DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/02/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1-20 have been amended; and claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on 05/30/2026 and 03/24/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which were necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
Claim 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaja et al. (US 2020/0135190; Hereinafter “Kaja”).
Regarding claim 1, Kaja teaches a method comprising: receiving data from a device of an occupant of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is configured to respond to a command from the device (Kaja: Para. [0022], At operation 206, the computing platform 104 receives a voice command made from the user and captures one or more images of the cabin of the vehicle 102. As discussed above, the microphone 126 may be provided with direction-detecting feature and at operation 208 the computing platform 104 detects and determines the direction or location where the voice command is made using the direction information from the microphone 126 and/or the audio controller 122. In case that the camera 118 is movable, the computing platform may further move the camera 118 in the direction of or focus on the location of the voice command source to capture an image. Para. [0023], Responsive to detecting the location/direction of the source of the voice command, at operation 210, the computing platform 104 performs facial recognition on the image captured inside the vehicle cabin using the location/direction of the source.).
identifying that an unauthorized user possesses the device based on the data (Kaja: Para. [0023], Facial images of authorized users may be previously recorded and stored in the storage 106 e.g. as a part of the vehicle data 110. By comparing the facial image captured via the interior camera 118 with the previously stored images using image processing and facial recognition technologies, the computing platform 104 may determine if the user making the voice command is authorized.); and
disallowing the command in response to the unauthorized user being identified (Kaja: Para. [0023], If the computing platform 104 determines that voice command is from an unauthorized user through the facial recognition and/or the voice print recognition at operation 214, the process proceeds to operation 216 and the computing platform declines the voice command. A feedback may be provided to the vehicle user informing the declination of the voice command.).
Regarding claim 2, Kaja teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving comprises receiving image data from a camera of the device, and the identifying comprises identifying that unauthorized user possesses the device based on the image data (Kaja: Para. [0023], Facial images of authorized users may be previously recorded and stored in the storage 106 e.g. as a part of the vehicle data 110. By comparing the facial image captured via the interior camera 118 with the previously stored images using image processing and facial recognition technologies, the computing platform 104 may determine if the user making the voice command is authorized.).
Regarding claim 5, Kaja teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving comprises receiving an image of a current user of the device from the device, and the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the device based on a comparison of the image with a previously registered imaged of an authorized user of the device (Kaja: Para. [0023], Facial images of authorized users may be previously recorded and stored in the storage 106 e.g. as a part of the vehicle data 110. By comparing the facial image captured via the interior camera 118 with the previously stored images using image processing and facial recognition technologies, the computing platform 104 may determine if the user making the voice command is authorized.).
Regarding claim 7, Kaja teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the disallowing comprises disabling a capability of the device to connect to the vehicle (Hannon: Para. [0023], If the computing platform 104 determines that voice command is from an unauthorized user through the facial recognition and/or the voice print recognition at operation 214, the process proceeds to operation 216 and the computing platform declines the voice command. A feedback may be provided to the vehicle user informing the declination of the voice command.).
Regarding claims 8-9, Claims 8-9 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-2, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding claims 15-16, Claims 15-16 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-2, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaja et al. (US 2020/0135190; Hereinafter “Kaja”) in view of Davis et al. (US 2013/0167207; Hereinafter “Davis”).
Regarding claim 3, Kaja teaches the method of claim 1. Kaja does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving comprises receiving information about an action performed on a lock screen of the device, and the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the associated device based on a pattern of behavior identified from the information.
In an analogous art, Davis teaches wherein the receiving comprises receiving information about an action performed on a lock screen of the device, and the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the associated device based on a pattern of behavior identified from the information (Davis: Para. [0038], For example, if an application enables a mobile phone or a smartphone or an electronic device, such as a key fob, to open doors to a home or car, it may be important to determine that the user of the device/phone/key fob/etc. is the true owner or otherwise an authorized user. Para. [0100], For instance, a level of authentication module 102/102a of a computing device 10 of FIG. 1 may detect via movement sensors 202 (e.g., including touch or pressure sensors) manners of swiping an input on computing device 10 to determine a pattern of use (e.g., swipes may exhibit a common length or particular lengths that vary based on context; swipes may exhibit a typical speed of finger movement; swipes may exhibit a frequent direction or angle of movement; swipes may exhibit a typical location on a screen--with respect to a top, middle, or bottom of a relevant targeted area, such as a whole displayed page of a multi-page document, or with respect to a precision of a visually-guided swipe zone, such as to unlock a screen; swipes may exhibit a recurring usage pattern in lieu of other device manipulation options, such as swiping in lieu of pressing a particular menu item or defined touch-sensitive zone to turn a page; any combination thereof; etc.) associated with an authorized user.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Davis with the system and method of Kaja to include wherein the receiving comprises receiving information about an action performed on a lock screen of the device, and the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the associated device based on a pattern of behavior identified from the information because this functionality provides authentication techniques to ensure that the user of a car is authorized (Davis: Para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaja et al. (US 2020/0135190; Hereinafter “Kaja”) in view of Mittal et al. (US 2022/0070641; Hereinafter “Mittal”).
Regarding claim 4, Kaja teaches the method of claim 1. Kaja does not explicitly teach comprising: registering the device with the vehicle as a connected device based on vehicle information from the device.
In an analogous art, Mittal teaches comprising: registering the device with the vehicle as a connected device based on vehicle information from the device (Mittal: Para. [0038], In some implementations, the device authorization certificate can be provided by the operations computing system to the user device prior to generating the temporary pairing code associated with the vehicle. As an example, the device authorization certificate can be a permanent authorization certificate provided to the user device when registering the user device with the service entity and/or the vehicle provider (e.g., a “birth” authorization certificate, etc.). In some implementations, the device authorization certificate is configured to authorize the user device to obtain the operational certificate. Para. [0039], Para. [0150], More particularly, an application executed by the user device (e.g., an application associated with the service entity, etc.) can facilitate provision of the device pairing request to the operations computing system by obtaining the temporary pairing code and including the temporary pairing code in the device pairing request. The application can include the temporary pairing code in the device pairing request alongside an operational certificate. Para. [0151]-[0154]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Mittal with the system and method of Kaja to include comprising: registering the device with the vehicle as a connected device based on vehicle information from the device because this functionality provides for secure pairing between passenger-oriented applications and vehicles (Mittal: Para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaja et al. (US 2020/0135190; Hereinafter “Kaja”) in view of Ricci (US 2018/0126951).
Regarding claim 6, Kaja teaches the method of claim 1. Kaja, does not explicitly teach wherein the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the device based on a comparison of commands received by the device to a common pattern of behavior associated with an authorized user when accessing the vehicle through the device.
In an analogous art, Ricci teaches wherein the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the device based on a comparison of commands received by the device to a common pattern of behavior associated with an authorized user when accessing the vehicle through the device (Ricci: Fig. 10-11, Para. [0100], Operator or passenger factors or the factors of an external individual include user selected credentials (e.g., password or personal identification number) or biometric data. Biometric data relates to a metric of a physiological or behavioral human characteristic. Behavioral characteristics are related to the pattern of behavior of a person, including, but not limited to, typing rhythm, typing speed, pattern in key press intervals, gait, and voice (e.g., voice audible or spectral characteristic or digital voice print mapping parameter(s)). Para. [0086], [0092])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Ricci with the system and method of Kaja to include wherein the identifying comprises identifying that the unauthorized user possesses the device based on a comparison of commands received by the device to a common pattern of behavior associated with an authorized user when accessing the vehicle through the device because this functionality provides for improved authentication techniques in vehicle systems (Ricci: Para. [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0047687 by Camhi et al. (Camhi: Para. [0025], Para. [0060], Para. [0075])
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights