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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 11, 2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 11-20, 23-26, and 29-30. Applicant has
Previously cancelled claims 1-10.
Cancelled claims 21-22, and 27-28.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is depending on the cancel claim 28. Examiner believes such dependent should be on independent claim 25. Appropriate corrected is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 11, 2026 with respect to amended claims filed on November 28, 2026 have been considered but they are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see 103 rejection below).
Double Patenting
Applicant amended claims 11-13, 16-20, and 23-27 which were 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over claims 11-12, 14, 16-19, 21, 23-26, and 30 of co-pending Application No. 18/729766; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
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 11-20, 23-26, and 29-30 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).and in further view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2023/0180010 A1 / or “Yang” 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, wherein the Bluetooth encryption data is sufficient to establish the encrypted Bluetooth connection without requiring a separate authentication exchange directly between the first user terminal and the second user terminal at the time of connection establishment];
“and synchronizing the Bluetooth encryption data between the first user terminal and the second user terminal using the generated 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 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).
Furthermore, Bauer and Lambert fail to specially disclose a vehicle generating Bluetooth encryption data.
However, Yang discloses “generating the Bluetooth encryption data, wherein the Bluetooth encryption data is sufficient to establish the encrypted Bluetooth connection without requiring a separate authentication exchange directly between the first user terminal and the second user terminal at the time of connection establishment” (Para 0080: a vehicle Bluetooth module generates using key authority data a digital key).
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 a vehicle generating Bluetooth encryption data of Yang to the system of Bauer and Lambert to create a system where the vehicle Bluetooth module generated digital key can be used to established a session key between the vehicle and the Bluetooth Key (Yang, Para 0084-0085) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to where the session key is used to securely connect the vehicle Bluetooth module and the Bluetooth key (Yang, Para 0087).
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, Bauer discloses “A non-tangible computer readable medium for providing Bluetooth encryption data, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises instructions which, when executed on a controller, causes the controller to” (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; and Para 0077: computer medium are disclosed):
“receive 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, wherein the first user terminal is a vehicle;
generate the Bluetooth encryption data within the vehicle];
“and synchronize the Bluetooth encryption data between the first user terminal and the second user terminal using the generated 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 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, wherein the first user terminal is a vehicle” (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).
Furthermore, Bauer and Lambert fail to specially disclose a vehicle generating Bluetooth encryption data.
However, Yang discloses “generate the Bluetooth encryption data within the vehicle” (Yang, Para 0080: a vehicle Bluetooth module generates using key authority data a digital key).
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 a vehicle generating Bluetooth encryption data of Yang to the system of Bauer and Lambert to create a system where the vehicle Bluetooth module generated digital key can be used to established a session key between the vehicle and the Bluetooth Key (Yang, Para 0084-0085) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to where the session key is used to securely connect the vehicle Bluetooth module and the Bluetooth key (Yang, Para 0087).
Regarding claims 19-20, 23-24, claims 19-20, 23-24 are directed to a non-tangible computer readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claims 12-13, 16-17. Claims 19-20, 23-24 are similar in scope to claims 12-13, 16-17, 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 claim 29, in view of claim 25 , Bauer in view Lambert and in further view of Yang disclose “wherein the Bluetooth encryption data is sufficient to establish the encrypted Bluetooth connection without requiring a separate authentication exchange directly between the first user terminal and the second user terminal at the time of connection establishment” (Yang, Para 0080: a vehicle Bluetooth module generates using key authority data a digital key).
.
Regarding claims 26-27, 30, claims 26-27, 30 are directed to a network device corresponding to the method recited in claims 12-13 and 17. Claims 26-27, 30 are similar in scope to claims 12-13 and 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.
Hrabak et al. (US 20180247067 A1) discloses “The mobile or local non-vehicle apps can in this case be developed to rely on the contextual vehicle data, and without extensive time and effort to structure modules to generate the contextual vehicle data based on raw or base vehicle data. In contemplated embodiments, vehicle apps also use the contextual vehicle data generated, whether generated at the vehicle or local device connected to the vehicle wirelessly, such as by Bluetooth, or by wire, or plugged in” (Para 0113).
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
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights