DETAILED ACTION
1. Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-20 and 22.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
That- the cited references fail to teach or reasonably suggest the features
regarding "upon determination that one or more validations are unable to be performed, recommending one or more alternative validation methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user", as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 11.
In response to arguments – Chapin teaches that when an authentication or validation method cannot be completed or fails, the system recommends or presents one or more alternative authentication methods in order to continue the multifactor authentication process. Specifically, Chapin discloses dynamically selecting and providing alternative validation options when a primary validation method is unavailable or unsuccessful, while still satisfying multi-factor authentication requirements (Chapin par.0032] also see Chapin par.0035-37). Thus, Chapin teaches the limitation of “upon determination that one or more validations are unable to be performed, recommending one or more alternative validation methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user" and in combination with Changadveja reasonably suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
That- Chapin fails to disclose recommending one or more alternative validation
methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user. In particular, neither FIG. 6A, Para. [0101] nor any other sections of Chapin teaches recommending alternative validation methods. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or reasonably suggest the features of independent claims 1 and 11.
In response to arguments – Chapin teaches that when a primary authentication method fails or is unavailable, the system dynamically selects and provides one or more alternative authentication options so that the user can continue the authentication process using different validation factors (Chapin [par.0028-0032]). Chapin further explains that the system maintains multifactor authentication by substituting different validation methods based on availability and system conditions (Chapin [par.0035-0037]). Thus, Chapin expressly discloses “recommending one or more alternative validation methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user.”
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent No.: US 10,814,835 B2 to Changadveja et al(hereafter referenced as CHENGALVALA) in further view of Pub.No.: US 2020/0108795 A1 to CHAPIN(hereafter referenced as Chapin).
Regarding claim 1, Chengalvala discloses “a method comprising: receiving, at a vehicle system of a vehicle”(Fig.1 shows a vehicle computing system), “a plurality of sets of data associated with a user (the system can assign a user type to the access request at 227[Col.6/lines 53-56]) ; “performing validations of each set of the plurality of sets of data to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user”(Fig.2 illustrates multiple illustrative security protocols [Col.6/lines 1-2]) ; “determining whether one or more validations are unable to be performed”(validation authentication process[Fig3.a]).
Chengalvala does not explicitly disclose “and upon determination that one or more validations are unable to be performed, recommending one or more alternative validations methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user.”
However, Chapin in analogous art discloses “and upon determination that one or more validations are unable to be performed”(verify authentication criteria Chapin [Fig.9/item 906]) , recommending one or more alternative validations methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user”(Fig.6a is a flowchart of exemplary process 600A for multifactor authentication Chapin [par.0101])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Changadveja ‘s vehicle assisted dynamic multifactor authentication with Chapin’s Multifactor vehicle authentication in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Changadveja discloses a multifactor authentication process, Chapin also disclose a multifactor authentication process with alternative validations, and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “ further comprising: receiving a first set of authentication methods to be performed to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user” ( user specific input Chapin [Fig.12]), “each authentication method comprises validating a set of data associated with the user; and receiving the plurality of sets of data associated with the first set of authentication methods.”(validate authentication data Chapin[Fig.10.item 1008]).
Regarding claim 3 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “ further comprising: receiving additional sets of authentication methods to be performed to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user over a first period of time” (Fig.6a is a flowchart of exemplary process 600A for multifactor authentication Chapin [par.0101]); “and determining a preferred set of authentication methods to be performed to achieve multi- factor authentication of the user based on the first set of authentication methods and the additional sets of authentication methods” (Fig.6a is a flowchart of exemplary process 600A for multifactor authentication Chapin [par.0101]).
Regarding claim 4 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “further comprising, upon validation of each set of the plurality of sets of data, granting access to one or more features of the vehicle” (determine Vehicle Restrictions Criteria Satisfied Chapin[Fig.6b/item 612] also see Limit vehicle operations Chapin[Fig.6b/item 614]).
Regarding claim 5 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “further comprising: receiving a first set of features associated with the vehicle for which access is to be granted to the user after the user is authenticated; and upon validation of each set of the plurality of sets of data, granting access to the first set of features associated with the vehicle” (determine Vehicle Restrictions Criteria Satisfied Chapin[Fig.6b/item 612] also see Limit vehicle operations Chapin[Fig.6b/item 614]).
Regarding claim 6 in view of claim 5, the references combined disclose “wherein at least one of the first set of features comprises unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle” (Vehicle control function may include functions to control vehicle locks , including door locks , trunk locks , child locks , storage compartment locks , and the like Chapin[par.0068]).
Regarding claim 7 in view of claim 5, the references combined disclose “wherein at least one of the first set of features comprises unlocking a trunk of the vehicle” (Vehicle control function may include functions to control vehicle locks , including door locks , trunk locks , child locks , storage compartment locks , and the like Chapin[par.0068]).
Regarding claim 8 in view of claim 5, the references combined disclose “wherein at least one of the first set of features comprises allowing the vehicle to be driven” (Vehicle control function may include functions to control vehicle locks , including door locks , trunk locks , child locks , storage compartment locks , and the like Chapin[par.0068]).
Regarding claim 9 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “further comprising determining at least one set of data to be validated based on a location of the vehicle” (monitoring functions of vehicle mode module 244 include programs or scripts to monitor at least one of vehicle location , vehicle speed , engine information , braking information , or other vehicle condition Chapin[par.0067]).
Regarding claim 10 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “further comprising determining at least one set of data to be validated based on a charge level of a battery of the vehicle” (monitoring module may receive a vehicle condition including at least one of a vehicle fuel level , an oil level , a battery level , a tire pressure , a temperature , a seat belt usage [Chapin [par.0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Changadveja discloses “a vehicle comprising a processor (Fig.1 shows a vehicle computing system), configured to: receive a plurality of sets of data associated with a user(the system can assign a user type to the access request at 227[Col.6/lines 53-56]); perform validations of each set of the plurality of sets of data to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user(Fig.2 illustrates multiple illustrative security protocols [Col.6/lines 1-2]); determine whether one or more validations are unable to be performed(validation authentication process[Fig3.a]).
Chengalvala “and upon determination that one or more validations are unable to be performed, recommend one or more alternative validations methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user”
However, Chapin in analogous art discloses “and upon determination that one or more validations are unable to be performed”(verify authentication criteria Chapin [Fig.9/item 906]) , recommend one or more alternative validations methods to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user”(Fig.6a is a flowchart of exemplary process 600A for multifactor authentication Chapin [par.0101])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Changadveja ‘s vehicle assisted dynamic multifactor authentication with Chapin’s Multifactor vehicle authentication in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Changadveja discloses a multifactor authentication process, Chapin also disclose a multifactor authentication process with alternative validations, and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 12 in view of claim 11, the references combined disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a first set of authentication methods to be performed to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user ( user specific input Chapin [Fig.12]), “each authentication method comprises validating a set of data associated with the user; and receive the plurality of sets of data associated with the first set of authentication methods” (validate authentication data Chapin[Fig.10.item 1008]).
Regarding claim 13 in view of claim 12, the references combined disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to: receive additional sets of authentication methods to be performed to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user over a first period of time(Fig.6a is a flowchart of exemplary process 600A for multifactor authentication Chapin [par.0101]); “and determine a preferred set of authentication methods to be performed to achieve multi-factor authentication of the user based on the first set of authentication methods and the additional sets of authentication methods” (Fig.6a is a flowchart of exemplary process 600A for multifactor authentication Chapin [par.0101]).
Regarding claim 14 in view of claim 11, the references combined disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to, upon validation of each set of the plurality of sets of data, grant access to one or more features of the vehicle” (determine Vehicle Restrictions Criteria Satisfied Chapin[Fig.6b/item 612] also see Limit vehicle operations Chapin[Fig.6b/item 614]).
Regarding claim 15 in view of claim 11, the references combined disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a first set of features associated with the vehicle for which access is to be granted to the user after the user is authenticated; and upon validation of each set of the plurality of sets of data, grant access to the first set of features associated with the vehicle” (determine Vehicle Restrictions Criteria Satisfied Chapin[Fig.6b/item 612] also see Limit vehicle operations Chapin[Fig.6b/item 614]).
Regarding claim 16 in view of claim 15, the references combined disclose “wherein at least one of the first set of features comprises unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle” (Vehicle control function may include functions to control vehicle locks , including door locks , trunk locks , child locks , storage compartment locks , and the like Chapin[par.0068]).
Regarding claim 17 in view of claim 15, the references combined disclose “wherein at least one of the first set of features comprises unlocking a trunk of the vehicle” (Vehicle control function may include functions to control vehicle locks , including door locks , trunk locks , child locks , storage compartment locks , and the like Chapin[par.0068]).
Regarding claim 18 in view of claim 15, the references combined disclose “wherein at least one of the first set of features comprises allowing the vehicle to be driven” (Vehicle control function may include functions to control vehicle locks , including door locks , trunk locks , child locks , storage compartment locks , and the like Chapin[par.0068]).
Regarding claim 19 in view of claim 11, the references combined disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one set of data to be validated based on a location of the vehicle” (monitoring functions of vehicle mode module 244 include programs or scripts to monitor at least one of vehicle location , vehicle speed , engine information , braking information , or other vehicle condition Chapin[par.0067]).
Regarding claim 20 in view of claim 11, the references combined disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one set of data to be validated based on a charge level of a battery of the vehicle” (monitoring module may receive a vehicle condition including at least one of a vehicle fuel level , an oil level , a battery level , a tire pressure , a temperature , a seat belt usage [Chapin [par.0067]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/MICHAEL D ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433