four steps in sequence goes on to argue that Zhu does not disclose all of these steps.
However Zhu is not used for all of these teachings. The rejection is made using Zhu in view of Liu and in view of McFarland.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On Page 14-15 of Remarks, Applicant argues Zhu’s transmitting a fund balance/tokens is not linked to a time period.
Examiner disagrees, the teachings are linked, the cited paragraphs explicitly teach confidential information (fund balance/tokens) in the same sentence as a predefined time period. Further Zhu is not the only reference, the rejection is made using Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland which in combination teach all the elements of the independent claims.
On page 15 of Remarks, Applicant argues “Neither discloses nor suggests determining an amount of time for which data is removed from a vehicle so that the vehicle cannot access it, removing that vehicle-stored data to storage, and then, after that time, the vehicle accessing that same removed data in storage”, however, the claims do not require the “accessing the same data”
Applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., accessing the same data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 15 of Remarks, Applicant argues “The Examiner's rejection conflates the two embodiments and alters both the object and the trigger.”
Examiner disagrees with this assertation because the “the predefined time duration concerns confidential information on the target device 104 and results in deletion on the target device 104 or denial at the time of transaction” are describing operation of the system as a whole. See Fig. 1-100.
Additionally, Zhu does not need to teach “the four steps claim 1 requires in sequence” because the rejection is made in view of Liu and in further view of McFarland.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On Page 15 of Remarks, Applicant asserts “Applicant believes that the Examiner has not considered and substantively responded to Applicant's remarks regarding this allegation, as required (see MPEP 707.07(f))”
It appears Applicant is referencing the Remarks (filed 3/26/2026) which begin with “The Examiner's position conflates the two embodiments and alters both the object and the trigger” which mirrors an Remarks (filed 11/13/2025).
Examiner responded to the argument presented in the Remarks filed on 11/13/2025 by indicating that because a new reference was used to reject the claimed limitation that (1) the arguments were moot in view of McFarland and, in response to applicants argument that a single reference, Zhu, did not expressly teach all the claimed limitations, that (2) the rejection was made using Zhu in view of Liu and the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references.
The arguments:
“Examiner's position conflates the two embodiments and alters both the object and the trigger”. Using multiple embodiments within a single reference is acceptable for forming a 103 rejection.“In method 200, the predefined time duration concerns confidential information on the target device 104 and results in deletion on the target device 104 or denial at the time of transaction; it does not state that the information is sent back after expiration (Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 44-67; col. 9, lines 1-19). In method 250, there is a transfer back, but it involves a remaining funds balance or remaining transit tokens and is not linked to the expiration of the predefined time duration (Fig. 3; col. 9, lines 19-51)”. The claims do not recite “sending back” information, they claims “accessing” information and McFarland is used for this teaching.
“Neither discloses nor suggests determining an amount of time for which data is removed from a vehicle so that the vehicle cannot access it, removing that vehicle-stored data to storage, and then, after that time, the vehicle accessing that same removed data in storage.” Zhu teaches the “determining an amount of time for which data is removed… and removing” and McFarland teaches the “after that time, the vehicle accessing that same removed data in storage”.
Applicants arguments did not address McFarland, which makes the arguments moot in view of McFarland.
Overall it appears Applicant is arguing that Zhu does not teach all the elements required for the independent claims, however the rejection is made in view of Liu and McFarland, which are, until the last part of page 15 and 16 of Remarks completely ignored in the at which point applicant states that “Liu and McFarland do not cure the deficiencies of Zhu”. Examiner disagrees with this assertion because the rejection is made using Zhu, in view of Liu and in further view of McFarland, where Liu and McFarland explicitly disclose some of the deficiencies of Zhu, as disclosed below and in the previous office action.
While not specifically argued, Examiner notes that the dependent claims are not allowable because they are dependent on the independent claims, which are not in condition for allowance.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (U.S. 8706588), in view of Liu (U.S. 20210065168), in further view of McFarland (U.S. 20220012356).
Regarding claim 1,
Zhu discloses: A method, comprising
determining an amount of time that the sensitive data is to be removed from the vehicle so that it is not accessible by the vehicle during the amount of time; (Zhu [Fig. 2]; [Col 8 line 39-52] teaches The request identifies the confidential information requested and also may identify a predefined time duration for which the confidential information is to be valid; [Col 8 line 62-65] teaches At block 224, the target device 104 optionally deletes the confidential information after expiration of the predefined time duration; [Col 9 line 5-19] teaches In block 266, the target device 104 transfers a remaining funds balance and/or remaining transit tokens back to the first mobile device)
removing the sensitive data from the vehicle to a storage; and (Zhu [Col 4 line 31-67] a time duration of the confidential information for service on the target device; [Col 4 line 60-65] the target device may delete the confidential information when a pre-defined time duration has expired; [Col 9 line 5-19] teaches In block 266, the target device 104 transfers a remaining funds balance and/or remaining transit tokens back to the first mobile device)
after the amount of time has passed, accessing the sensitive data in the storage by the vehicle. (Zhu [Col 4 line 1-30] teaches once appropriately provisioned with the confidential information, the target device may be used to make purchases or to pay for services in an exchange similar to that of paying with a credit card and/or a debit card. In some scenarios, the target device may be used to pay a fare for using a transportation vehicle. In other scenarios, the target device may be used to gain access to a secured area. The confidential information may include… expiration time information; Zhu [Col 8, line 22-38] “The system 100 promotes transferring and recovering funds, credit card information, and access codes freely among different fashion accessories or jewelry from day to day” which teaches or suggests provisioning the confidential information each day for a pre-defined time period, for example in accessing a secure area, lines 62-68 teaches deleting it after the expiration of the time period)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose: determining that data stored by a vehicle is sensitive data;
However, in the same field of endeavor Liu discloses: determining that data stored by a vehicle is sensitive; (Liu [0022-0023, 0044-0045, 0109-0112] identifying sensitive information related to user privacy in the target vehicle-related information)
Zhu and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of sending private confidential information to a target device and keeping it secure.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhu and Liu before him or her, to modify the method of Zhu to include the identification of sensitive information of Liu because it will allow for sensitive information to be identified.
The motivation for doing so would be [“to solve the problem of user privacy leakage in the existing transaction process of vehicle-related information”] (Para.0006 by Liu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu and Liu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
While Zhu in view of Liu teaches removing data, for an amount of time, so that it (the data) is not accessible (by the device it was removed from) during the amount of time and provisioning/accessing the data when it is needed, Zhu in view of Liu does not explicitly teach: after the amount of time has passed, accessing the sensitive data in the storage by the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor McFarland teaches: after the amount of time has passed, accessing the sensitive data in the storage by the vehicle. (McFarland [0049-0052, 0060-0062, 0069, 0105-0108] sharing sensitive data after predefined period of time has passed and accessing the shared data)
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor data security.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland before him or her, to modify the method of Zhu in view of Liu to include the sharing sensitive data after predefined period of time has passed of McFarland because it will lower risk level while driving.
The motivation for doing so would be [“ the solutions can also be utilized to provide an ability to for a transport to determine, based on the risk level associated with data and driving environment, how to bifurcate the data and distribute a portion of the bifurcated data, with lower risk level during a safe driving environment, to the occupant, and later distributing a remaining portion of the bifurcated data, with a higher risk level, to the occupant after the occupant has departed the transport”] (Paragraph 0051, 0069, 0107-0108 by McFarland)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Similar claim 8 additionally discloses: A system, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor (Zhu [Col 4 and 10] Processor and Memory)
Similar claim 15 additionally discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform: (Zhu [Col 4 and 10] Data storage media and processor)
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16,
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland discloses: The method of claim 1, comprising:
by the vehicle, identifying a cost associated with the accessing the sensitive data in the storage; and (Zhu [Col 3 line 45- Col 4 line 10] and [Col 4 line 30-60] teaches using sensitive data stored in a vehicle to gain privileged access i.e. transit card/token/access code in response to a cost being determined (payment price)
in response to the identifying the cost, sending payment from the vehicle to a server, and
wherein the accessing the sensitive data further comprises: (Zhu [Col 3 line 45- Col 4 line 10] teaches paying the required payment in order to gain access (secure area/services).
accessing the sensitive data in response to a payment confirmation received by the vehicle from the server. (Zhu [Col 3 line 45 - Col 4 line 10] teaches once appropriately provisioned with the confidential information, the target device may be used to make purchases or to pay for services in an exchange similar to that of paying with a credit card and/or a debit card. the confidential information may include executable applications that promote electronic payment by the target device, for example an electronic credit card application and/or an electronic transit card application)
Regarding claim 3, 10 and 17,
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland in view of Liu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the data is sensitive data comprises at least one of: analyzing data related to the vehicle; or, analyzing data related to an occupant of the vehicle.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose: the determining that the data is sensitive data comprises at least one of: analyzing data related to the vehicle; or, analyzing data related to an occupant of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor Liu discloses: the determining that the data is sensitive data comprises at least one of: analyzing data related to the vehicle; or, analyzing data related to an occupant of the vehicle. (Liu [0056-0066]; [0105-0112] teaches that vehicle-related information can be information related to the vehicle, occupant and/or user)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Liu for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 11,
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the storage comprises: a mobile device of an occupant of the vehicle. (Zhu [Col 4 line 30-61] teaches transferring sensitive data (tokens/funds) from a target device (vehicle) back to the network enabled device (mobile device of user (vehicle occupant))
Regarding claims 5 and 12,
Zhu in view of Liu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the removing of the sensitive data comprises: splitting the sensitive data between the storage and one or more other storages. (Zhu [Col 9 line 3-30] transfers a remaining funds balance and/or remaining transit tokens back to the first mobile device via near field communications);
Examiners Note: funds/tokens (“sensitive data”) are split (“bifurcated”) into 2 groups (remaining and not remaining), the remaining funds/tokens are then sent back to (“transferred”) the first mobile device (“one… other storage device”).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19,
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the amount of time comprises: determining that the amount of time is based on a need for the data to execute vehicle-related functionality. (Zhu [Col 8] teaches provisioning for needed duration [Col 4] teaches that the need can be to pay a fare for using a transportation vehicle)
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20,
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the data is no longer the sensitive data based on the data no longer being needed to execute vehicle-related functionality. (Zhu [Col 8] teaches provisioning confidential information for needed duration… deleting the confidential information… when a pre-defined time duration has expired; [Col 4] teaches that the need (which the time period is based on) can be spending crypto, using a transportation vehicle as the target device)
Regarding claim 18
Zhu in view of Liu and McFarland discloses: The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 15,
wherein removing the sensitive data from the vehicle includes transferring the sensitive data to one or more other storage, the one or more other storage including a mobile device of an occupant of the vehicle, (Zhu [Col 4 line 30-61] teaches transferring sensitive data (tokens/funds) from a target device (vehicle) back to the network enabled device (mobile device of user (vehicle occupant))
Zhu does not explicitly disclose: wherein transferring the sensitive data to the other storage includes bifurcating the sensitive data between the one or more other storages.
However, in the same field of endeavor Liu teaches: wherein transferring the sensitive data to the other storage includes bifurcating the sensitive data between the one or more other storages. (Zhu [Col 9 line 3-30] transfers a remaining funds balance and/or remaining transit tokens back to the first mobile device via near field communications)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Liu for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Lange 2020-05-13 (US 20220234574) The invention relates to a method for removing user-specific and/or drive-specific user data which are saved distributedly on multiple controllers in a motor vehicle. A trigger apparatus is provided, and the trigger apparatus checks whether a trigger condition has been satisfied. If the trigger condition has been satisfied, a specified common delete command is transmitted to the plurality of controllers of the motor vehicle via a data bus of the motor vehicle, and each controller carries out a specified delete routine if the controller has received the delete command from the data bus, said delete routine being used to overwrite and/or delete user data saved on the particular controller.
Ki 2021-04-21 (US 20220121774) An electronic device and method are disclosed herein. The electronic device includes a sensor module configured to recognize boarding and alighting of a passenger from the vehicle, a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile device disposed in the vehicle, a memory, storing a program including one or more instructions, and a processor. The processor implements the method, including: detecting alighting of the passenger using the sensor module, or when a mobile device disconnects from the network interface, determining, by the processor, a deletion level for data related to personal information of a passenger, the deletion level based on a use history information of the passenger, including a latest use time and a use frequency, and deleting the data from the memory according to the determined deletion level.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS A CARNES whose telephone number is (571)272-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. 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.
THOMAS A. CARNES
Examiner
Art Unit 2436
/THOMAS A CARNES/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights