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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 4/10/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the limitation of the request to perform one sided authentication, Hall teaches the authentication is one-sided because the authentication of the mobile device is only performed by the vehicle (step 305,310, fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443 and further in view of Troia et al. US Patent 10,749,680.
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Hall, III et al. teaches an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle, comprising: a wireless interface configured to communicate with an external device (col. 2 lines 54-65); a memory configured to store a public digital key of the external device exclusive of a private digital key of the motor vehicle
in which a public digital key of the device is stored (col. 3 lines 42-45, col. 5 lines 53); an interface to a control apparatus of the motor vehicle (col. 3 lines 32-56); a processing device which is configured to: detect a request from the device for one-sided authentication (col. 5 lines 26-45); perform an authentication of the device to the motor vehicle on the basis of the stored digital key (col. 5 lines 44-60); and activate the control apparatus if the authentication is successful (col. 6 lines 32-63). The authentication is one-sided because the authentication of the mobile device is only performed by the vehicle (step 305,310, fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2). Hall, III et al is not explicit in teaching determining a response based on a private digital key. Chin et al. in an analogous art teaches the conventional practice of using private key to decryption key to decrypt encrypted data and storing a public and private key (paragraph 036). Hill, III et al. in view of Chin et al. is not explicit in teaching memory of the apparatus for controlling the motor vehicle does not store the private key of the motor vehicle. Troia et al. in an analogous art teaches memory of the apparatus for controlling the motor vehicle does not store the private key of the motor vehicle (col. 5 lines 52-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al as disclosed by Chin et al. in view of Troia because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hall, III et al by providing the means for allowing various mobile devices to control the vehicle in a secure manner and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Hall, III et al. teaches a challenge-response authentication of the device to the motor vehicle is carried out (step 305,310, fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hall, III et al. teaches the control apparatus is configured to control a predetermined vehicle function (col. 3 lines 32-56, col. 6 lines 12-37).
Regarding claim 13, Hall, III et al. teaches a system, comprising: (i) an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle, comprising: a wireless interface configured to communicate with a mobile device (col. 2 lines 54-65); a memory in which a public digital key of the mobile device is stored (col. 4 lines 24-45, col. 5 lines 26-57); an interface to a control apparatus of the motor vehicle (col. 3 lines 32-56); a processing device which is configured to: detect a request from the mobile device for one-sided authentication (col. 5 lines 26-45); perform an authentication of the mobile device to the motor vehicle on the basis of the stored digital key (col. 5 lines 44-60); and activate the control apparatus if the authentication is successful (col. 6 lines 32-63); (ii) the mobile device with a wireless interface (col. 2 lines 54-65), wherein the mobile device is configured to: use the wireless interface to send a request for one-sided authentication to the apparatus for controlling the motor vehicle (col. 5 lines 26-45); authenticate a user to the mobile device (col. 5 lines 44-60); receive a challenge from the apparatus (fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2); determine a response based on a private digital key and transmit the response to the apparatus (col. 3 lines 4-20). Hall, III et al is not explicit in teaching determining a response based on a private digital key. Chin et al. in an analogous art teaches the conventional practice of using private key to decryption key to decrypt encrypted data and storing a public and private key (paragraph 036). Hill, III et al. in view of Chin et al. is not explicit in teaching memory of the apparatus for controlling the motor vehicle does not store the private key of the motor vehicle. Troia et al. in an analogous art teaches memory of the apparatus for controlling the motor vehicle does not store the private key of the motor vehicle (col. 5 lines 52-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al as disclosed by Chin et al. in view of Troia because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hall, III et al by providing the means for allowing various mobile devices to control the vehicle in a secure manner and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443
Regarding claim 11, Hall, III et al. teaches a mobile device with a wireless interface (col. 2 lines 54-65), wherein the mobile device is configured to:
use the wireless interface to send a request for one-sided authentication to an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle (step 305,310, fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2);
authenticate a user to the mobile device (col. 5 lines 26-45);
receive a challenge from the apparatus (fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2);
determine a response based on an encryption key associated with the mobile device and transmit the response to the apparatus (col. 3 lines 4-20). The authentication is one-sided because the authentication of the mobile device is only performed by the vehicle (step 305,310, fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2). Hall, III et al is not explicit in teaching determining a response based on a private digital key. Chin et al. in an analogous art teaches the conventional practice of using private key to decryption key to decrypt encrypted data (paragraph 036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al as disclosed by Chin et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hall, III et al by providing the means for allowing various mobile devices to control the vehicle in a secure manner and further increasing the security of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Hall, III et al. teaches a method of controlling a motor vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
establishing a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and an external device col. 2 lines 54-65);
authenticating a user to the external device (col. 5 lines 44-60);
one-sided authentication of the external device to the motor vehicle and
controlling the motor vehicle upon authentication (col. 6 lines 32-63). The authentication is one-sided because the authentication of the mobile device is only performed by the vehicle (step 305,310, fig. 3, col. 6-col. 7 line 2). Hall, III et al is not explicit in teaching determining a response based on a private digital key. Chin et al. in an analogous art teaches the conventional practice of using private key to decryption key to decrypt encrypted data (paragraph 036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al as disclosed by Chin et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hall, III et al by providing the means for allowing various mobile devices to control the vehicle in a secure manner and further increasing the security of the vehicle
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443 in view of Troia et al. US Patent 10,749,680 and further in view of Qiao US Patent Application Publication 20220242369.
Regarding claim 4-5, Hall, III et al. is silent on teaching the control apparatus is configured to control a physical entry to an interior of the motor vehicle. Qiao in an analogous art teaches the control apparatus is configured to control a physical entry to an interior of the motor vehicle (paragraph 022). Qiao teaches the wireless interface comprises an NFC interface (paragraph 022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al in view of Chin in view of Troia as disclosed by Qiao because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hall, III et al by increasing the functions available to the control system for increase security.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443 in view of Troia et al. US Patent 10,749,680 in view of Qiao US Patent Application Publication 20220242369 and further in view of Yamamoto et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170045797.
Regarding claim 6, Hall, III et al. in view of Oiao is silent on teaching the apparatus is configured to be operated by electrical energy received via the NFC interface. Yamamoto et al. in an analogous art teaches a vehicle using a NFC interface and teaches the apparatus is configured to be operated by electrical energy received via the NFC interface (paragraph 0195).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al. in view of Chin in view of Troia in view of Oiaoin as disclosed by Yamamoto et al because such modification represents the substitution of one means of power for another and producing the predictable result of power the NFC interface.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443 in view of Troia et al. US Patent 10,749,680 and further in view of Nishikawa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0039564.
Regarding claim 7, Hall, III et al teaches an interface to a security device that is configured to authenticate the motor vehicle to the device (col. 3 lines 32-56), but is silent on teaching the processing device is further configured to waive an authentication of the motor vehicle to the device if the security device is not available. Nishikawa et al. in an analogous art teaches waving an authentication process when a security device is unavailable (paragraph 091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hall, III et al. in view of Chin in view of Troia at the time of the invention as disclosed by Nishikawa et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hall, III et al. in view of Troia by providing an alternative means of accessing the vehicle when an authentication means is unavailable.
Regarding claim 8, Hall, III et al teaches the authentication of the motor vehicle to the device precedes an authentication of the device to the motor vehicle if the security device is available (col. 6 lines 32-63).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443 in view of Troia et al. US Patent 10,749,680 in view of Nishikawa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0039564 and further in view of Ansari et al. US Patent Application Publication 20060224305.
Regarding claim 9, Hall, III et al is silent on teaching the control apparatus is configured to operate independently of the security device. Ansari et al. in an analogous art teaches the control apparatus is configured to operate independently of the security device (vehicle functions are operable without authentication, paragraph 031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al. in view of Chin in view of Troia in view of Nishikawa as disclosed by Ansari et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, III et al. US Patent 9197413 in view of Chin et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190028443 and further in view of Prasad US Patent Application Publication 20230066754.
Regarding claim 12 and 15, Hall, III et al. is silent on teaching a secure memory in which the private digital key is stored, wherein the mobile device is further configured to permit access to the key only after successful authentication of the user. Prasad in an analogous art teaches a secure memory in which the private digital key is stored, wherein the mobile device is further configured to permit access to the key only after successful authentication of the user (paragraph 049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hall, III et al. in view of Chin as disclosed by Prasad because such modification represents an improvement over the system Hall, III et al. in view of Chin by ensuring only authorized users are allowed access to the control functions of the mobile device and further increasing the security of the vehicle control system.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights