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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 4/28/26.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim), US 2022/0052997 A1, in view of Takemori et al. (Takemori), US 2019/0238325 A1, in view of Burger, 2015/0025705 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses:
A method, performed by a transport (e.g. Kim, claim 17; fig. 1:100; par. 42), the method comprising:
using a digital key while the transport processes a first set of functions (e.g. Kim, par. 45, 66, 67, 102 – the vehicle may use a digital key in the performance of an encryption function).
Kim discloses using a digital key, such as e.g. an authentication key, but does not appear to explicitly teach using a “digital sub-key” that is shared with a server. However, Takemori discloses using a “digital sub-key” that is used for functions other than authenticating a driver, and wherein that “digital sub-key” may be shared with a server (e.g. Takemori, par. 157 – 160, 171 – sharing a session key, i.e. “sub-key”, with a server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the additional key teachings of Takemori within the system of Kim, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that a first vehicle key may be used for authentication purposes, while additional keys can be advantageously used for other vehicle functions and/or purposes (e.g. Takemori, Abstract; par. 11).
Thus, the combination enables:
using a digital sub-key while processing a second set of functions that are different than the first set of functions, wherein the second set of functions comprises sharing the digital sub-key with a server (e.g. Takemori, par. 157 – 160, 171 – sharing an encrypted session key, i.e. “sub-key”, with a server);
identifying an occupant of the transport (e.g. Kim, fig. 2:210).
Kim teaches identifying and authenticating a user of a vehicle based upon a biometric key of the user. However, Kim does not appear to explicitly teach imposing restrictions on user’s based upon their level of experience.
However, Burger also teaches identifying and authenticating a user of a vehicle based upon biometrics of the user (e.g. Burger, par. 16). Furthermore, Burger teaches to identify restrictions associated with the user’s biometric and impose restrictions, such as limits to accessible vehicle systems, based upon their level of experience (e.g. such as drivers who are experienced vs. drivers who are new and/or inexperienced) (e.g. Burger, par. 3, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the experience based restriction teachings of Burger within the system of Kim. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the advantages of allowing vehicle owners to restrict vehicle operations according to manners preferred by the owner (e.g. Burger, par. 3).
Thus, the combination enables:
selecting a use level for the digital key from among a plurality of use levels, based on a driving experience of the occupant (e.g. Kim, fig. 2; par. 42, 78; Burger, par. 17 – herein a user’s vehicular usage granted using the biometric key may further be based upon the level of experience of the user), wherein the use level identifies any restriction that is imposed on a n operation of the transport (e.g. Kim, par. 78; Burger, par. 17).
Regarding claim 2, the combination enables:
creating the digital key during a use session of the transport (e.g. Takemori, par. 114, 115 and/or 127, 128), wherein the digital key relates to an identity of the occupant (e.g. Takemori, par. 88, 92 - 97 – herein the “digital keys”, e.g. ENC, MAC, and/or common key are based upon the vehicle ID – which may be an IMSI, i.e. subscriber identity or user of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, the combination enables:
Wherein the digital key and the digital sub-key are created from one or more of an image, a sound, a video, or biometric data (e.g. Kim, fig. 3; e.g. Takemori, fig. 6; par.115). The examiner notes that the encrypted session key, i.e. “digital sub-key”, is taught to be generated based upon the key generation means within the vehicle (e.g. Takemori, fig. 6; par.115). It would have been obvious for the digital sub-key to be generated based upon biometrics because Kim teaches that the key generation means of the vehicle should generate keys using, at least, biometric data from a user.
Regarding claim 5, the combination enables:
receiving an other sub-key from a remote server that is related to the digital key and that is generated by an off-board processor (e.g. Kim, fig. 5:520; par. 63);
and signing messages between the transport and the remote server with the other sub-key (e.g. Kim, par. 81).
Regarding claim 7, while Kim teaches using the digital key for authentication purposes, Kim does not appear to explicitly teach using the key for the transmission of messages between a vehicle subsystem and ECU.
However, Takemori teaches that a vehicle authentication key is used for message transmission between vehicle processing units within ECUs of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ECU teachings of Takemori for message handing using the vehicles authentication key within the system of Kim for using a vehicle authentication key. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teaching that authentication processing using authentication keys should occur between secure elements within ECUs of the vehicle so as to protect the authentication process (e.g. Takemori, par. 11, 12).
Thus, the combination enables:
wherein the using of the digital key comprises transmitting a message between an electronic control unit (ECU) of the transport and one or more electrical subsystems of the transport (e.g. Takemori, par. 132 – 138 – the digital keys are used for signing and verifying challenges transmitted between arithmetic processing units within the vehicle’s ECUs).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19, they are apparatus and medium claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim), US 2022/0052997 A1, in view of Takemori et al. (Takemori), US 2019/0238325 A1, in view of Burger, 2015/0025705 A1, in view of Sachdeva et al. (Sachdeva), US 2022/0414224 A1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Takemori disclose a vehicle capable of using secondary key, e.g. “digital sub-keys”, for the a multitude of other vehicle functions or purposes, such as for sharing a key with a server so as to securely transmit/receive data with the server . However, the combination does not appear to explicitly disclose that the additional keys can be used to download update data from the server and subsequently delete the keys after downloading the update data.
However, Sachdeva teaches that generated session keys can be shared between the vehicle, such as from a secure element within the vehicle, and a server (e.g. Sachdeva, par. 22), and furthermore teaches that the generated session keys can be used to download update data from the server to secure elements within the vehicle (e.g. Sachdeva, par. 22, 31) and subsequently delete the session key after downloading the update data (e.g. Sachdeva, par. 30, 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teachings of Sachdeva for downloading update data from a server to a vehicle using a shared session key and for deleting the shared session key after the update download. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teaching that vehicles require regular updates from servers and that the session keys used for sharing the updates are no longer needed after the session is over (e.g. Sachdeva, 30-32, 36).
Thus, the combination enables:
responsive to the sharing, downloading a software update from the server to the transport (e.g. Sachdeva, 30-32, 36);
and deleting the digital sub-key responsive to the downloading being completed (e.g. Sachdeva, 30, 36).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, they are apparatus and medium claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
KIM does not disclose or suggest "selecting a use level for the digital key from among a plurality of use levels, based on a driving experience of the occupant, wherein the use level identifies any restriction that is imposed on an operation of the transport."
…
(Remarks, pg. 7-9)
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully finds the applicant’s argument to be unpersuasive in view of the prior art combination of Kim and Burger. Specifically, Burger teaches that a biometrically authenticated user may be restricted according to their level of experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights