DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 18 and 20-22 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed authorization features address technical problems associated with servicing modern, network-connected, vehicles and are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A solution to a technical problem must be unconventional to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, see MPEP § 2106.05(a). The authorizing performed by the system is generically recited, and using a computer to generically authorize access to data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See rejection below.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it was submitted with the amendments to the specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term BLUETOOTH in paragraphs 25, 34, 47, 61 and 70 and the operating systems listed in paragraph 103, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
In paragraph 92, lines 7-8, “the vehicle can encrypt, compression or otherwise process” should read “the vehicle can encrypt, compress or otherwise process”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, 18 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 18, lines 14 and 12, respectively, “to access to at least part of” should read “to access at least part of”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 1, line 19, “authorized access the at least part of” should read “authorized access to the at least part of”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 8 and 21, lines 3-4 and 5-6, respectively, “that results an automating revoking a right to access to the vehicle data” should read “that results in automatically revoking a right to access the vehicle data”.
In claim 9, line 3, “computing devise” should read “computing device”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 18, line 5, “exchanged with a third party service provider” should read “exchanged with the third party service provider” to make it clear that it is the same third part service provider that the method is directed to providing vehicle data access to in lines 1-2.
In claim 18, line 13 should end with a semicolon to separate it from the following limitation. This appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 20 is objected to because it is labelled “Currently Amended” but does not appear to indicate any changes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, lines 7-9 and 4-6, respectively, the limitation “the geographic criteria specify vehicle data to be exchanged … in response to the vehicle service requests and geographic boundary information” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the geographic criteria specify both vehicle data to be exchanged and geographic boundary information, or vehicle data to be exchanged in response to both service requests and geographic boundary information. Paragraph 17 discloses the geographic criteria can be geofencing information and paragraph 43 discloses the geographic criteria can include specification of one or more specific vehicle data information or types of vehicle data that should be transmitted. Paragraph 42 further discloses the geographic criteria may be received from a plurality of third parties. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the geographic criteria specifies both vehicle data to be exchanged and geographic boundary information.
Claims 5 and 20, line 4, contain the trademark/trade name BLUETOOTH. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an information source and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Bluetooth information sources are information sources using a low power radio that streams data over 79 channels in the 2.4GHz unlicensed industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) frequency band.
Regarding claim 7, lines 2-3, the limitation “technicians associated with the third party service provider access the vehicle data based on criteria” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the criteria are the geographic criteria that determine the selected vehicle data to exchange with the party service provider that includes one or more technicians recited in claim 1, lines 21-23. Paragraph 55 discloses the user authentication component provides one or more criteria to authorize technicians, such as criteria based on the physical location of the technicians, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 7 is directed to criteria that are not the geographic criteria.
Regarding claim 18, lines 14-16, the limitation “the triggering actions include a request to access the vehicle data and be provided to the third party service provider” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is provided to the third party service provider. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the triggering actions include a request for the vehicle data to be provided to the third party service provider similar to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-9 and 20-22 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for providing vehicle data access (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A system for providing vehicle data access to a third party service provider based on a vehicle location, the system comprising one or more external computing devices associated with a processor and a memory for executing computer-executable instructions that cause the one or more external computing devices to:
obtain, from a vehicle data service, a geographic criteria corresponding to vehicle service requests from a user, wherein the geographic criteria specify vehicle data to be exchanged with the third party service provider in response to the vehicle service requests and geographic boundary information, wherein the geographic boundary information indicates a geofence region associated with the third party service provider;
determine a vehicle location information by accessing a vehicle location based service component;
verify the determined vehicle location information to the geographic criteria [mental process/step];
authorize the third party service provider to access to at least part of the vehicle data upon the verification [mental process/step];
detect one or more triggering actions, wherein the triggering actions include a request for the vehicle data to be provided to the third party service provider, and wherein the third party service provider is configured to provide a vehicle service in response to the vehicle service requests and based on the authorized access the at least part of the vehicle data [mental process/step];
determine selected vehicle data to exchange with the third party service provider based on the obtained geographic criteria, wherein the third party service provider includes one or more technicians associated with the third party service provider [mental process/step]; and
cause exchange of the selected vehicle data between the vehicle and the third party service provider.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “verify the determined vehicle location information to the geographic criteria” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating if a vehicle is positioned within a specific area. “Authorize the third party service provider…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making a decision to provide vehicle data to the third party service provider. “Detect one or more triggering action…” and “determine selected vehicle data to exchange…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person forming simple judgements based on collected data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for providing vehicle data access to a third party service provider based on a vehicle location, the system comprising one or more external computing devices associated with a processor and a memory for executing computer-executable instructions that cause the one or more external computing devices to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing components]:
obtain, from a vehicle data service, a geographic criteria corresponding to vehicle service requests from a user, wherein the geographic criteria specify vehicle data to be exchanged with the third party service provider in response to the vehicle service requests and geographic boundary information, wherein the geographic boundary information indicates a geofence region associated with the third party service provider [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
determine a vehicle location information by accessing a vehicle location based service component [pre-solution activity (receiving data)];
verify the determined vehicle location information to the geographic criteria;
authorize the third party service provider to access to at least part of the vehicle data upon the verification;
detect one or more triggering actions, wherein the triggering actions include a request for the vehicle data to be provided to the third party service provider and wherein the third party service provider is configured to provide a vehicle service in response to the vehicle service requests and based on the authorized access the at least part of the vehicle data;
determine selected vehicle data to exchange with the third party service provider based on the obtained geographic criteria, wherein the third party service provider includes one or more technicians associated with the third party service provider; and
cause exchange of the selected vehicle data between the vehicle and the third party service provider [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “obtain … a geographic criteria…”, “determine a vehicle location…”, and “cause exchange of the selected vehicle data…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (one or more external computing devices) to perform the process. In particular, the obtain geographic criteria and determine vehicle location steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining position data), and amount to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The cause data exchange step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of providing data to the vehicle and provider), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor” and “memory” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of storing and executing instructions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the verify, authorize, determine, and detect steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “obtain … a geographic criteria…”, “determine a vehicle location…”, and “cause exchange of the selected vehicle data…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-9 and 20-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 4-9 and 20-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-9, 18 and 20-22 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal (US 2017/0228709) in view of Ha et al. (US 2020/0265655), hereinafter Ha.
Regarding claim 1, 4 and 18, as best understood, Dhaliwal discloses a computer-implemented method for providing vehicle data access to a third party service provider based on a vehicle location, the method comprising: obtaining, from a vehicle data service, geographic criteria (Dhaliwal; para. 22: Vehicle service providers register with server 204 and information related to their account is stored in vehicle service provider database 205a. Information stored in vehicle service provider database 205a can include the name and account identification of the vehicle service provider; geographic location information; and service capabilities) corresponding to vehicle service requests from a user (Dhaliwal; fig. 3: step 304), wherein the geographic criteria specify geographic boundary information, wherein the geographic boundary information indicates a geofence region associated with the third party service provider (Dhaliwal; paras. 22-23: Information stored in vehicle service provider database 205a can include the name and account identification of the vehicle service provider; geographic location information; and service capabilities. Location information of vehicle service providers can include a static physical service location, such as a garage. Location information for a vehicle service provider can also include location information for a fleet of service vehicles such as to include the geographic location of each available service vehicle in the fleet.; para. 36: the location information is used to determine the nearest service providers capable of responding to the service request at step 306 … Nearest service providers can be determined by geographical distance or routing distance using known algorithms. Some embodiments can also use postal or zip codes of vehicle service providers in order to determine which are nearest to the obtained location information. Determining whether a vehicle service provider is capable can include matching service capabilities stored in vehicle service provider database 205a with the capability requirements of the service request.); determining a vehicle location information by accessing a vehicle location based service component (Dhaliwal; fig. 3: step 302), wherein the vehicle location information is generated at least based on a vehicle GPS positioning system (Dhaliwal; para. 30: Location service 203 can include a satellite navigation system, such as GPS); verifying the vehicle location information to the geographic criteria (Dhaliwal; para. 36: the location information is used to determine the nearest service providers capable of responding to the service request at step 306 … Nearest service providers can be determined by geographical distance or routing distance using known algorithms. Some embodiments can also use postal or zip codes of vehicle service providers in order to determine which are nearest to the obtained location information. Determining whether a vehicle service provider is capable can include matching service capabilities stored in vehicle service provider database 205a with the capability requirements of the service request.); authorizing the third party service provider to access at least part of the vehicle’s data upon the verification (Dhaliwal; para. 21: operators of vehicles register for system 200 [i.e., by registering for the system, vehicle operators authorize sharing their data with the vehicle service providers]); detecting one or more triggering actions, wherein the triggering actions include a request for the vehicle data to be provided to the third party service provider (Dhaliwal; para. 37: A vehicle operator can then select the preferred vehicle service provider in step 310 … Upon selection [i.e., detecting a triggering action] in step 310, mobile device 202 or server 204 can dispatch the vehicle service provider, such as by dispatching a service vehicle to the breakdown location. This can include communicating with a dispatch device 208 of the vehicle service provider. [therefore, the user’s selection is a request to send the data required for dispatch to a service provider]), and wherein the third party service provider is configured to provide a vehicle service in response to the vehicle service requests and based on the authorized access to the at least part of the vehicle data (Dhaliwal; para. 36: the location information is used to determine the nearest service providers capable of responding to the service request); wherein the third party service provider include one or more technicians associated with the third party service provider (Dhaliwal; para. 36: a vehicle service provider has available resources to service the vehicle such as mechanics); and causing exchange of the vehicle data between the vehicle and the third party service provider (Dhaliwal; fig. 3: step 310).
Dhaliwal does not explicitly disclose the geographic criteria specify vehicle data to be exchanged with the third party service provider in response to the vehicle service requests; the triggering actions further include a request for information to be provided by the third party service provider; and determining selected vehicle data to exchange with the third party service provider based on the obtained geographic criteria.
Ha, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle data collection), discloses criteria specifying vehicle data to be exchanged (Ha; para. 90: the vehicle data management system may determine the type of vehicle data to be collected from each of the vehicles and the type of service to be provided, by use of information on whether the driver consents to provision of information related to the vehicle data or by use of a request for use of a service) with a third party service provider in response to vehicle service requests (Ha; para. 59: the vehicle data management server 210 may be a server operated by a third-party company that wants to collect vehicle data); and determining selected vehicle data to exchange with the third party service provider based on the obtained criteria (Ha; para. 94: vehicles 701, 702, and 703 may transmit the required vehicle data to the vehicle data management server on the basis of information on whether consent to provision of information related to the vehicle data is provided or on the basis of the type of service desired to receive).
Dhaliwal, in paragraph 35, further discloses including additional vehicle diagnostic data in the service request to assist the server with identifying appropriate service providers capable of servicing the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the service capability information stored in vehicle service provider database of Dhaliwal to specify the vehicle data that will be collected from the vehicle and shared with the third-party, as disclosed by Ha, to yield the predictable result of limiting the amount of transmitted vehicle data to only that which is required to provide the service.
Dhaliwal, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the triggering actions further include a request for information to be provided by the third party service provider.
Ha further discloses triggering actions (Ha; para. 75: The service request information may be information on a list of services that the driver requests.) include a request for information to be provided by the third party service provider (Ha; para. 75: a request for the following services is made: an insurance service, a vehicle maintenance service, location and communication services, a travel-agency-related service, a navigation device upgrade service, a path recommendation service, a software update service, a vehicle-tax-related service, a road state information service, a vehicle rental service, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the service request and subsequent selection of the service provider of Dhaliwal, as modified, to request and select a navigation device upgrade, a path recommendation, a software update, or road state information to be provided, as disclosed by Ha, to yield the predictable result of receiving a service in the vehicle without requiring a visit to a service facility.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Dhaliwal, as modified, discloses the verification indicates matching the vehicle location information with the geographic criteria (Dhaliwal; para. 36: the location information is used to determine the nearest service providers capable of responding to the service request at step 306 … Nearest service providers can be determined by geographical distance or routing distance using known algorithms. Some embodiments can also use postal or zip codes of vehicle service providers in order to determine which are nearest to the obtained location information. Determining whether a vehicle service provider is capable can include matching service capabilities stored in vehicle service provider database 205a with the capability requirements of the service request.).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, as best understood, Dhaliwal, as modified, discloses the verification includes matching the vehicle location information with the geographic criteria based on a vehicle GPS positioning system and at least one of Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN) access point information sources (Dhaliwal; para. 30: Location service 203 can include a satellite navigation system, such as GPS (wherein network 210 includes over the air satellite communications), and can also work in conjunction with other location services such as Wi-Fi access point based services.), Bluetooth information sources, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) sources.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal in view of Ha as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Penilla et al. (US 2019/0287080), hereinafter Penilla.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 21, as best understood, Dhaliwal, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Dhaliwal, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the one or more technicians associated with the third party service provider are authorized to access at least part of the vehicle data upon the verification, wherein the one or more technicians are limited to access the vehicle data by revoking criteria, wherein the revoking criteria includes revoking actions that results in automatically revoking a right to access the vehicle data, and wherein the revoking actions are based at least on time and/or location of the one or more of the technicians.
Penilla, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle data access controls), discloses one or more technicians associated with a third party service provider are authorized to access at least part of a vehicle’s data upon verification (Penilla; para. 208: Advisor accounts 506 can include, for example a dealership, a mechanic, and other entities that will have restricted access to data of the vehicle or specific suites of information regarding the vehicle and/or access to communicate or control features functions or parts of the vehicle from a remote location.), wherein the one or more technicians are limited to access the vehicle data by revoking criteria, wherein the revoking criteria includes revoking actions that results in automatically revoking a right to access the vehicle data, and wherein the revoking actions are based at least on time and/or location of the one or more of the technicians (Penilla; para. 242: The Advisor account can be for any duration, and the duration can be set by the user. In one embodiment, the advisor account can be assigned to a guest driver of a vehicle. The guest driver can be, for example, a friend, a known individual, a service person, a valet person or valet service, etc. The creation of an advisor account can therefore be for a short duration, or long duration, or permanently, or until the account is canceled, stopped, revoked, expires, or eliminated by the person/user that issued or created the advisor account.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have selectively allowed a mechanic to access the vehicle’s data, as disclosed by Penilla, in the server of Dhaliwal, as modified, with the motivation of enabling the vehicle to perform remote diagnostics to provide additional advice, order parts and schedule appointments (Penilla; para. 21) thereby increasing convenience.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Dhaliwal, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Dhaliwal, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the one or more technicians associated with the third party service provider access the vehicle data based on criteria.
Penilla discloses one or more technicians associated with a third party service provider access vehicle data based on criteria (Penilla; para. 53: a user can assign and add advisor account to any individual; para. 208: Advisor accounts 506 can include, for example a dealership, a mechanic, and other entities that will have restricted access to data of the vehicle or specific suites of information regarding the vehicle and/or access to communicate or control features functions or parts of the vehicle from a remote location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to selectively allow a mechanic to access the vehicle’s data, as disclosed by Penilla, in the server of Dhaliwal, as modified, with the motivation of enabling the vehicle to perform remote diagnostics to provide additional advice, order parts and schedule appointments (Penilla; para. 21) thereby increasing convenience.
Claim(s) 9 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal in view of Ha as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 2015/0339467), hereinafter Morita.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, as best understood, Dhaliwal, as modified, discloses the vehicle data service is configured to authenticate the third party service provider, wherein to authenticate the third party service provider the one or more external computing device are configured to: obtain authentication information associated with the third party service provider; and verify the third party service provider's authentication information (Dhaliwal; para. 21: Vehicle service providers and operators of vehicles register for system 200 with server 204. Registration with server 204 can include setting up an account identifier (e.g. username) and authentication (e.g. a password) that allows access to system 200 over network 210.).
Dhaliwal, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in response to verifying the third party service provider's authentication information, providing an authentication result to the vehicle, wherein the authentication result indicates that the third party service provider is authenticated to access at least part of the vehicle data.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle data access controls), discloses in response to verifying a third party service provider's authentication information, providing an authentication result to a vehicle, wherein the authentication result indicates that the third party service provider is authenticated to access at least part of the vehicle’s data (Morita; para. 265: The lifecycle state management module 100 … notifies the authentication success to the drive control module 200 in a case where the accessing entity is successfully authenticated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to send a notification that authentication for an entity to access the vehicle’s data was successful, as disclosed by Morita, in the server of Dhaliwal, as modified, to yield the predictable result of preventing sending data to an unauthorized user.
Conclusion
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 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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665