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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/18/2016 has been entered.
As per instant Amendment, Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 03/01/2017, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: “[T]he cited combination does not supply the claimed default state, and the stated motivation presupposes an existing channel,” as recites in claim 1.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, McColgan teaches establishing a short-range wireless communications connection between a host device and a client device, and Peirce teaches establishing a wireless connection and securely communicating information between a vehicle and a central facility. McColgan and Peirce are both from the same analogues art and therefore they are combinable. One of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would been motivated to combine the two references to drive at applicant invention. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: “[T]he cited combination does not disclose “determining, based on the information associated with the connection request, that a scope of connection to the vehicle is inconsistent with the information associated with the connection request,” as recite in claims 3 and 13.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that McColgan discloses determining, based on the information associated with the connection request, that a scope of connection to the vehicle is inconsistent with the information associated with the connection request (McColgan: par. 0085 an established and secured SRWC connection may be inactivated due to a period of inactivity (i.e., a period of no communications between the vehicle and the mobile device 90 via the established SRWC connection). Or the connection may be inactivated upon receipt of an unsuccessful challenge response and/or a detection that the mobile device 90 is out of range of the vehicle 12). More specifically, McColagen discloses the client device can send reservation parameters to a remote server, which can then generate a client certificate for use in establishing a secure connection between the host device (e.g., vehicle) and the client device (e.g., a smartphone) [] the client certificate and one or more virtual keys [] can be sent to the client device for use in establishing a secure SRWC connection with host device [par. 0029] and the remote facility that issues a client certificate to the mobile device can include information relating to the host certificate(s) and/or host keys. For example, the remote facility could include a copy of the host keys and/or certificates and, when a reservation or control request is received, the remote facility can use this information to derive a client certificate and/or client keys that can be used later by the vehicle in authenticating the client device [par. 0045]. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: “Smith does not remedy the deficiencies of McColgan and Peirce.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, McColgan teaches establishing a short-range wireless communications connection between a host device and a client device, Peirce teaches establishing a wireless connection and securely communicating information between a vehicle and a central facility, and Smith teaches establishing a communication link for exchanging communications between the first device and the second device. McColgan, Peirce, and Smith are both from the same analogues art and therefore they are combinable. One of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would been motivated to combine the references to drive at applicant invention. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The new reference and Smith et al. (US 2019/0253262) is applied in the rejection below to address amended claims 1 and 11.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McColgan et al. (“McColgan,” US 2019/0166635) in view of Peirce et al. (“Peirce,” US 2015/0100197) and Smith et al. (“Smith,” US 2019/0253262).
Regarding claim 1: McColgan discloses a method for allowing a connection to a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server from a remote device, a connection request for the vehicle (McColgan: par. 0032 a user may request control of or reserve the host device through sending a reservation or control request to a remote server; 0029 a host device (e.g., a vehicle) may be reserved for use by a particular user through use of a client device, such as a smartphone or a computer);
verifying, by the server, the connection request (McColgan: par. 0032 the remote server can then generate a client certificate based on the one or more host certificate(s));
in response to verifying the connection request, generating by the server, an authorization certificate (McColgan: par. 0045 the remote facility that issues a client certificate to the mobile device);
transmitting, by the server, the authorization certificate (McColgan: par. 0032 the remote server can then generate a client certificate [] and, subsequently, send the client certificate and a private key corresponding to the client certificate to the client device);
receiving, by the vehicle, the authorization certificate (McColgan: par. 0032 the mobile device can send the client certificate to the vehicle);
authenticating, by the vehicle, the authorization certificate (McColgan: par. 0032 the mobile device can send the client certificate to the vehicle, which can then verify the certificate by determining whether the client certificate corresponds to the host certificate(s)); and
in response to the authenticating the authorization certificate, activating, by the vehicle, a vehicle communication system (McColgan: par. 0058 the host certificate can be used to verify that the client device is properly authenticated as being a device that may access or control the vehicle; par. 0030 the mobile device may send a command to the vehicle that instructs the vehicle to carry out one or more vehicle functions).
McColgan does disclose remote server but does not explicitly disclose an authorization server, a vehicle communication system including onboard diagnostic data from at least one electronic control unit of the vehicle, changing, by the vehicle, a vehicle access locker to allow data to pass between a diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system, and transmitting, by the vehicle, the onboard diagnostic data to the diagnostic device.
However, Peirce discloses an authorization server (Peirce: par. 0009 the central facility can determine whether the received sender identity is authorized to access the vehicle module);
a vehicle communication system including onboard diagnostic data from at least one electronic control unit of the vehicle (Peirce: par. 0031 the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 can be linked via wire to the OBD II connector at the vehicle 12 via an RS232 or RS 485 port used by the tool 58 [] the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 can then attempt to communicate with one or more vehicle modules 42 located on the vehicle 12 as part of gathering data and/or performing vehicle diagnostic tests);
changing, by the vehicle, a vehicle access locker to allow data to pass between a diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system (Peirce: par. 0031 communicatively linking the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 with the vehicle 12 [] can then attempt to communicate with one or more vehicle modules 42; par. 0032 the module(s) 42 can block access/communication of data [] until the tool 58 successfully provides an answer or response to the challenge query); and
transmitting, by the vehicle, the onboard diagnostic data to the diagnostic device (Peirce: par. 0032 the vehicle telematics unit 30 can then access one of a number of challenge queries stored at the unit 30 and either send the query to the vehicle module 42, which provides the challenge query to the vehicle diagnostic tool 58, or send the query directly to the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 over the communication bus 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Peirce with the system/method of McColgan to include changing, by the vehicle, a vehicle access locker to allow data to pass between a diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system. One would have been motivated to providing securely communicating information between a vehicle and a central facility relates to vehicle service or diagnostic tools (Peirce: par. 0009).
McColgan in view of Peirce does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle access locker, prior to authenticating the authorization certificate, is in a default state in which no communication channel exist between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system.
However, Smith discloses wherein the vehicle access locker, prior to authenticating the authorization certificate, is in a default state in which no communication channel exist between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system (Smith: par. 0018 the first device and the second device may be configured to establish a communication link for exchanging communications, where prior to establishing the communication link, the second device has received no information indicating the first device has obtained the authorization configuration information pertaining to authorization for the first device to issue the command to the second device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith with the system/method of McColgan and Peirce to include the vehicle access locker, prior to authenticating the authorization certificate, is in a default state in which no communication channel exist between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system. One would have been motivated to providing systems and methods for authenticating and authorizing devices (Smith: par. 0001).
Regarding claim 2: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
McColgan further discloses wherein the connection request includes information associated with the connection request, wherein the information associated with the connection request includes a vehicle identifier, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, a trim of the vehicle, diagnostic information for the vehicle, a type of connection requested, a type of service and operations to be performed, an indication of vehicle systems to be accessed by the remote device, a duration of access requested, a time of access requested, an identity of an individual from which the connection request was received, a type of facility from which the connection request was received, information associated with the remote device, information associated with devices to be communicatively coupled to the vehicle, or any combination thereof (McColgan: par. 0038 account information such as subscriber authentication information, vehicle identifiers, profile records, behavioral patterns, and other pertinent subscriber information).
Regarding claim 3: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 2.
McColgan further discloses determining, based on the information associated with the connection request, that a scope of connection to the vehicle is inconsistent with the information associated with the connection request; and in response to the determining that the scope of the connection to the vehicle is inconsistent with the information associated with the connection request, deactivating, by the vehicle, the vehicle communication system (McColgan: par. 0085 an established and secured SRWC connection may be inactivated due to a period of inactivity (i.e., a period of no communications between the vehicle and the mobile device 90 via the established SRWC connection). Or the connection may be inactivated upon receipt of an unsuccessful challenge response and/or a detection that the mobile device 90 is out of range of the vehicle 12).
Peirce further discloses wherein deactivating the vehicle communication system includes at least one of blocking communication through a physical port of the vehicle or blocking communication from the physical port to the at least one electronic control unit (Peirce: par. 0032 once the vehicle module(s) 42 receive communications from the vehicle diagnostic tool 58, the module(s) 42 can block access/communication of data or execution of any programs until the tool 58 successfully provides an answer or response to the challenge query [] the vehicle telematics unit 30 can then access one of a number of challenge queries stored at the unit 30 and either send the query to the vehicle module 42).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the verifying the connection request includes verifying operational details included in the connection request, the method further comprising:
in response to the verifying the connection request, including, in the authorization certificate by the authorization server, operational authorizations, wherein the operational authorizations indicate allowed operational roles associated with the connection request (Smith: par. 0180 the authorization type may ultimately indicate the type of role a particular device 110 has over a particular SCM 120. In the system 100, the authorization type may also determine the authorization rights associated with a particular authorization; par. 0114 the Cloud Authorization Approval service, is on a separate server from the cloud service 130).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 5.
McColgan further discloses determining that the connection to the vehicle is outside of a scope of the operational authorizations (McColgan: par. 0085 the connection may be inactivated upon receipt of an unsuccessful challenge response and/or a detection that the mobile device 90 is out of range of the vehicle 12).
Peirce further discloses changing, by the vehicle, the vehicle access locker to prevent data to pass between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system (Peirce: par. 0031 communicatively linking the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 with the vehicle 12 [] can then attempt to communicate with one or more vehicle modules 42; par. 0032 the module(s) 42 can block access/communication of data [] until the tool 58 successfully provides an answer or response to the challenge query).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
McColgan further discloses wherein the vehicle communication system is an onboard diagnostic system, and wherein the activating the vehicle communication system comprises activating an onboard diagnostic port of the vehicle (McColgan: par. 0042 the vehicle 12 can also include other VSMs 42 in the form of electronic hardware components that are located throughout the vehicle and, which may receive input from one or more sensors and use the sensed input to perform diagnostic, monitoring, control, reporting, and/or other functions. Each of the VSMs 42 [] can be programmed to run vehicle system and subsystem diagnostic tests).
Regarding claim 8: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses in response to receipt of the connection request for the vehicle, generating an owner prompt by the authorization server (Smith: par. 0234 Steps 821,822. User A may instruct her device A to issue a guest authorization to User B. The device 110 sends the request to the cloud 130. Step 823; par. 0114 the Cloud Authorization Approval service, is on a separate server from the cloud service 130);
transmitting, by the authorization server to a user device associated with an owner of the vehicle, the owner prompt (Smith: par. 0234 the cloud 130 verifies that user A's device 110 is authorized to issue the authorization for the given SCM 120. Step 824 [] The cloud 130 requests one of user B's devices 110 to accept or reject the authorization. Step 826);
receiving, from the user device, approval of the owner prompt (Smith: par. 0234 the device 110 used by user A to approve the changes, signs the approved Candidate ACP and sends it to the cloud 130. Step 828); and
wherein the activating the vehicle communication system is further in response to the approval of the owner prompt (Smith: par. 0231 the owner account and/or device 110 may also delegate approval authority of the ACP 400 to another account and/or device 110 attempting to issue an authorization).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 8.
Smith further discloses wherein the owner prompt includes a vehicle identifier, a make of the vehicle, diagnostic information for the vehicle, a type of connection requested, a type of service and operations to be performed, an indication of vehicle systems to be accessed by the remote device, a duration of access requested, a time of access requested, an identity of an individual from which the connection request was received, a type of facility from which the connection request was received, information associated with the remote device, information associated with devices to be communicatively coupled to the vehicle, or any combination thereof (Smith: par. 0316 example purpose of the SCM-ID is [] such as a serial number, a manufacturer part number (MPN), a Universal Product Code (UPC), an International/European Article Number (EAN), a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)).
The motivation is the same that of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
McColgan further discloses identifying, by the vehicle based on the authorization certificate, a first vehicle system to which access is required (McColgan: par. 0019 receiving a vehicle command request message from the mobile device, wherein the vehicle command request message includes a request to carry out a vehicle function; and carrying out the vehicle function using the vehicle); and
providing access, via the vehicle communication system, to the first vehicle system (McColgan: par. 0032 the vehicle and the mobile device can communicate with one another securely through use of the shared secret, which can be a private symmetric encryption key).
Regarding claim 11: McColgan discloses a system for allowing a connection to a vehicle, the system comprising:
a server (McColgan: par. 0029 a remote server), wherein the server is configured to:
receive, from a remote device, a connection request for the vehicle (McColgan: par. 0032 a user may request control of or reserve the host device through sending a reservation or control request to a remote server; 0029 a host device (e.g., a vehicle) may be reserved for use by a particular user through use of a client device, such as a smartphone or a computer);
verify the connection request (McColgan: par. 0032 the remote server can then generate a client certificate based on the one or more host certificate(s));
in response to verifying the connection request, generate an authorization certificate; and
transmit the authorization certificate (McColgan: par. 0045 the remote facility that issues a client certificate to the mobile device); and
the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is configured to:
authenticate the authorization certificate (McColgan: par. 0032 the mobile device can send the client certificate to the vehicle, which can then verify the certificate by determining whether the client certificate corresponds to the host certificate(s)); and
in response to authenticating the authorization certificate, activate a vehicle communication system (McColgan: par. 0058 the host certificate can be used to verify that the client device is properly authenticated as being a device that may access or control the vehicle; par. 0030 the mobile device may send a command to the vehicle that instructs the vehicle to carry out one or more vehicle functions).
McColgan does disclose remote server but does not explicitly disclose an authorization server, a vehicle communication system including onboard diagnostic data from at least one electronic control unit of the vehicle, change, by the vehicle, a vehicle access locker to allow data to pass between a diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system and transmit, by the vehicle, the onboard diagnostic data to the diagnostic device.
However, Peirce discloses an authorization server (Peirce: par. 0009 the central facility can determine whether the received sender identity is authorized to access the vehicle module);
a vehicle communication system including onboard diagnostic data from at least one electronic control unit of the vehicle (Peirce: par. 0031 the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 can be linked via wire to the OBD II connector at the vehicle 12 via an RS232 or RS 485 port used by the tool 58 [] the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 can then attempt to communicate with one or more vehicle modules 42 located on the vehicle 12 as part of gathering data and/or performing vehicle diagnostic tests);
change, by the vehicle, a vehicle access locker to allow data to pass between a diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system (Peirce: par. 0031 communicatively linking the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 with the vehicle 12 [] can then attempt to communicate with one or more vehicle modules 42; par. 0032 the module(s) 42 can block access/communication of data [] until the tool 58 successfully provides an answer or response to the challenge query); and
transmit, by the vehicle, the onboard diagnostic data to the diagnostic device (Peirce: par. 0032 the vehicle telematics unit 30 can then access one of a number of challenge queries stored at the unit 30 and either send the query to the vehicle module 42, which provides the challenge query to the vehicle diagnostic tool 58, or send the query directly to the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 over the communication bus 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Peirce with the system/method of McColgan to include changing, by the vehicle, a vehicle access locker to allow data to pass between a diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system. One would have been motivated to providing securely communicating information between a vehicle and a central facility relates to vehicle service or diagnostic tools (Peirce: par. 0009).
McColgan in view of Peirce does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle access locker, prior to authenticating the authorization certificate, is in a default state in which no communication channel exist between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system.
However, Smith discloses wherein the vehicle access locker, prior to authenticating the authorization certificate, is in a default state in which no communication channel exist between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system (Smith: par. 0018 the first device and the second device may be configured to establish a communication link for exchanging communications, where prior to establishing the communication link, the second device has received no information indicating the first device has obtained the authorization configuration information pertaining to authorization for the first device to issue the command to the second device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith with the system/method of McColgan and Peirce to include the vehicle access locker, prior to authenticating the authorization certificate, is in a default state in which no communication channel exist between the diagnostic device and the vehicle communication system. One would have been motivated to providing systems and methods for authenticating and authorizing devices (Smith: par. 0001).
Regarding claims 12-13: Claims 12-13 are similar in scope to claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 15-20: Claims 15-20 are similar in scope to claims 5-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21: McColgan in view of Peirce and Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
Peirce further discloses wherein the diagnostic device and the remote device are the same device (Peirce: par. 0034 depending on how the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 is configured, the challenge query can be sent from the smart phone 57 or the tool 58 itself. That is, it is possible to transmit the challenge query from the vehicle diagnostic tool 58 if it is equipped to do so).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22: Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fahimeh Mohammadi whose telephone number is (571)270-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/FAHIMEH MOHAMMADI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights