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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on January 22, 2026 in response to the first office action on merit.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 11-30. Applicant has
Amended claims 11, 18, and 25.
Previously canceled claims 1-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed moot in view of new ground of rejection (see 103 rejection below).
Double Patenting
Claims 11-13, 16-20, and 23-27 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-12, 14, 16-19, 21, 23-26, and 30 of co-pending Application No. 11/421748 is still maintained until final disposal.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bauer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2021/0297270 A1 / or “Bauer” hereinafter [provided by the applicant]) in view of Lambert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2017/0104589 A1 / or “Lambert” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Bauer discloses “A method for a network component for providing Bluetooth encryption data, the method comprising” (Abstract: a Bluetooth connection is established between a vehicle and phone, where an encrypted payload i.e., “Bluetooth encryption data” is provided to both the mobile device and the vehicle):
“obtaining received information for generating Bluetooth encryption data for establishing an encrypted Bluetooth connection between a first user terminal and a second user terminal based on the received information” (Para 0012-0013: during initial communication setup a Telematics Service Delivery Network (SDN) server provides an encrypted payload i.e., “Bluetooth encryption data” to both the mobile device i.e., a “first user terminal” and the vehicle i.e., a “second user terminal”. Also, Fig. 6: Step 610; and Para 0064-0065: received information is used to pair Bluetooth enabled phone and a vehicle),
[wherein the encrypted Bluetooth connection enables access to perform a vehicle unlocking/locking function];
“generating the Bluetooth encryption data” (Para 0012-0013: during initial communication setup a Telematics Service Delivery Network (SDN) server provides an encrypted payload i.e., “Bluetooth encryption data” to both the mobile device i.e., a “first user terminal” and the vehicle i.e., a “second user terminal”; and Fig. 6: Step 615; and Para 0065: where an security key is used for data transmission);
“and synchronizing the Bluetooth encryption data between the first user terminal and the second user terminal” (Para 0012-0013: during initial communication setup a Telematics Service Delivery Network (SDN) server provides an encrypted payload i.e., “Bluetooth encryption data” to both the mobile device i.e., a “first user terminal” and the vehicle i.e., a “second user terminal”; and Fig. 6: Step 620; and Para 0066: encrypted Bluetooth connection is established by sharing security key, mobile unique ID, and vehicle unique ID).
But Bauer fails to specially disclose a paired device performing a vehicle unlock/locking function.
However, Lambert discloses “wherein the encrypted Bluetooth connection enables access to perform a vehicle unlocking/locking function” (Para 0036-0037: a smart device is used to gain access to a vehicle, where the connection between the vehicle and the smart device may established using a Bluetooth secure pairing i.e., “encrypted Bluetooth connection”).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of paired device performing a vehicle unlock/locking function of Lambert to the Advance Mobile Device and Vehicle Profile Pairing of Bauer to create a system where a vehicle digital key can be shared with multiple users (Lambert, Para 0046) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to where the owner of the vehicle can share the digital key with others with desired restrictions (Lambert, Para 0047).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 11, Bauer discloses “wherein the received information comprises an identification for at least the first user device or the second user device” (Fig. 6: Step 620; and Para 0066: encrypted Bluetooth connection is established by sharing security key, mobile unique ID, and vehicle unique ID).
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 12, Bauer discloses “wherein the network component is an administrative platform or another user terminal” (Fig. 2: SDN Server i.e., an “administrative platform”).
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 13, Bauer discloses “wherein the first user terminal is a vehicle” (Fig. 2: Vehicle 205).
Regarding claim 15, in view of claim 14, Bauer discloses “wherein the Bluetooth encryption data is generated in the vehicle” (Par 0068: vehicle provides MAC address of the vehicle computer).
Regarding claim 16, in view of claim 15, Bauer discloses “wherein the Bluetooth encryption data comprises information about at least one parameter required for a Bluetooth pairing” (Par 0067: session ID).
Regarding claim 17, in view of claim 16, Bauer discloses “further comprising encrypting the Bluetooth encryption data for synchronization” (Par 0067).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a non-tangible computer readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 11. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 11, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 19-24, claims 19-24 are directed to a non-tangible computer readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claims 12-17. Claims 19-24 are similar in scope to claims 12-17, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a network device corresponding to the method recited in claim 11. Claim 25 is similar in scope to claim 11, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 26-30, claims 26-30 are directed to a network device corresponding to the method recited in claims 12-17. Claims 26-30 are similar in scope to claims 12-17, and are therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20210168602 A1) discloses:
[Abstract] … a management server generates a terminal digital key and a vehicle digital key after user authentication in response to a digital key registration request through a dedicated application of a mobile terminal and the mobile terminal stores the terminal digital key in a secure world that is separated from a normal world and a digital key using step in which an authentication token is generated using the terminal digital key stored in the secure world when the mobile terminal approaches or tags a vehicle and a vehicle device locks or unlocks a door of the vehicle by activating the vehicle digital key, ....
SCHUSSMANN et al. (US 20170164192 A1) discloses “…establishing a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) connection between a mobile device and a BLE system in the vehicle, wherein the establishing step includes receiving first credentials of the mobile device at the BLE system; providing second credentials to the mobile device from the vehicle, wherein the second credentials are different than the first credentials; and receiving a message from the mobile device that is encrypted using the first and second credentials” (Abstract).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431