DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-15 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim status
2. a- This office action is in response to applicant reply on 27 November 2025. No Claims have been amended, no claims have been cancelled and no claims have been newly introduced. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
b- The indicated allowability of claim 1-3 and 11-13 in previous office action has been withdrawn in view of the newly introduced USC § 101 rejections as follows. Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 suffers the same deficiencies since they are directly or indirectly dependent on claims 1-3 and 11-13. Claims 6-10 are allowed. Therefore, 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected and Claims 6-10 are allowed. Delay in prosecution regretted.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 are directed to a method for identifying a driver by:
receiving a device identifier from a client device,
mapping the device identifier to a presumed driver identity,
receiving a second device identifier,
determining an actual driver identity using the second device identifier, and
performing actions based on whether the actual driver identity is known or differs from the presumed driver identity.
These limitations describe collecting information, analyzing the information, and making a determination, which constitute mental processes and data analysis, both of which are abstract ideas. Such steps can be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper and therefore fall within the judicial exception for abstract ideas.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 further limit the source of the device identifiers (e.g., key fob, mobile device, smart key, infotainment system), but these additional limitations merely specify the origin of the information being collected and do not alter the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration Into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claims recite a “vehicle computing device,” this element represents a generic computing environment and is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of driver identification and decision-making. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to vehicle technology, vehicle safety, vehicle security architecture, or computer functionality.
The recited steps of “performing a first action” and “performing a second action” are described at a high level of abstraction and are not tied to any specific vehicle subsystem or technical operation. As such, these limitations do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 recite conventional vehicle components (key fob, mobile device, smart key, infotainment system) performing their well-known functions of transmitting identifiers. These additional elements do not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Receiving identifiers, mapping identifiers to user identities, determining whether identities match, and performing conditional actions based on that determination are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of identity verification and access control.
The additional elements recited in claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 involve the use of conventional vehicle devices and infotainment systems operating in their ordinary and expected manner. The claims do not recite any unconventional data processing techniques, specialized vehicle hardware, or non-conventional interactions among system components.
When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the elements of claims 1-3 and 11-13 amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 11-13 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 suffers the same deficiencies since they are directly or indirectly dependent on claims 1-3 and 11-13.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
7. If the claimed invention is amended, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification, which dictate(s) the structure/description relied upon to assist the Examiner in proper interpretation of the amended language and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571) 270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday, 8:30 – 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W. Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689