DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, 13, 14 are amended. Claims 1-8, 10-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufl (WO2020058059A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Kaufl discloses an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle, the apparatus (access system for a vehicle; page 1) comprising:
a wireless interface for communicating with an external device (via Bluetooth or NFC to communicate with portable electronic device 30, 40; Pages 6-8);
a memory in which a public digital key of the device is stored (The emergency release unit 22 can, for example, have the public or secret authentication key or keys that are used in the emergency state, page 10);
an interface to a control apparatus of the motor vehicle (via inherent interface to door lock to unlock the door locks; page 4);
a processing device which is configured to:
determine a lack of availability of a security device configured to perform a two-sided authentication with the external device (If the corresponding connections in the vehicle are broken, automatic unlocking is no longer possible. In the known systems, there is therefore the risk that rescue workers cannot open the vehicle doors in the event of an accident, Page 2; activate emergency release unit 22 to operate in emergency state to allow authentication by portable electronic device, Page 10, 8);
based on a determination that the security device is unavailable (Paragraphs 7-8, page 3), perform a one-sided authentication of the external device to the motor vehicle on the basis of the public digital key; and activate the control apparatus when the authentication is successful (Receives the control unit 20th a signal Sig1, Sig2 from a portable electronic device 30, 40 and is in an emergency, it can use a different key for authentication. This can be, for example, a public key or a second secret key. If it is a public key, the vehicle can from any suitable portable device 40 be unlocked. In the event of an accident, the portable electronic device 40 usually a device 40, for example a passer-by or rescue workers who are not authorized to drive the vehicle in normal condition 10th to unlock. For example, the public key can be a general NFC key. The vehicle 10th can be unlocked, for example, if any NFC signal from an NFC-enabled device 40 was received; page 8);
wherein the apparatus is configured to determine whether the lack of availability of the security device is based on a failure of the security device (after an accident, normal unlock fails to work, Paragraphs 7-8, page 2; and Pages 7-8), and to send a request for the one-sided authentication to the mobile device using the wireless interface based on the failure (via Bluetooth connection, last Paragraph, page 7).
Regarding claim 2, Kaufl discloses wherein a challenge-response authentication of the external device to the motor vehicle is carried out (via signal in response to a triggering event in Bluetooth or NFC communication protocols; pages 4, 9).
Regarding claim 3, Kaufl discloses wherein the control apparatus is configured to control a predetermined vehicle function (via unlock a vehicle lock; page 7).
Regarding claim 4, Kaufl discloses wherein the control apparatus is configured to control a physical entry to an interior of the motor vehicle (via unlock a vehicle lock; page 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kaufl discloses wherein the wireless interface comprises an NFC interface (Page 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kaufl discloses wherein an authentication of the motor vehicle to the external device precedes an authentication of the external device to the motor vehicle when the security device is available (The vehicle 10th is only unlocked when a portable device 30th , 40 is recognized as authorized. Receives the control unit 20th a signal Sig1 , Sig2 from a portable electronic device 30th , 40 and is in an emergency, it can use a different key for authentication. This can be, for example, a public key or a second secret key; page 8).
Regarding claim 8, Kaufl discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to operate independently of the security device (in an emergency, it can use a different key for authentication. This can be, for example, a public key or a second secret key; page 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decke (US 20180093641) and further in view of Kaufl (WO2020058059A1).
Regarding claim 11, Decke discloses a mobile device (20, para. 39), comprising:
a wireless interface (Bluetooth, Para. 39), wherein the mobile device is configured to:
use the wireless interface to receive a challenge from an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle (via Bluetooth connection with vehicle module 16 to unlock vehicle included in usage rights, Para. 28, 39-41);
authenticate a user to the mobile device (login of the user into a user account via the mobile terminal device, through the input of a username and/or a password and/or the input of the identification number on the mobile terminal device, Para. 24);
determine a response based on a private digital key; and transmit the response to the apparatus (Para. 24, 28 and 40-41).
Decke fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to determine whether a security device of the motor vehicle is unavailable due to a failure of the security device, and to send a request for one-sided authentication to the mobile device using the wireless interface based on the failure.
Kaufl teaches a vehicle apparatus configured to determine whether a security device of the motor vehicle is unavailable due to a failure of the security device (after an accident, normal unlock fails to work, Paragraphs 7-8, page 2; and Pages 7-8), and to send a request for one-sided authentication to the mobile device using the wireless interface based on the failure (via Bluetooth connection, last paragraph, Page 7).
From the teachings of Kaufl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Decke to include wherein the apparatus is configured to determine whether a security device of the motor vehicle is unavailable due to a failure of the security device, and to send a request for one-sided authentication to the mobile device using the wireless interface based on the failure in order to provide unlocking in case of an accident, thereby improve safety in emergencies.
Regarding claim 12, Decke discloses a secure memory in which the private digital key is stored (para. 22), wherein the mobile device is configured to permit access to the key only after successful authentication of the user (Para. 24).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufl (WO2020058059A1), and further in view of Krawczewicz (US 20190095655).
Regarding claim 6, Kaufl fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to be operated by electrical energy received via the NFC interface.
Krawczewicz teaches a NFC communication module can be configured to be batteryless and powered externally (Para. 135).
From the teachings of Krawczewicz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kaufl to include wherein the apparatus is configured to be operated by electrical energy received via the NFC interface in order to allow communication without the need for a power source, thereby improve reliability.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufl (WO2020058059A1), and further in view of Decke (US 20180093641).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 15, Kaufl discloses the structural elements of the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 1), but fails to disclose the mobile device is configured to authenticate a user to the mobile device and determine a response based on a private digital key.
Decke teaches an access system including a mobile device, wherein the mobile device is configured to authenticate a user to the mobile device, and determine a response based on a private digital key (Para. 24, 28 and 40-41).
From the teachings of Decke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kaufl to include the mobile device is configured to authenticate a user to the mobile device in order to secure access to the mobile device and determine a response based on a private digital key in order to improve security of authentication based on asymmetric cryptography.
Conclusion
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 YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins Feild can be reached at (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 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights