DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to communications received on 11/24/2025. Claim 1 was amended. No claims were cancelled or added. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments filed 11/24/2025
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 clarifying that the first and second device are from the plurality of devices in the vehicle system and that the processor of a system is of the vehicle system are sufficient to overcome the objections to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but were found non-persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks the limitations of claim 1 and 11 disclosing “based on determining that the first device is not registered, performing one or more operations to register the first device” because “countermeasures’ does not sufficiently disclose or suggest subsequently registering the device” because “the only countermeasures provided in Matsumoto is ‘execution of unlock processing once’ which is effectively the opposite of the present application’s step of registering the unregistered user”, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsumoto teaches based on determining that the mobile terminal/vehicle is not registered (paras. [0071], [0079]), the user may take countermeasures (paras. [0079], Fig. 4). Figure 4 also shows that in response to determining that there is no public key indicating successful registration, a notification of “no reservation” is sent and an arrow shows that the process returns to step 404. Para. [0091] of Matsumoto further explains that steps 405 to 409 (coming after 404) may include registration (copying processing) of information for verification, such as a public key and “the timing for this copying processing is not limited to this timing” and “ensures registration of information for verification”. Therefore, Matsumoto discloses that in response to determining unsuccessful registration the first time through because no valid public key is present (para. [0071]), countermeasures such as returning to the step of unlock processing in step 404 (Fig. 4, para. [0079]) may be performed and then registration of the public key may occur in steps 405-409 (para. [0091]). Consequently, Matsumoto discloses taking steps to register the public key of the mobile terminal with the system when the public key of the mobile terminal is not found to be registered with the system and therefore meets the claim limitations. Applicant is free to amend the claims to further specify how it is determined that the first device is not registered or what the one or more operations to register the first device comprise.
Applicant further argues on pages 12 of the Remarks that Matsumoto does not teach the claim limitation “obtaining, from the second device, information associated with the requested service” because “Matsumoto’s information returning step occurs prior to its authentication step” whereas the step of obtaining the information associated with the requested service is part of the claim limitation of “providing the first device the access to the requested service” which occurs “based on determining that the first device is authenticated”, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that claims 7 and 17 do not disclose who/what obtains the information associated with the requested service – only that comes from the second device. In addition, claims 7 and 17 do not disclose when the steps in the body of the claim occurs. Although claims 1/11 disclose that the first device is provided with access to the requested service after the first device is authenticated, that does not mean that process of providing the access to the requested service could comprise steps performed before the authentication is performed/concluded as the process of providing access could span a time overlapping with different steps in claims 1/11. Matsumoto teaches the mobile terminal obtains biometric authentication parameters (i.e. information) for obtaining the requested reservation service (paras. [0056]-[0057]) after the verification unit of the authentication management system successfully authenticates an attestation challenge (paras. [0051]-[0052]) and the authentication management system obtains an assertion comprising signature data generated from the biometric authentication parameters in response to (i.e. after) successful authentication (para. [0058]). In either case, it is clear that Matsumoto teaches obtaining the biometric authentication parameters after successful authentication. Applicant is free to amend the claims to further clarify the timing and meaning of the information associated with the requested service.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “obtaining, from a first device, of the plurality of devices, a message for requesting a service from a second device of the plurality of devices, wherein the message comprises information of an identity (ID) of the first device” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2019/0116044).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method for managing a plurality of devices in a vehicle system (para. [0019], [0022], [0025], Fig. 1: devices in system for obtaining vehicle services), the method is implemented by at least one processor of a system and comprising:
obtaining, from a first device, of the plurality of devices, a message for requesting a service from a second device of the plurality of devices, wherein the message comprises information of an identity (ID) of the first device (paras. [0032], [0051], [0063], [0066], [0069], Fig. 4: receiving from mobile terminal /management target device as the vehicle containing the mobile terminal (i.e. first devices) a request message including a credential with a secret key and a vehicle ID (i.e. identifiers of first device) at management server/system (i.e. second devices));
determining, based on the ID of the first device, whether or not the first device is registered (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0063], [0066], [0069], [0071], Fig. 4: determining based on the secret key & vehicle ID of the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle (i.e. first devices) whether the mobile terminal/management target vehicle is registered/reserved);
based on determining that the first device is not registered, performing one or more operations to register the first device (paras. [0063], [0066], [0069], [0071], [0079], Fig. 4: based on determining that the mobile terminal/vehicle is not registered, sequence stops and user may take countermeasures);
determining whether or not the first device is successfully registered (paras. [0063], [0066], [0069], [0071], Fig. 4: determining based on the vehicle ID of the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle (i.e. first devices) whether the mobile terminal/vehicle is registered/reserved);
based on determining that the first device is registered or based on determining that the first device is successfully registered, determining whether or not the first device is authenticated (paras. [0071], [0073]-[0075], Fig. 4: based on determining the mobile terminal/vehicle is registered/reserved, performing steps 411 thru 417 to authenticate the mobile terminal/vehicle); and
based on determining that the first device is authenticated, providing the first device the access to the requested service (paras. [0064], [0075], Fig. 4: upon authenticating the mobile terminal/vehicle, providing mobile terminal with the requested operation/service).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose performing operations when the first device is determined to not be registered, but one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that Matsumoto teaches such functionality because Matsumoto teaches executing countermeasures when the user is made aware that a copy of the public key is not stored (para. [0079]) and performing such operations would provide the user with a second chance to register if attempts to register using a first public key are not working.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as follows:
wherein the determining whether or not the first device is registered comprises:
determining, based on the ID of the first device, whether or not a public key associated with the first device is available in one or more storage mediums of the system (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071]: determining based on secret key & vehicle ID of mobile terminal/management target device (i.e. IDs of first device), whether a public key corresponding to the private key has been generated and stored with the management system);
based on determining that the public key of the first device is available, determining that the first device is registered (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071]: based on determining the public key was generated and stored, determining that the mobile terminal/management target device successfully registered); and
based on determining that the public key of the first device is not available, determining that the first device is not registered (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071], Fig. 4: if no corresponding public key is stored in association with the private key and vehicle ID, then the mobile terminal/management target device cannot be successfully registered).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claims 1 and 3 and the system of claims 11 and 13.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 4 and 14 as follows:
wherein the registering the first device based on the information of the public key comprises:
validating the public key; and generating a mapping of the validated public key and the ID of the first device (paras. [0032], [0037], [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071]: validating public key and storing public key with secret key and vehicle ID (i.e. ID’s of the mobile terminal/management target device as vehicle).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as follows:
wherein the determining whether or not the first device is authenticated comprises:
determining, based on the ID of the first device, whether or not the first device is authorized to utilize the requested service (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0066], [0069], [0071], [0075], Fig. 4: determining based on the secret key & vehicle ID of the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle (i.e. first devices) that the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle are authorized to conduct the requested service);
based on determining that the first device is authorized to utilize the requested service, determining that the first device is authenticated (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0066], [0069], [0071], [0075], Fig. 4: based on verifying the mobile terminal/management target device is registered and authenticated, granting the requested operation); and
based on determining that the first device is not authorized to utilize the requested service, determining that the first device is not authenticated (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0066], [0069], [0071], [0075], Fig. 4: based on determining that the mobile terminal/management target device cannot be authenticated (i.e. is not authorized), not granting the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle access to the requested service).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claims 1 and 5 and the system of claims 11 and 15.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 6 and 16 as follows:
wherein at least a portion of the message is encrypted by the first device based on a private key (paras. [0051], [0058]: encrypting all or just the assertionChallenge using the secret/private key of the mobile terminal in the vehicle/management target device), and wherein the determining whether or not the first device is authorized to utilize the requested service comprises:
obtaining the public key of the first device (paras. [0052], [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071]: obtaining the public key of the mobile terminal in the vehicle/management target device);
decrypting the encrypted portion of the message to obtain the information of the requested service (paras. [0052], [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071]: using the public key of the mobile terminal in the vehicle/management target device to decrypt the encrypted message to obtain information corresponding to granting the requested service); and
determining, based on the information of the requested service and the ID of the first device, whether or not the first device is authorized to utilize the requested service (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071], [0075]: based on the decrypted information in the message and the secret key/vehicle ID of the mobile terminal in the vehicle/management target device (i.e. first device), determining whether to grant the requested service by the mobile terminal).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claims 1 and 5-6 and the system of claims 11 and 15-16.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 17 as follows:
wherein the providing the first device the access to the requested service comprises:
obtaining, from the second device, information associated with the requested service (paras. [0056]-[0057]: obtaining by the management server/system details about the requested reservation service)
encrypting, based on the public key of the first device, the information of the requested service obtained from the second device (paras. [0056]-[0058], [0073]: encoding/encrypting the information indicating the operation requested as “transaction” and assertionChallenge authentication parameters together with a RPID that is identical to the registered public key); and
providing the encrypted information to the first device (paras. [0057]-[0058], [0073]-[0074]: providing the encoded/encrypted authentication parameters back to the mobile terminal).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claims 1 and 5-7 and the system of claims 11 and 15-17.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 8 and 18 as follows:
wherein the first device comprises a trusted platform module (TPM), wherein the TPM is configured to manage the public key and the private key, and wherein the first device is configured to decrypt the encrypted information based on the private key (paras. [0037], [0058]-[0059], [0071]: mobile device comprises TPM and stores the secret/private key and a public key, where the mobile terminal/management target device decrypts information encrypted using the secret/private key).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 19 as follows:
wherein the second device is a vault, and wherein the service is provisioning of one or more information stored in the vault (paras. [0023], [0059]-[0061], Fig. 3: management server/system has storage database for storing information on devices/vehicles that can be reserved, where the management system/server oversees provisioning reservations for the devices/vehicles).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 10 and 20 as follows:
wherein the first device and the second device are located at different geographical locations (Fig. 1, paras. [0023]: mobile terminal/management target device are separate from the management server/system).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto teaches the limitation substantially as follows:
A system for managing a plurality of devices in a vehicle system (para. [0019], [0022], [0025], Fig. 1: devices in system for obtaining vehicle services), the system comprising:
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain, from a first device, a message for requesting a service from a second device, wherein the message comprises information of an identity (ID) of the first device (paras. [0032], [0051], [0063], [0066], [0069], Fig. 4: receiving from mobile terminal /management target device as the vehicle containing the mobile terminal (i.e. first devices) a request message including a credential with a secret key and a vehicle ID (i.e. identifiers of first device) at management server/system (i.e. second devices));
determine, based on the ID of the first device, whether or not the first device is registered (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0063], [0066], [0069], [0071], Fig. 4: determining based on the secret key & vehicle ID of the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle (i.e. first devices) whether the mobile terminal/management target vehicle is registered/reserved);
based on determining that the first device is not registered, performing one or more operations to register the first device (paras. [0063], [0066], [0069], [0071], [0079], Fig. 4: based on determining that the mobile terminal/vehicle is not registered, sequence stops and user may take countermeasures);
determining whether or not the first device is successfully registered (paras. [0063], [0066], [0069], [0071], Fig. 4: determining based on the vehicle ID of the mobile terminal/management target device vehicle (i.e. first devices) whether the mobile terminal/vehicle is registered/reserved);
based on determining that the first device is registered or based on determining that the first device is successfully registered, determining whether or not the first device is authenticated (paras. [0071], [0073]-[0075], Fig. 4: based on determining the mobile terminal/vehicle is registered/reserved, performing steps 411 thru 417 to authenticate the mobile terminal/vehicle); and
based on determining that the first device is authenticated, providing the first device the access to the requested service (paras. [0064], [0075], Fig. 4: upon authenticating the mobile terminal/vehicle, providing mobile terminal with the requested operation/service).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose performing operations when the first device is determined to not be registered, but one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that Matsumoto teaches such functionality because Matsumoto teaches executing countermeasures when the user is made aware that a copy of the public key is not stored (para. [0079] and performing such operations would provide the user with a second chance to register if attempts to register using a first public key are not working.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2019/0116044)), as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Acharya (US 20230076669).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Matsumoto teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 13 as follows:
wherein the performing the one or more operations to register the first device comprises:
registering the first device based on the information of the public key (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0071]: successfully registering mobile terminal/management target device based upon public key); and
transmitting, to the first device, a result of the registering the first device (paras. [0059], [0071], [0073]: transmitting notification to mobile terminal/management target device that registration was successful).
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claims 3 and 13:
establishing an out-of-bound (OOB) channel among the system and the first device;
receiving, from the first device and through the OOB channel, information of the public key of the first device;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Acharya teaches the remaining limitations of claims 3 and 13:
establishing an out-of-bound (OOB) channel among the system and the first device; receiving, from the first device and through the OOB channel, information of the public key of the first device (paras. [0141], [0143], [0145], [0178], [0179], Fig. 1: using two different communication channels (i.e. including establishment of an OOB channel) to communicate between external servers/cloud, the vehicle system and ECU’s and the eSync Client Module comprising a TLS channel between the cloud and the eSync Client Module which is protected using a session key derived from a public key encryption (i.e. public key information) and communications between the broker and eSync Client Module and ECU’s establishing an alternative trusted communication channel with the broker or a communication channel separate from the broker channel such as a direct channel).
Matsumoto and Acharya are combinable because both are from the same field of endeavor of generating secure communications with in-vehicle devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Acharya’s method of using multiple types of channels to communicate between the vehicle system and devices with the system of Matsumoto in order to increase the security of the system by requiring a hacker to compromise multiple types of channels to intercept communications of the vehicle system.
Prior art not relied upon but applied/considered includes:
1) Ju (US 2024/0388430) teaches registers a node of an in-vehicle network using a unique node ID. The first domain gateway DG1 210 transmits an ECU registration or update request message including information regarding time at which the current vehicle is started (a registration or update request message generation time T1) to any nodes ECU in a broadcast manner. When the ECU registration or update request message is received, the first node ECU1 301 transmits a response message for the ECU registration or update request, the response message having a data region where ECU1_ID, which is unique information of the first node 301, is included. When received ECU1_ID is confirmed as indicating an ECU capable of being registered/updated, the first domain gateway DG1 210 generates a temporary message ID ECU1_CAN_ID corresponding to ECU1_ID. Subsequently, in order to safely transmit the temporary message ID ECU1_CAN_ID to the first node ECU1 301, the first domain gateway DG1 210 generates a secret key SK_DG1-ECU1 shared between the first domain gateway DG1 210 and the first node ECU1 301 using received ECU_1D and an embedded secret key SK_CG-DG1 shared between the central gateway CG100 and the first domain gateway DG1 210. The domain gateway sends the message encrypted with the keys to the first node ECU1, which decrypts & authenticates the message and sends a message back to the gateway including the unique information of the node to confirm registration (paras. [0071], [0073], [0074], [0076], [0079], Figs. 4-5).
Conclusion
For the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438