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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Creamer et al., USPN 2018/0144110.
With regard to claims 1 and 11, Creamer discloses a system for controlling use of a device having a plurality of operating features based on authentication of a user (0042-0044, 0049, 0016), the system including an identification device configured to identify characteristics of the user of the device (0032, 0038), and an electronic processor communicatively coupled to the identification device, the electronic processor configured to receive, from the identification device, a first characteristic of the user (0032), determine, based on the first characteristic of the user via a first authentication method, whether the user is a primary user (0032, 0042-0044, 0054), determine, in response to failing to determine that the user is the primary user, a current operating pattern of the user (0005-0007, 0015), receive, in response to the user not being the primary user and from the identification device, a second characteristic of the user, determine (0005-0007, 0015, claim 1), based on a second characteristic of the user via a second authentication method, whether the user is a secondary authenticated user (0045, 0034, 0052), determine, based on the user being the secondary authenticated user and based on the current operating pattern of the user, a level of access to a subset of the plurality of operating features of the device (0053, 0035, 0052, 0045), and limit, based on the current operating pattern of the user and the level of access to the subset of the plurality of operating features of the device (0053, 0035, 0045).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the electronic processor is further configured to permit, in response to the user being the primary user, access to all of the plurality of operating features of the device (0015, 0035), determine, after permitting access to all of the plurality of operating features of the device, a current operating pattern of the user (0035), and limit, based on the current operating pattern of the user, a first operating feature of the plurality of operating features of the device (0035).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the electronic processor is further configured to initiate, in response to the user not being the primary user (claim 1), a notification mode, in which the electronic processor restricts incoming and outgoing transmissions (claim 2).
With regard to claims 6 and 16, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the identification device includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a fingerprint scanner (0032), a camera (0015), a microphone (0029), a weight sensor, an RFID scanner, a keypad, and a touch screen (0020, 0066).
With regard to claims 7 and 17, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses to limit the subset of the plurality of operating features, the electronic processor is configured to select, based on the current operating pattern of the user and the second characteristic of the user, one of a first limited operating mode and a second limited operating mode, wherein the first limited operating mode permits more of the plurality of operating features than the second limited operating mode (0052-0057).
With regard to claims 9 and 19, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the electronic processor is further configured to determine, based on the current operating pattern of the user and the second characteristic of the user, whether the user is an unauthorized user (claim 1), and disable, in response to the user being the unauthorized user, the device (claim 2, 0058).
With regard to claims 10 and 20, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses determine, after limiting the subset of the plurality of operating features and based on the second characteristic of the user, whether the user is the primary user and whether the user is operating the device within established operating parameters, and permit, in response to the user being the primary user and the user operating the device within established operating parameters, the subset of the plurality of operating features (0015, 0052-0054, Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creamer in view of Cavanaugh, USPN 2015/0121506.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Creamer discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not disclose the device as being a vehicle. Cavanaugh discloses a method for controlling use of a device having a plurality of operating features (0019) based on user characteristics (0052, 0101, 0107-0110), and further discloses that the device can be a vehicle (0101), and wherein determining the current operating pattern of the user includes determining a driving speed of the vehicle; and ()0101 comparing the driving speed of the vehicle to an expected driving speed of the vehicle to generate an operating difference value, wherein the expected driving speed is based on historical driving patterns of an average user of the vehicle (0101, 0107-0110). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the security features of Creamer in a vehicle, as taught by Cavanaugh, for the motivation of improved protection of vehicle usage (just like a mobile device) for secondary users and unauthorized users, as taught by Cavanaugh (0101).
With regard to claims 5 and 15, Creamer in view of Cavanaugh discloses the system of claim 4, as outlined above, and Cavanaugh further discloses the plurality of operating features includes acceleration control, and door lock control (0101, 0104). The motivation to combine remains the same as outlined above.
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Creamer in view of Cavanaugh discloses the system of claim 4, as outlined above, and Cavanaugh further to limit the subset of the plurality of operating features, the electronic processor is configured to limit a maximum speed of the device (0101), and limit access to a device virtual assistant. (cellular phone 0101). The motivation to combine remains the same as outlined above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 20 August 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Creamer does not disclose two authentication methods using two characteristics of the user, but rather that Creamer discloses checking once for a user characteristic using a single authentication method, and then decides which of three possible options that characteristic matches. The examiner does not agree with this. Creamer discloses failing to authenticate a user, and subsequently trying to authenticate the user. This is outlined in paragraph 6, for example, that states “and if the threat score is greater than a first threshold, preventing, by the computer, a user from accessing determined features of the device and enabling secondary authentication to access the determined features of the device.” Further, Creamer discloses multiple authentication methods and that different users can be authenticated using different methods. Creamer discloses, in paragraph 33, that the user can be prompted to answer questions specific to that user. In paragraph 32, Creamer discloses several authentication methods, and in paragraph 45, Creamer discloses that the secondary user’s profile is continuously updated, as is the primary (0044). Because each profile has different levels of information for each user, the primary user might be authenticated with some of the methods in paragraph 32, while the secondary uses others, or a different subset, based on updated profile data. Unfortunately, Creamer is not exactly clear about what his “secondary authentication” from paragraphs 0005-0007 and the claims encompasses, but he does clearly state that it is initiated after the first authentication method fails and the threat score exceeds a threshold, as quoted above.
References Cited
Moore, Jr. et al., USPN 2016/0379105, discloses a method of authenticating the driver of a vehicle by behavior recognition (0031).
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 JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights