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 the application filed on June 18, 2025. Claims 1 and 8-9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated June 18, 2025, Examiner withdraws the previous title objection and the previous prior art rejections over US Pat. No. 11,202,204 (hereinafter, "Shin") in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0294518 (hereinafter, "Peplin") and in further view of US Pub. No. 2014/0214241 (hereinafter, "Ramamoorthy"). However, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. In addition, Examiner notes that the amended claims include a typo mistake where the abbreviation “OWM” is used, which appears to be “OEM” (Original Equipment Manufacturer) policy. Applicants are respectfully requested to correct “OWM” to “OEM” or any appropriate correction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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 discloses 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 20180213405 (hereinafter, "Jung"; newly of record) in view of US Pub. No. 20180103022 (hereinafter, "Tokunaga"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses an information processing device (Fig. 1, #120), comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (“embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented by a computer or a mobile terminal that includes a controller and a memory” (para 0917)),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire profile information corresponding to an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) policy of a vehicle that is associated with a particular device (“The first device includes a transceiver; and a processor configured to request, from a service provider, a service in which a second device shares security information of the first device, receive, from the service provider, first authentication information for the second device to share the security information of the first device” (para 0029) and Fig. 4), and
acquire the profile information before the other information-processing device becomes able to use the key (“Firstly, a secondary device transmits secondary device information of the secondary device to a primary device ([1]). The primary device assures reliability of the secondary device through credential information shared between a service provider and the primary device, and registers the secondary device information at the service provider ([2] and [3]). The service provider verifies the primary device, registers an account of the secondary device, and generates an OPT for authenticating the secondary device ([4], [5], and [6]). The information for authentication, i.e., the OTP generated by the service provider is transmitted to the secondary device through the primary device ([7] and [8]), so that an authentication operation is performed between the service provider 2701 and the secondary device, and the service provider provisions a key to the secondary device ([9])” (para 0135-para 0138) and, Fig. 27 and Fig. 28), and
in a case in which another information processing device that operates as a key of the vehicle is to be newly set, based on the profile information and the OWM policy of the vehicle… (“(3) the owner terminal transmits secret information (e.g., an OTP) provisioned by the OEM server to the client terminal, and (4) the OEM server provisions a DK, when the client terminal requests a service based on the secret information” (para 0135-0138) and “A format of a DK that a primary device owns and a format of a DK that is provisioned to a secondary device may be changed according to a service provider, e.g., an OEM” (para 0482) and Fig. 2),
However, Jung does not explicitly teach
…present items, which can be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms, and not present items, which cannot be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms.
Tokunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…present items, which can be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms, and not present items, which cannot be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms (“wherein a vehicle administration interface is presented on the primary portable device that includes a selection of the vehicle accessing privileges and the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device” (claim 12) and “wherein linking at least one secondary portable device to the vehicle by the primary portable device comprises selecting at least one of the level of the vehicle accessing privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device, and the level of the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device” (claim 13)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Tokunaga in order to select at least one of the level of the vehicle accessing privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device, and the level of the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device; see Tokunaga at least at [claim 13].
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses the information processing device of claim 1. Additionally Jung discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire the profile information at a time when the other information processing device becomes able to utilize the key (“The first device includes a transceiver; and a processor configured to request, from a service provider, a service in which a second device shares security information of the first device, receive, from the service provider, first authentication information for the second device to share the security information of the first device” (para 0029) and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses the information processing device of claim 1. Additionally Jung discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire the profile information before the other information processing device becomes able to utilize the key (“Firstly, a secondary device transmits secondary device information of the secondary device to a primary device ([1]). The primary device assures reliability of the secondary device through credential information shared between a service provider and the primary device, and registers the secondary device information at the service provider ([2] and [3]). The service provider verifies the primary device, registers an account of the secondary device, and generates an OPT for authenticating the secondary device ([4], [5], and [6]). The information for authentication, i.e., the OTP generated by the service provider is transmitted to the secondary device through the primary device ([7] and [8]), so that an authentication operation is performed between the service provider 2701 and the secondary device, and the service provider provisions a key to the secondary device ([9])” (para 0135-para 0138) and, Fig. 27 and Fig. 28).
Regarding claim 8, Jung discloses an information processing method comprising a processor executing processing comprising:
acquiring profile information corresponding to an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) policy of a vehicle that is associated with a particular device (“The first device includes a transceiver; and a processor configured to request, from a service provider, a service in which a second device shares security information of the first device, receive, from the service provider, first authentication information for the second device to share the security information of the first device” (para 0029) and Fig. 4); and
acquiring the profile information before the other information-processing device becomes able to use the key (“Firstly, a secondary device transmits secondary device information of the secondary device to a primary device ([1]). The primary device assures reliability of the secondary device through credential information shared between a service provider and the primary device, and registers the secondary device information at the service provider ([2] and [3]). The service provider verifies the primary device, registers an account of the secondary device, and generates an OPT for authenticating the secondary device ([4], [5], and [6]). The information for authentication, i.e., the OTP generated by the service provider is transmitted to the secondary device through the primary device ([7] and [8]), so that an authentication operation is performed between the service provider 2701 and the secondary device, and the service provider provisions a key to the secondary device ([9])” (para 0135-para 0138) and, Fig. 27 and Fig. 28), and
in a case in which another information processing device that operates as a key of the vehicle is to be newly set, based on the profile information and the OWM policy of the vehicle… (“(3) the owner terminal transmits secret information (e.g., an OTP) provisioned by the OEM server to the client terminal, and (4) the OEM server provisions a DK, when the client terminal requests a service based on the secret information” (para 0135-0138) and “A format of a DK that a primary device owns and a format of a DK that is provisioned to a secondary device may be changed according to a service provider, e.g., an OEM” (para 0482) and Fig. 2),
However, Jung does not explicitly teach
…presenting items, which can be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms, and not presenting items, which cannot be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms.
Tokunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…presenting items, which can be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms, and not presenting items, which cannot be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms (“wherein a vehicle administration interface is presented on the primary portable device that includes a selection of the vehicle accessing privileges and the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device” (claim 12) and “wherein linking at least one secondary portable device to the vehicle by the primary portable device comprises selecting at least one of the level of the vehicle accessing privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device, and the level of the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device” (claim 13)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Tokunaga in order to select at least one of the level of the vehicle accessing privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device, and the level of the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device; see Tokunaga at least at [claim 13].
Regarding claim 9, Jung discloses a non-transitory recording medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to perform processing, the processing comprising:
acquiring profile information corresponding to an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) policy of a vehicle that is associated with a particular device (“The first device includes a transceiver; and a processor configured to request, from a service provider, a service in which a second device shares security information of the first device, receive, from the service provider, first authentication information for the second device to share the security information of the first device” (para 0029) and Fig. 4); and
acquiring the profile information before the other information-processing device becomes able to use the key (“Firstly, a secondary device transmits secondary device information of the secondary device to a primary device ([1]). The primary device assures reliability of the secondary device through credential information shared between a service provider and the primary device, and registers the secondary device information at the service provider ([2] and [3]). The service provider verifies the primary device, registers an account of the secondary device, and generates an OPT for authenticating the secondary device ([4], [5], and [6]). The information for authentication, i.e., the OTP generated by the service provider is transmitted to the secondary device through the primary device ([7] and [8]), so that an authentication operation is performed between the service provider 2701 and the secondary device, and the service provider provisions a key to the secondary device ([9])” (para 0135-para 0138) and, Fig. 27 and Fig. 28), and
in a case in which another information processing device that operates as a key of the vehicle is to be newly set, based on the profile information and the OWM policy of the vehicle… (“(3) the owner terminal transmits secret information (e.g., an OTP) provisioned by the OEM server to the client terminal, and (4) the OEM server provisions a DK, when the client terminal requests a service based on the secret information” (para 0135-0138) and “A format of a DK that a primary device owns and a format of a DK that is provisioned to a secondary device may be changed according to a service provider, e.g., an OEM” (para 0482) and Fig. 2),
However, Jung does not explicitly teach
…presenting items, which can be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms, and not presenting items, which cannot be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms.
Tokunaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…presenting items, which can be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms, and not presenting items, which cannot be utilized by the other information processing device, in selectable forms (“wherein a vehicle administration interface is presented on the primary portable device that includes a selection of the vehicle accessing privileges and the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device” (claim 12) and “wherein linking at least one secondary portable device to the vehicle by the primary portable device comprises selecting at least one of the level of the vehicle accessing privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device, and the level of the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device” (claim 13)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Tokunaga in order to select at least one of the level of the vehicle accessing privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device, and the level of the vehicle enabling privileges to be granted to the at least one secondary portable device; see Tokunaga at least at [claim 13].
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 20180213405 (hereinafter, "Jung"; newly of record) in view of US Pub. No. 20180103022 (hereinafter, "Tokunaga"; newly of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200034574 (hereinafter,"Baltes"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 4, Jung discloses the information processing device of claim 1. Additionally Jung discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire the profile information… (“The first device includes a transceiver; and a processor configured to request, from a service provider, a service in which a second device shares security information of the first device, receive, from the service provider, first authentication information for the second device to share the security information of the first device” (para 0029) and Fig. 4).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach
… at a time when a new component is added to the vehicle.
Baltes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
… at a time when a new component is added to the vehicle (“the remedying step can further include installing the new software module or the new hardware component into the targeted object” (para 0063) and “the ECU 48 of the vehicle may be the targeted object and, thus, an over-the-air (OTA) update can be sent from computer 18 or server 82 to the vehicle via land network 16 and cellular carrier system 70” (0064)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Baltes in order to address the at least one cybersecurity vulnerability and/or that is based on at least one of the plurality of associated malicious actions; see Baltes at least at [0063].
Regarding claim 5, Jung discloses the information processing device of claim 4. However, Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the component is a hardware component.
Baltes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the component is a hardware component (“the remedying step can further include installing the new software module or the new hardware component into the targeted object” (para 0063) and “the ECU 48 of the vehicle may be the targeted object and, thus, an over-the-air (OTA) update can be sent from computer 18 or server 82 to the vehicle via land network 16 and cellular carrier system 70” (0064)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Baltes in order to address the at least one cybersecurity vulnerability and/or that is based on at least one of the plurality of associated malicious actions; see Baltes at least at [0063].
Regarding claim 6, Jung discloses the information processing device of claim 4. However, Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the component is a software component.
Baltes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the component is a software component (“the remedying step can further include installing the new software module or the new hardware component into the targeted object” (para 0063) and “the ECU 48 of the vehicle may be the targeted object and, thus, an over-the-air (OTA) update can be sent from computer 18 or server 82 to the vehicle via land network 16 and cellular carrier system 70” (0064)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Baltes in order to address the at least one cybersecurity vulnerability and/or that is based on at least one of the plurality of associated malicious actions; see Baltes at least at [0063].
Regarding claim 7, Jung discloses the information processing device of claim 6. Additionally Jung discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire the profile information... (“The first device includes a transceiver; and a processor configured to request, from a service provider, a service in which a second device shares security information of the first device, receive, from the service provider, first authentication information for the second device to share the security information of the first device” (para 0029) and Fig. 4).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach
… at a time of an update of the software component.
Baltes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
… at a time of an update of the software component (“the remedying step can further include installing the new software module or the new hardware component into the targeted object” (para 0063) and “the ECU 48 of the vehicle may be the targeted object and, thus, an over-the-air (OTA) update can be sent from computer 18 or server 82 to the vehicle via land network 16 and cellular carrier system 70” (0064)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Jung with the teachings of Baltes in order to address the at least one cybersecurity vulnerability and/or that is based on at least one of the plurality of associated malicious actions; see Baltes at least at [0063].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663