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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 22, 2025 has been entered. Claim 5 has been cancelled and claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14 and 15 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites "wherein the second similarity value is higher than the first similarity value” which is already recited in independent claim 11 and therefore, it appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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:
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, 9, 11-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mc Call (US 2006/0294393) in view of Suzuki (JP2004126813A, see the machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Mc Call teaches an authentication apparatus (Fig. 4), comprising:
a communicator (Fig. 4, 70) configured to communicate with a mobile device (Fig. 3, 40 and Par 18, the key-fob of the present invention may be stand-alone elements or incorporated in other portable devices, as for example and not with any intention to be limiting, a cell phone, personal digital assistant, wireless equipped personal computer or any other device able to remotely communicate with the vehicle.);
a memory (94); and a processor (90) configured to receive biometric information of a user stored in the mobile device through the communicator (Fig. 5, step 152, 154 and Par 26, method 140 advances to BIOMETRIC SIGNATURE AVAILABLE? query 152 when it is determined whether or not a previously entered biometric registration is still stored in memory 54 of key-fob control 40. If the outcome of query 152 is YES (i.e., TRUE), then as shown by path 153, method 140 desirably advances to TRANSMIT ID, COMMAND AND SIGNATURE step 154 when the key-fob's unique identifier (ID), the entered command, and the biometric signature are sent by key-fob control 40 via RF signal 49 to vehicle 68. ).
Mc Call does not explicitly disclose ,in response to receiving biometric information of a user, update pre-registered biometric information of the user in the memory based on the received biometric information or
wherein the processor is further configured to:
compare the pre-registered biometric information in the memory and the received biometric information to obtain a similarity value between the pre-registered biometric information and the received biometric information, and
control to output a pop-up message for user verification, upon concluding that the obtained similarity value is greater than a first similarity value and less than or equal to a second similarity value, wherein the first similarity value and the second similarity value are predetermined values, and wherein the second similarity value is higher than the first similarity value.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of biometric authentication. Suzuki teaches in response to receiving biometric information of a user, update pre-registered biometric information of the user in the memory based on the received biometric information (Page 13, Par 23, face data update process updates the face data registered in the dictionary 28 using a face image captured by the camera 11);
wherein the processor is further configured to compare the received biometric information with the pre-registered biometric information of the user stored in the memory to obtain a similarity value between the pre-registered biometric information and the received biometric information, (Page 13-14, Par [0025] After determining the degree of matching between the facial image of the person to be authenticated and the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information through the above judgment, the processing unit 21 determines whether the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (step S23). The second threshold is a threshold for 17-09-2025 - Page 13 determining whether or not updating of face data is permitted), and
control to output a pop-up message for user verification (Page 15, Par [0028] Furthermore, if the above judgment determines that the degree of matching is greater than or equal to the second threshold (step S23, YES), the processing unit 21 notifies the person to be authenticated via the display unit 12, etc., that personal authentication by facial matching has been successful (step S26). i.e. the displayed message is for successful authentication/verification), upon concluding that the obtained similarity value is greater than a first similarity value (Page 14, if the degree of matching is equal to or greater than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed successful (the person has been authenticated as the person), and the face data is updated and Page 14, par [0030], determine whether the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information input by the person to be authenticated is facial data with a matching degree equal to or greater than the second threshold, and to determine whether to update the facial data based on the result of this determination.) and less than or equal to a second similarity value (the maximum value of similarity is 100 percent (i.e. exact match) and the obtained value is always less than or equal to 100 percent).
and wherein the first similarity value (Page 13, Par 25, a predetermined second threshold value) and the second similarity value are predetermined values (maximum value for exact match is 100 %), and
wherein the second similarity value is higher than the first similarity value (maximum value for 100 % match is higher than the first similarity value/threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki in order to improve the security and accuracy of personal authentication (Suzuki: page 3, Par 6).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the authentication apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to register the received biometric information as information for user authentication, upon concluding that the pre-registered biometric information is not stored in the memory (Mc Call, Fig. 7, steps 230-232 and Par 36).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the authentication apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the pre-registered biometric information of the user is stored in the memory in response to receiving the biometric information of the user stored in the mobile device, upon concluding that the pre-registered biometric information of the user is stored in the memory, determine whether to perform the updating based on the obtained similarity value (Mc Call, Fig. 7 steps 224, 226 and Par 35 and Suzuki: Pate 13-14, Par [0025] After determining the degree of matching between the facial image of the person to be authenticated and the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information through the above judgment, the processing unit 21 determines whether the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (step S23). The second threshold is a threshold for 17-09-2025 - Page 13 determining whether or not updating of face data is permitted. In other words, if the degree of matching is equal to or greater than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed successful (the person has been authenticated as the person), and the face data is updated; if the degree of matching is equal to or less than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed unsuccessful, and the face data cannot be updated).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the authentication apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured not to perform the updating, upon concluding that the obtained similarity value is less than or equal to a first similarity value (Suzuki: Page 13-14, Par [0025] After determining the degree of matching between the facial image of the person to be authenticated and the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information through the above judgment, the processing unit 21 determines whether the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (step S23). The second threshold is a threshold for determining whether or not updating of face data is permitted. … if the degree of matching is equal to or less than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed unsuccessful, and the face data cannot be updated).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the authentication apparatus of The authentication apparatus of wherein the pre-registered biometric information of the user includes at least one of face recognition information or fingerprint recognition information, and wherein the received biometric information of the user includes at least one of the face recognition information (Suzuki: Page 3, Par 7, face data) or the fingerprint recognition information (Mc Call; Par 20, input device 52 to scan the finger print and Par 18, a fingerprint is being used as the biometric signature, but this is merely by way of example and not intended to be limiting and that any unique personal feature can be used as a biometric signature, such as for example but not limited to those previously presented in the background and Par 3, biometric data that can be used in biometric screening and may be used in such access control and other functions are multiple finger or hand prints, retinas, faces, body shapes, speech, walking gait, and any other type of physiological features that are substantially unique to an individual).
Regarding Claim 11, Mc Call teaches a vehicle (Fig. 3, 68), including:
a communicator (Fig. 4, 70) configured to communicate with a mobile device (Fig. 3, 40 and Par 18, the key-fob of the present invention may be stand-alone elements or incorporated in other portable devices, as for example and not with any intention to be limiting, a cell phone, personal digital assistant, wireless equipped personal computer or any other device able to remotely communicate with the vehicle.);
an authentication apparatus (Fig. 4, 86) configured to perform user authentication based on image information (Par 18, a fingerprint is being used as the biometric signature, but this is merely by way of example and not intended to be limiting and that any unique personal feature can be used as a biometric signature, such as for example but not limited to those previously presented in the background and Par 3, biometric data that can be used in biometric screening and may be used in such access control and other functions are multiple finger or hand prints, retinas, faces, body shapes, speech, walking gait, and any other type of physiological features that are substantially unique to an individual ), and to provide a user with a vehicle control right, in response to the user authentication being successful (Par 35, In following MATCH? query step 226, it is determined whether or not the received biometric signature matches any of those already registered to vehicle 68. If the outcome of query 226 is YES (i.e., TRUE), then method 210 proceeds to optional ACCESS LEVEL OK? query 228 where it is determined whether the received or stored access level is adequate for the accompanying command, that is, is the user (WHO) identified by the biometric signature authorized to issue the accompanying command (WHAT), if any. If the outcome of optional query 228 is YES (i.e., TRUE), then method 210 proceeds to EXECUTE COMMAND step 220 where the received command is carried out. ),
receiving biometric information of the user stored in the mobile device through the communicator (Fig. 5, step 152, 154 and Par 26, method 140 advances to BIOMETRIC SIGNATURE AVAILABLE? query 152 when it is determined whether or not a previously entered biometric registration is still stored in memory 54 of key-fob control 40. If the outcome of query 152 is YES (i.e., TRUE), then as shown by path 153, method 140 desirably advances to TRANSMIT ID, COMMAND AND SIGNATURE step 154 when the key-fob's unique identifier (ID), the entered command, and the biometric signature are sent by key-fob control 40 via RF signal 49 to vehicle 68. ).
Mc Call does not explicitly disclose
a camera or image information is obtained by a camera; or
, in response to receiving biometric information of a user, update pre-registered biometric information of the user in the memory based on the received biometric information or
wherein the authentication apparatus is further configured to:
compare the pre-registered biometric information in the memory and the received biometric information to obtain a similarity value between the pre-registered biometric information and the received biometric information, and
control to output a pop-up message for user verification, upon concluding that the obtained similarity value is greater than a first similarity value and less than or equal to a second similarity value, wherein the first similarity value and the second similarity value are predetermined values, and wherein the second similarity value is higher than the first similarity value.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of biometric authentication. Suzuki teaches a camera or image information is obtained by a camera (Fig. 1, 11and Page 8, The camera 11 captures a facial image of a person to be authenticated) and further teaches in response to receiving biometric information of a user, update pre-registered biometric information of the user in the memory based on the received biometric information (Page 13, Par 23, face data update process updates the face data registered in the dictionary 28 using a face image captured by the camera 11);
wherein the apparatus is further configured to compare the received biometric information with the pre-registered biometric information of the user stored in the memory to obtain a similarity value between the pre-registered biometric information and the received biometric information, (Page 13-14, Par [0025] After determining the degree of matching between the facial image of the person to be authenticated and the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information through the above judgment, the processing unit 21 determines whether the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (step S23). The second threshold is a threshold for determining whether or not updating of face data is permitted), and
control to output a pop-up message for user verification (Page 15, Par [0028] Furthermore, if the above judgment determines that the degree of matching is greater than or equal to the second threshold (step S23, YES), the processing unit 21 notifies the person to be authenticated via the display unit 12, etc., that personal authentication by facial matching has been successful (step S26). i.e. the displayed message is for successful authentication/verification), upon concluding that the obtained similarity value is greater than a first similarity value (Page 14, if the degree of matching is equal to or greater than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed successful (the person has been authenticated as the person), and the face data is updated and Page 14, par [0030], determine whether the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information input by the person to be authenticated is facial data with a matching degree equal to or greater than the second threshold, and to determine whether to update the facial data based on the result of this determination.) and less than or equal to a second similarity value (the maximum value of similarity is 100 percent (i.e. exact match) and the obtained value is always less than or equal to 100 percent) and wherein the first similarity value (Page 13, Par 25, a predetermined second threshold value) and the second similarity value are predetermined values (maximum value 100 %), and wherein the second similarity value is higher than the first similarity value (maximum value for 100 % match is higher than the first similarity value/threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki in order to improve the security and accuracy of personal authentication (Suzuki: page 3, Par 6).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 11, further including: a sensor configured to detect a fingerprint, wherein the authentication apparatus is further configured to perform the user authentication based on the fingerprint detected by the sensor (Mc Call; Par 20, input device 52 to scan the finger print and Par 18, a fingerprint is being used as the biometric signature, but this is merely by way of example and not intended to be limiting and that any unique personal feature can be used as a biometric signature, such as for example but not limited to those previously presented in the background and Par 3, biometric data that can be used in biometric screening and may be used in such access control and other functions are multiple finger or hand prints, retinas, faces, body shapes, speech, walking gait, and any other type of physiological features that are substantially unique to an individual ).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the authentication apparatus is further configured to: determine whether the pre-registered biometric information of the user is stored, in response to receiving the biometric information of the user from the mobile device, register the received biometric information as information for the user authentication, upon concluding that the pre-registered biometric information is not stored (Mc Call, Fig. 7, steps 230-232 and Par 36).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the authentication apparatus is further configured to: determine whether the pre-registered biometric information of the user is stored, in response to receiving the biometric information of the user from the mobile device, upon concluding that the pre-registered biometric information is stored, determine whether to perform the updating based on the obtained similarity value (Mc Call, Fig. 7 steps 224, 226 and Par 35 and Suzuki: Pate 13-14, Par [0025] After determining the degree of matching between the facial image of the person to be authenticated and the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information through the above judgment, the processing unit 21 determines whether the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (step S23). The second threshold is a threshold for 17-09-2025 - Page 13 determining whether or not updating of face data is permitted. In other words, if the degree of matching is equal to or greater than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed successful (the person has been authenticated as the person), and the face data is updated; if the degree of matching is equal to or less than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed unsuccessful, and the face data cannot be updated).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the authentication apparatus is further configured not to perform the updating, upon concluding that the obtained similarity value is less than or equal to the first similarity value (Suzuki: Page 13-14, Par [0025] After determining the degree of matching between the facial image of the person to be authenticated and the facial data corresponding to the personal identification information through the above judgment, the processing unit 21 determines whether the degree of matching is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (step S23). The second threshold is a threshold for determining whether or not updating of face data is permitted. … if the degree of matching is equal to or less than the second threshold, the face matching is deemed unsuccessful, and the face data cannot be updated).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the pre-registered biometric information of the user includes at least one of face recognition information or fingerprint recognition information, and wherein the received biometric information of the user includes at least one of the face recognition information or the fingerprint recognition information (Mc Call; Par 20, input device 52 to scan the finger print and Par 18, a fingerprint is being used as the biometric signature, but this is merely by way of example and not intended to be limiting and that any unique personal feature can be used as a biometric signature, such as for example but not limited to those previously presented in the background and Par 3, biometric data that can be used in biometric screening and may be used in such access control and other functions are multiple finger or hand prints, retinas, faces, body shapes, speech, walking gait, and any other type of physiological features that are substantially unique to an individual).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mc Call in view of Suzuki further in view of Corradino et al. (Corradino: US 2011/0215900).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the authentication apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the received biometric information of the user is biometric information obtained through login to a connected car application running on the mobile device.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of biometric authentication. Corradino teaches wherein the received biometric information of the user is biometric information obtained through login to a connected car application running on the mobile device (Par 31, A fingerprint scan for each of the users in the account may be completed and the scan data stored in the configuration file 130 (via the BIOMETRIC DATA field) for use in identifying a current or future user and Par 33 and Par 37 and Par [0017] The mobile applications 105 may include web-based applications (e.g., browser software), communications applications (e.g., texting software, email, instant messaging, etc.), games, and other types of applications typically associated with mobile communications devices and Par 22 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corradino in order to provide superuser with the capabilities for establishing an account, adding or deleting account users, as well as modifying account settings (Corradino: Par 37).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Mc Call and Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the received biometric information of the user is biometric information obtained through login to a connected car application running on the mobile device.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of biometric authentication. Corradino teaches wherein the received biometric information of the user is biometric information obtained through login to a connected car application running on the mobile device (Par 31, A fingerprint scan for each of the users in the account may be completed and the scan data stored in the configuration file 130 (via the BIOMETRIC DATA field) for use in identifying a current or future user and Par 33 and Par 37 and Par [0017] The mobile applications 105 may include web-based applications (e.g., browser software), communications applications (e.g., texting software, email, instant messaging, etc.), games, and other types of applications typically associated with mobile communications devices and Par 22 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corradino in order to provide superuser with the capabilities for establishing an account, adding or deleting account users, as well as modifying account settings (Corradino: Par 37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Examiner notes that the scope of amended independent claims are broader than the previously objected claim because the deletion of some limitations from the independent claims. The amended independent claims are still met by prior arts in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688