DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to communications received on 6/02/2026 and an examiner’s interview conducted 8/24/2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15 and 17 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
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 11-13 of the Remarks that Matsumoto does not teach the limitation of the independent claims disclosing "based on determining that the first device is not registered, performing one or more operations to register the first device" because simply disclosing taking countermeasures in para. [0079] is not sufficient . . . to disclose or suggest that those countermeasures include subsequently registering the user and there is no arrow in Figure 4 showing that the process returns to step 404 upon determining that there is no public key indicating successful registration, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 4 of Matsumoto depicts the process of checking whether there is a reservation containing properly stored registration information such as the public key associated with the user ID and mobile terminal (para. [0071]). If there is no valid public key or the public key has expired, "a notification indicating 'no reservation' is sent to the mobile terminal" (para. [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that providing notification that there is no reservation with registration information is "an operation to register the device" because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to respond to such notification by taking steps to provide the missing registration information in order to make the reservation.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/02/2026, 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 “determining whether or not the first device is authenticated based on a role assigned to 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, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2019/0116044) in view of Breaux III (US 2023/0156570) (hereafter “Breaux”).
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, a notification indicating ‘no reservation’ is sent to the mobile terminal (i.e. operation to register the first device));
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 the remaining limitations of claim 1 as follows:
determining whether or not the first device is authenticated based on a role assigned to the first device;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Breaux discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
determining whether or not the first device is authenticated based on a role assigned to the first device (paras. [0037], [0082]-[0083], [0104], [0114], [0124], [0183], [0233], [0257], [0402] Figs. 12, 14: determining whether a mobile device is authorized/authenticated to act in a requested manner based on whether it is registered as a managed device and based on the usage context (i.e. role or function) transmitted/assigned to the mobile device from characteristics of the mobile device such as the function assigned to it, location, time of day and classification (i.e. whether it is for an emergency, safety, for an employee to use for work or to provide vehicle infotainment within a moving vehicle (and whether it is located in a passenger seat or seat of the vehicle operator));
Breaux is combinable with Matsumoto because both are from the same field of endeavor of managing registered mobile devices within a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Breaux’s method of authenticating a requested use of a mobile device within a vehicle based on determining that the mobile device is registered as a managed device and the usage context of the mobile device with the system of Matsumoto in order to increase the security and flexibility of the system by enabling the system to tailor specific permissions for use of the mobile device based upon the context of the mobile device while ensuring that the mobile device is not used in an unauthorized manner after it is registered.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Matsumoto and Breaux teach 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 and Breaux teach 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 and Breaux teach 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 and Breaux teach 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 8 and 18, Matsumoto and Breaux teach 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 and Breaux teach 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 and Breaux teach 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 the remaining limitations of claim 11 as follows:
determine whether or not the first device is authenticated based on a role assigned to the first device;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Breaux discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
determine whether or not the first device is authenticated based on a role assigned to the first device (paras. [0037], [0082]-[0083], [0104], [0114], [0124], [0183], [0233], [0257], [0402] Figs. 12, 14: determining whether a mobile device is authorized/authenticated to act in a requested manner based on whether it is registered as a managed device and based on the usage context (i.e. role or function) transmitted/assigned to the mobile device from characteristics of the mobile device such as the function assigned to it, location, time of day and classification (i.e. whether it is for an emergency, safety, for an employee to use for work or to provide vehicle infotainment within a moving vehicle (and whether it is located in a passenger seat or seat of the vehicle operator));
Breaux is combinable with Matsumoto because both are from the same field of endeavor of managing registered mobile devices within a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Breaux’s method of authenticating a requested use of a mobile device within a vehicle based on determining that the mobile device is registered as a managed device and the usage context of the mobile device with the system of Matsumoto in order to increase the security and flexibility of the system by enabling the system to tailor specific permissions for use of the mobile device based upon the context of the mobile device while ensuring that the mobile device is not used in an unauthorized manner after it is registered.
Claims 3, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2019/0116044)) in view of Breaux III (US 2023/0156570) (hereafter “Breaux”), as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Acharya (US 20230076669).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Matsumoto and Breaux teach 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).
Neither Matsumoto or Breaux 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, Breaux 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 and Breaux 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Matsumoto and Breaux teach the limitations of the method of claims 1 and 5-6 and the system of claims 11 and 15-16.
Matsumoto and Breaux do not teach the limitations of claims 7 and 17, however in the same field of endeavor Acharya teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 17 follows:
wherein the providing the first device the access to the requested service comprises:
after determining that the first device is authenticated, 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) (paras. [0040], [0046], [0115]: after validating/authenticating electronic devices comprising the sender and the receiver in the vehicle, obtaining from the sender (i.e. second device) a private message JWS message (S2) requested to be sent to a receiver)
encrypting, based on a [[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) (paras. [0084], [0115]: broken encrypts the message JWS message (S2) with the public key of the recipient); and
providing the encrypted information to the first device (paras. [0114]-[0115]: the broker delivers the JWS message (S2) to the receiver (i.e. first device)).
Matsumoto, Breaux 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 encrypting messages using the public key of the recipient with the system of Matsumoto and Breaux in order to increase the security of the system by ensuring confidentiality of the message so that only the intended recipient can decrypt the message.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights