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 .
REOPEN PROSECUTION
In view of the Appeal Brief Under 27 C.F.R. § 41.37 filed on 6 May 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. See rejection, set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellants must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing at the end of the action.
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the Second First Action based on the Appeal Brief filed by the applicant on 6 May 2026.
Original Claims 1-6 are pending and have been re-examined after reopening prosecution during an appeal.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicants’ appeal brief arguments, filed 6 May 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 1-6 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In the Applicants’ arguments, on page 4, the assertions that the Examiner wrongly dismissed the relevance of a specific solution, dismissed the relevance of increased vehicle capabilities, dismissed the solution’s root in technology, and the Examiner agreed that the solution is not conventional, are not persuasive nor probative. The applicant asserts that the solution is specific based on combining two claim limitations.
The determining time, proximity, and remaining exceeds a time threshold limitation in proximity exceeds a threshold is identified as an abstract idea. Thus, the applicants’ asserted “specific solution” is comprised of an abstract idea in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities,” more specifically, “Commercial or legal interactions" which include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.” The limitation to detect a signal presence is an additional element of sending and receiving data. The claim elements to send an offer and display an output are additional elements of sending and displaying data. The specification does not reveal advances to displaying, sending, or receiving data. The other additional elements are the vehicle, wireless transceiver, processors, and the wireless device, each recited at a high level of generality, i.e. general-purpose computing structures, either stand-alone or comprised within a general-purpose vehicle. These general-purpose and vehicle based general-purpose computing structures are merely applied as tools to implement the abstract ideas. Advances to the vehicle itself are not revealed in the specification. Therefore, the vehicle is an additional element that is applied as a tool used to house computing structures. There is nothing in the claims that limits the claims from being performed by any off the shelf computing structures that may be within a mobile device or a vehicle. The computing structures are also not inherently integrated with the vehicle, as claimed.
The core of the claims are rooted in the instructions applied by the computing structures to perform the displaying, sending, and receiving of data, and to perform the abstract ideas. The technological environment of vehicles, as it relates to increased vehicle capabilities, is generally linked to the judicial exceptions. The computing structures applied as tools are also generally linked to the abstract ideas. These judicial exceptions are not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked to the technological environments of vehicles or computing structures, i.e. the additional elements, such that the claims as a whole are no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional are not indicative of integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than said abstract ideas. Thus, the claims are not rooted in a technical solution to a technological problem based on the rules of the MPEP.
The applicants’ arguments, on pages 5-6, asserting that the claims recite an unconventional improvement are Moot. The Examiner did not identify claim elements as well understood, routine, or conventional (WURC) according to MPEP 2106.05(d), at any stage of prosecution. The Examiners’ agreement, “The Applicant asserts that there is no showing that the particular solution is merely conventional, and the Examiner agrees, such that this argument is not germane to the initial analysis,” taken contextually with the lack of WURC element identification at each and every stage of patent prosecution, fails to align with any applicant asserted blanket “flat out agreement,” and fails to assert any limitations requiring evidence of conventionality. The applicants’ assertion is not a germane to analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the Alice/Mayo analyses do not require an assertion of conventionality with evidence under MPEP 2106.05(d), else the elements are unconventional. The examiner must only provide factual evidence or reasoning, whenever they determine that an element (or combination of elements) beyond a judicial exception are well-understood, routine, or conventional. That is, since there were no additional elements that were deemed WURC elements, no elements required a showing of conventionality based on MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, the applicant is imposing flawed logic to assert that the Examiner agreed the claims are an unconventional solution based on a lack of conventionality assertions in the claim language, such that these assertions are Moot.
The applicants’ assertions of TecSec, on page 4, is neither germane nor probative to the discussion of patentability. TecSec, which is not implemented by USPTO as policy, relates to a showing of evidence to support an element deemed conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d), under well-understood, routine, and conventional. In the case of the instant invention, no elements were identified as either conventional or unconventional, such that no elements required an assertion of evidence to support according to MPEP 2106.05(d). The applicant is endeavoring to implement logic versus fact to derive a non-existent assertion that the claims have unconventional elements, without actually disclosing the elements that they consider unconventional, or revealing evidence or analyses to support such findings, placing the burden on the office, improperly. Therefore, extrinsic evidence is not required and TecSec is not germane to the discussion of patentability of the instant claims. Nor is it probative to the office action based on the facts of the case.
The applicants’ arguments, on pages 4-6, asserting that the claims are falsely identified as abstract idea in the category of business activities, advertising, or commercial and legal interactions, a combined subcategory, are also not persuasive. The full rejection clearly delineates the abstract idea limitations and categories with sufficient analyses in support. The applicants’ arguments, to the contrary, pose dissent without the associated rules or analyses beyond mere statements of conclusion. The reasoning asserted for these false identification assertions ask the reader to ignore the specification in whole, where the applicant is asking the Office to recognize a wholly different purpose than what was laid forth at the effective inventive filing date. To that end, the specification, in at least [0002-0004] discloses that the invention offers on the spot and on demand vehicle purchasing. The specification section clearly describes a dealership offering access via “newer generations … [increasing interest] in on demand goods ordering, but for “a car … a major purchase,” without the overbearing feel of a dealership salesperson presence. In this new “do it yourself” culture, a customer can “visit a dealership and actually view, or even test drive, a vehicle of interest,” and the dealership may “ultimately close a deal” without losing a sale from making a customer “wait too long for assistance.” Therefore, the claim limitation that to allow access to a vehicle, does so under the general premise of this on the spot vehicle sales proposition. The vehicle and the computing structures are merely the tools that are used to implement the abstract ideas as presented in the full rejection below.
The applicants’ arguments, as a whole, attempt to remove the human from the equation, but for the human, said user device would not be collocated near a vehicle, a request would not be sent, a user wouldn’t respond to the offer for access, and a schedule would not be determined based on the user and their profile. That is, the claims cannot perform without the user, to at least receive the data, accept the offer in the user added application, and add their user data to the application installed on the users device. The obtainment schedule is further customized base on user data and implicitly is displayed to a user that has accessed the inside of a vehicle far enough to see the vehicle display.
The abstract elements, i.e. those that are not additional elements, include determining proximity, time, and time threshold being met, and creating an obtainment schedule customized to user preferences based on user data and access acceptance. These limitations are the abstract ideas listed in the full rejection below, with the addition of the if clauses that must occur before the abstract ideas. They are identified in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, subcategory of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Therefore, the Examiner is not taking wide latitude in asserting the claims in light of the specification without reading in limitations.
The limitations for sending, receiving, and outputting a display are additional elements, and are clearly identified as such in the full rejection. These elements are not improvements because the specification does not reveal they are advances to their fields of endeavor, i.e. sending, receiving, and displaying data. Additionally, sending, receiving, and displaying data are not disclosed in the specification in a manner that shows they improve upon general-purpose computing structures in a case where the displaying, sending and receiving are not the core of the invention.
We also know that the owning entity of the instant application is Ford, and the specification explicitly discloses the core of the invention attempts to improve automobile sales processes to align with the “do it yourself” ideals of “Newer generations.” A specification driven presumption that the contactless user interactions with a vehicle via location based information, through an application that only makes decisions based on the users’ choices, i.e. the users’ location staying within a proximity for a qualified time, and the users’ acceptance of the offer for contact-less vehicle access, are clearly advertising, marketing, and business activities. The applicant makes assertions to the contrary but fails to identify or disclose any evidence or analyses to support the contrary assertion. Further, the applicant asserts the Examiners’ answers to arguments as the entirety of the rejection, in the appeal brief, without deference to the totality of the rejections or the totality of the prosecution record.
The applicants’ arguments, on page 6. Asserting CosmoKey, are not probative nor germane to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 argument. The Office does not assert CosmoKey as a key case used in the MPEP at all. The applicants’ arguments, also on page 6, reasserting limitation are unconventional based on the Examiner using the word “agree,” are not persuasive. As discussed above, the Examiner never identified elements according to MPEP 2106.05(d) in any office action, instead asserting that said argument was not germane to the rejection. Since there are no elements identified under MPEP2106.05(d), the rules for well-understood, routine, and conventional do not apply, under any circumstance. Without the identified elements, there is no automatic presumption that evidence must be presented, especially using logic taken out of context.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Maintained below.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments in the appeal brief, filed 6 May 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, on Page 7, that the motivation to combine is deficient. While the Examiner does not agree, the motivation to combine has been amended and is provided in the full rejection below, for the purposes of compact prosecution.
The applicants’ argument, on page 7, that the Examiner improperly altered the combination, are not persuasive. The Examiner made the changes to add the prior art from the dependent claims to the independent claim was because the first and second prior art discloses the limitations in question, therefore the second citation set merely bolsters the first prior art. The Examiners’ only fault was the language used in the office action, where both Koeppel and Tang teach determining if thresholds are reached and then offering access. Therefore, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the second non-final is issued to add clarity to the record based on the arguments set forth by the applicant.
The rules of prosecution under MPEP 706.07(a) allow for an examiner to alter the parentheticals, citation ¶’s/locations, and citation quoted text, utilized within a reference for a final office action, even when the claims were not altered. This applies to using the already disclosed prior art to supplement the limitations of the independent claim such that the change was not and could not be considered a change to the bases of rejection. A basis change requires the addition of entirely new prior art, which did not occur. In the case of the instant application, upon amendment, the Examiner did not add any new rejection bases, but did organize the citations of the same prior art bases of rejection to better fit the applicants’ issues with presented citations. Therefore, the assertion that there is no mention of paragraphs 94-95 from Tang, are neither probative nor germane to the record or rejection.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below, wherein the Examiner has amended the rejections citations and parentheticals for further clarity, as allowed by MPEP 706.07(a).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, found below, is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims:
Regarding Claim 1: The claim recites the following functions: determine time in proximity via signal, if user device/proximity/time exceeds threshold: offer access, if access accepted: create obtainment schedule, customize schedule per user profile, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities,” more specifically, “Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations,” because the claim limitations drive user’s towards further interaction with a vehicle via location based information for contact-less vehicle marketing and business activities (MPEP 2105.04(a)(2)(II)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of: vehicle, wireless transceiver; processors, an application, the wireless device; and vehicle display. The limitations are simply reciting generic vehicle and computing structures at a high level of generality. without much more. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic general- purpose computing and vehicle structures (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim also recites the following claim limitations that are merely data or groups of data: predefined proximity, predefined threshold, the signal, period of time, the offer, obtainment schedule, user profile. These are all mere characterizations of data or groups of data that are non-functional descriptive information limitations, focusing on the descriptive nature of the data.
The claim recites the additional elements: detect the presence of a signal, send offer, and output obtainment schedule to a vehicle display, which are forms of sending and receiving data.
The specification does not disclose advances to signals, signal processing, signal receiving, signal detection, to collecting, requesting, detecting, displaying, sending, tracking, or receiving data, GPS functions, location-based services, or to the structures, technologies, or vehicles themselves. The claims generally link the Abstract Idea to a technological environment (location-based services in contact-less vehicle marketing and business methods) without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05 (h)).
The claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.07(a)).
Step 2B: The analysis above for Step 2A is commensurate with the analysis for this Step 2B, such that the claim as a whole, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, when taken individually and in combination (MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent Claims:
Claim 2 recites the following functions: prior to offering access: determine if user has a permission stored to access the vehicle, with respect to an application, and if permission is stored: respond with offer to access vehicle, which recite the same abstract idea as the independent claim because they encompass additional aspects of the car marketing process, "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.”
The claim 2 function: determine if a user has a permission with respect to an application, and offer access if the user has a permission, are also an abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes,” concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(iii)).
The claim 2 limitation, a permission, is merely data that is non-functional descriptive information, focusing on the descriptive nature of the data, without imparting a patentable distinction. The claim recites the additional elements of: one or more processors, a vehicle, and an application. The limitations are simply reciting generic vehicle and computing structures at a high level of generality. without much more. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic general-purpose computing and vehicle structures (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination.
For the reasons disclosed above, the claim as a whole, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, when taken individually and in combination.
Claim 3 recites that the user profile storage location includes the wireless device or a storage, which are separate from but still wirelessly accessible to the vehicle, which are not abstract ideas but append the abstract idea in the independent claim. The specification does not reveal advances to data storage or data management technologies. The claim limitation, a user profile, is merely data that is non-functional descriptive information limitations, focusing on the descriptive nature of the data, without imparting a patentable distinction.
Claim 3 has additional elements, the wireless device, a storage, and the vehicle. The limitations are simply reciting generic vehicle and computing structures at a high level of generality. without much more. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic general-purpose computing and vehicle structures (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination. For the reasons disclosed above, the claim as a whole, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, when taken individually and in combination.
Claim 4 recites the functions: customize the obtainment output based on useable credit parameter data in the user profile, which recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because they encompass additional aspects of the car marketing process incorporating credit parameters, "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.”
The claim 4 limitation, the obtainment output, is merely displaying data, where the specification does not disclose advances to displaying data or the displays themselves. The user profile, obtainment output, and credit parameters are data characterizations, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations, focusing on the descriptive nature of the data, without imparting a patentable distinction.
The additional element in claim 4 are the vehicle, (and from the previous claims: required for the user profile and profile storage implicit in this claim), the wireless device or storage. The limitations are simply reciting generic vehicle and computing structures at a high level of generality. without much more. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic general-purpose computing and vehicle structures (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination. For the reasons disclosed above, the claim as a whole, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, when taken individually and in combination.
Claim 5 recites the following functions: user profile includes qualifications that qualify the user for modified obtainment schedule. These limitations recite the same abstract idea as the independent claim because they encompass additional aspects of the car marketing process incorporating qualification parameters, "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
The claim 5 limitations, the user profile, predefined qualifications, and modified obtainment schedule are data characterizations, non-functional descriptive information limitations, focusing on the descriptive nature of the data, without imparting a patentable distinction.
The additional element in claim 4 are the vehicle, (and from the previous claims: required for the user profile and profile storage implicit in this claim), the wireless device or storage. The limitations are simply reciting generic vehicle and computing structures at a high level of generality. without much more. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic general-purpose computing and vehicle structures (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination. For the reasons disclosed above, the claim as a whole, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, when taken individually and in combination.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: the display output includes a user selectable option, when selected: cause the processor to modify the obtainment schedule. These limitations recite the same abstract idea as the independent claim because they encompass additional aspects of the car marketing process incorporating selectable parameters, "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
Claim 6 also recites the data characterizations, display output, selectable options, the output, and modified obtainment schedule, which are non-functional descriptive information limitations, focusing on the descriptive nature of the data, without imparting a patentable distinction.
The additional element in claim 6 are the vehicle, the display of the vehicle, and one or more processors. The limitations are simply reciting generic vehicle and computing structures at a high level of generality. without much more. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic general-purpose computing and vehicle structures (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These claim 6 limitations cannot be relied upon to integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination. For the reasons disclosed above, the claim as a whole, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, when taken individually and in combination.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koeppel, US20190266561A1, in view of Tang, US20210181291A1.
Regarding claim 1: A vehicle comprising: at least one wireless transceiver; and one or more processors in communication with the wireless transceiver, configured to: [0057] “in-vehicle wireless beacon device 250, and/or wireless transceiver device 260 may include one or more devices 300 and/or one or more components of device 300. As shown in FIG. 3, device 300 may include a bus 310, a processor 320, a memory 330, a storage component 340, an input component 350, an output component 360, and a communication interface 370;”
detect the presence of a signal from a wireless device of a user via the transceiver; [Abstract] “device may receive, via another device associated with the vehicle or the individual,” [0025] “the vehicle monitoring system may periodically communicate with (e.g., ping) a user device,” [0040] (a vehicle monitoring computing structure that monitors for signals from an external device), [0046] (the external device may be a user device);
determine that the signal has remained within a predefined proximity of the vehicle for more than a predefined threshold period of time; [0070] (monitors for signal proximity from an external user device, and determines threshold proximity and time, periodically, according to a schedule, and in real-time), [0128] (threshold of time or proximity are disclosed without limit);
responsive to the signal remaining within the predefined proximity of the vehicle, communicate with an application installed on the wireless device to offer the user access; [0081] (when it is determined that a threshold proximity is reached, the processor sends a request to a user to confirm or opt-in), [0044] (the user device is comprised of an installed application), [0035] (a user device receives a request to confirm the user is ready to complete a transaction for delivery from the vehicle monitoring system, where it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the generic “transaction” with an offer based transaction to allow the user to access a vehicle they are standing near, further supported in [0037] and [0038]), [0037] (the system may communicate to authorize a transaction), [0038] (the system may provide transaction information that may allow or deny authorization to access through a secured access point like a door to a vehicle based on received transaction information), [0045] (send/receive information through an application), [0115-0117] (the instruction to complete the transaction, i.e. offer access to the user, are sent to user device responsive to the satisfying at least the proximity threshold), [0118] (communicate with a user device, to complete the transaction, where it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the word a transaction as disclosed in [0035] above);
responsive to the user accepting the offer via the wireless device, create an obtainment schedule, customized to the user based on a user profile; and [0007] (receiving a confirmation to complete a transaction from the user device, and in response to the confirmation, the device completes the transaction that leads to facilitating the delivery of a service), [0099] “In some implementations, vehicle monitoring system 230 may receive schedule information from an electronic calendar associated with a user (e.g., from user device 210…),” (i.e. customized to a user based on profile data), [0100] “vehicle monitoring system 230 may generate a work order to have the good and/or the service ready for delivery to the vehicle at the expected time based on the schedule information,” (i.e. the system creates an obtainment schedule), [0116] (user accepts/confirms completion of the transaction),
output the obtainment schedule to a display of the vehicle. [0052] “may use an output component to output information related to a transaction (e.g., an indication to cause a user to input information to authorize a transaction, information that identifies whether a transaction was completed, etc.),” [0102] “vehicle monitoring system 230 may provide a notification to in-vehicle wireless beacon device 250 and/or user device…for display … in-vehicle.”
Where Koeppel does disclose, Tang further adds clarification to the disclosure of Koeppel that teaches more succinct details of the limitation: responsive to the signal remaining within the predefined proximity of the vehicle, communicate with the wireless device to offer the user access to the vehicle,
Tang teaches: [0094-0095] (the system determines the location and timing of the user, via a mobile device and in comparison to the vehicle; responsive to the determination that the time and distance thresholds are met, the system triggers access, and sends the command to allow access and/or to unlock the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the base prior art of Koeppel with the noticeable improvements of Tang, before the effective filing date. Koeppel can be seen as the base disclosure upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Tang contained a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a proximity and time thresholds to trigger sending of an access command that allows access, specifically to a vehicle, such that combining prior art elements according to known methods, yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: Koeppel discloses: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine if the user has a permission, stored with respect to the application, to access the vehicle. [0038] “Transaction backend device 220 may provide or deny authorization associated with a transaction. For example, transaction backend device 220 may store and/or provide information that may allow, or deny, access through an access point (e.g., a gate, a door, and/or the like) of a secure location (e.g., a room, a building, a geographical area, a transportation terminal, and/or the like) based on information (e.g., account information, a key, an identifier, credentials, and/or the like) … provided by transaction terminal 240.” (i.e. permission to Access a vehicle, which is a secure location, through a plurality of options, for instance, through a dealership gate, to a key via an electronic vehicle key holder, the vehicle door, directly within the wireless device, or the like, to the secured vehicle), [00116] “user device 210 may generate a security token to be used to complete the transaction and user device 210 may provide the security token to vehicle monitoring system 230 via in-vehicle wireless beacon device 250 and/or wireless transceiver device 260 and/or may provide the security token to vehicle monitoring system 230 and/or transaction backend device 220 (e.g., via wireless transceiver device 260, network 270, etc.).”
Where Koeppel does not disclose: prior to offering the user access to the vehicle and wherein the offer to access the vehicle is responsive to the user having the permission
Tang teaches: [0069] “The user may be prompted to pick another vehicle to test drive,” [0029] “The user 222 may be given instruction, e.g., via an application running on mobile device 224 and hosted and/or managed by a server 202, to access a vehicle key 218 for the desired vehicle 208 from a vehicle key storage device 204C. … While referred to as a “vehicle key” for simplicity, it is to be understood that the vehicle key need not be restricted to conventional mechanical keys but may also include electronic devices, remotes, key fobs, and other means for accessing a vehicle,” (i.e. the system offers the user instructions that offer access to vehicle), [0090] (the system determines if a user has permission to receive access the vehicle), [0095] (responsive to the system determining the user is permitted to receive access a vehicle, access is offered and/or granted).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the base prior art of Koeppel with the noticeable improvements of Tang, before the effective filing date. Koeppel can be seen as the base disclosure upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Tang contained a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of using permissions, where the permission is required to offer access, performed in response to permission, specifically to a vehicle, such that combining prior art elements according to known methods, yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 3: Koeppel discloses: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the user profile is stored on the wireless device or in a storage remote from the vehicle wirelessly accessible by the vehicle. [0024] “When the personal information is stored by another device, the in-vehicle wireless beacon device may request the personal information from the other device,” [0124] “when information stored by user device.”
Regarding claim 4: Koeppel discloses:
Where Koeppel does not disclose: The vehicle of claim 3, wherein the user profile includes one or more user credit parameters usable to customize the obtainment output.
Tang teaches: [0029] “The user 222 may be given instruction, e.g., via an application running on mobile device 224 and hosted and/or managed by a server 202, to access a vehicle key 218 for the desired vehicle 208 from a vehicle key storage device 204C. … While referred to as a “vehicle key” for simplicity, it is to be understood that the vehicle key need not be restricted to conventional mechanical keys but may also include electronic devices, remotes, key fobs, and other means for accessing a vehicle,” and [0030] “The instructions to access a vehicle key from a specified smart key storage device may be given by server 202.” [0065] “Furthermore, the authentication process may involve seeking permissions for the user to be able to test drive a vehicle with limited human interaction. The mobile device may comprise or may be used to access a user profile of the user. The user profile may indicate information for the user such as credit worthiness, purchasing power, criminal history, and/or other such information that may be used to determine if the user is qualified for a vehicle. One or more methods for authentication is described in steps 505 and 510 in FIG. 5.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the base prior art of Koeppel with the noticeable improvements of Tang, before the effective filing date. Koeppel can be seen as the base disclosure upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Tang contained a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of including in a user profile, one or more user credit parameters usable to customize the obtainment output, such that combining prior art elements according to known methods, yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 5: Koeppel discloses:
Where Koeppel does not disclose: The vehicle of claim 3, wherein the user profile includes one or more predefined qualifications that qualify the user for a modified obtainment schedule.
Tang teaches: [0029] “The user 222 may be given instruction, e.g., via an application running on mobile device 224 and hosted and/or managed by a server 202, to access a vehicle key 218 for the desired vehicle 208 from a vehicle key storage device 204C. … While referred to as a “vehicle key” for simplicity, it is to be understood that the vehicle key need not be restricted to conventional mechanical keys but may also include electronic devices, remotes, key fobs, and other means for accessing a vehicle,” and [0030] “The instructions to access a vehicle key from a specified smart key storage device may be given by server 202.” [0065] “Furthermore, the authentication process may involve seeking permissions for the user to be able to test drive a vehicle with limited human interaction. The mobile device may comprise or may be used to access a user profile of the user. The user profile may indicate information for the user such as credit worthiness, purchasing power, criminal history, and/or other such information that may be used to determine if the user is qualified for a vehicle. One or more methods for authentication is described in steps 505 and 510 in FIG. 5.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the base prior art of Koeppel with the noticeable improvements of Tang, before the effective filing date. Koeppel can be seen as the base disclosure upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Tang contained a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique of including in a user profile, one or more predefined qualifications that qualify the user for a modified obtainment schedule, such that combining prior art elements according to known methods, yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 6: Koeppel discloses: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the output to the display of the vehicle includes one or more selectable options available for modification of the vehicle and wherein selection of an option causes the one or more processors to modify the obtainment schedule based on the selected option. [0030] “the individual may be capable of modifying preparation of the order via a user interface associated with the request. For example, the individual may input, via the user interface associated with the request, a modification to a good and/or a service to be prepared for delivery, a scheduled time for delivery, and/or the like.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights