DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted by applicant dated 06/20/2024 and 01/02/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“smart key module configured to…”;
“storage module configured to…”; and
“vehicle control module configured to…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sarkar et al. US 2023/0396611 (hereinafter Sarkar).
As per claim 1, Sarkar teaches a vehicle data access system comprising: a smart key module configured to receive a signal from a smart key, the signal associated with accessing vehicle data (Sarkar paragraph [0079]-[0081], receive request from key fob); and
a storage module configured to control access to the vehicle data according to the control of the smart key module (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data),
wherein the smart key module is configured to allow access to the vehicle data stored in the storage module through an authentication operation of the smart key (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
As per claim 4, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 1, wherein the smart key module is configured to control the storage module to have any one of an initial state, a lock state, and an unlock state (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
As per claim 8, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 4, wherein the smart key module is configured to change the storage module from the lock state to the unlock state through an unlock operation (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
As per claim 11, Sarkar teaches a vehicle data access system comprising: a smart key module configured to receive a signal from a smart key, the signal associated with accessing vehicle data from a smart key (Sarkar paragraph [0079]-[0081], receive request from key fob);
a vehicle control module configured to be associated with at least one of vehicle management and driving convenience (Sarkar paragraph [0046], [0050], [0086], vehicle systems that generate vehicle data); and
a storage module configured to store the vehicle data generated by the vehicle control module and control access to the vehicle data according to control of the smart key module (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], [0086], stored vehicle data. Authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data),
wherein the smart key module is configured to allow access to the vehicle data of the vehicle control module, stored in the storage module through an authentication operation of the smart key (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
As per claim 12, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 11, wherein the vehicle control module includes a vehicle internal module including at least one of a vehicle management module, an infotainment module, a driver assistance module, and a camera management module (Sarkar paragraph [0046], [0050], [0086], vehicle systems that generate vehicle data).
As per claim 17, Sarkar teaches a vehicle data access system comprising: a smart key module configured to receive a signal from a smart key, the signal associated with accessing vehicle data (Sarkar paragraph [0079]-[0081], receive request from key fob); and
a vehicle control module configured to be associated with at least one of vehicle management and driving convenience (Sarkar paragraph [0046], [0050], [0086], vehicle systems that generate vehicle data),
wherein the smart key module allows is configured to allow access to vehicle data stored in the vehicle control module through an authentication operation of the smart key (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
As per claim 20, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 17, wherein the smart key includes a remote device configured to remotely communicate with the smart key module through a network (Sarkar paragraph [0079]-[0081], receive request from key fob).
As per claims 13, 15, 18-19, the claims claim a system essentially corresponding to the system claims 4, 8 and 12 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
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 2-3, 5, 10, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar, in view of Lee at al. US 2022/0283714 (hereinafter Lee).
As per claim 2, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 1, wherein the storage module comprises, a storage unit configured to store the vehicle data (Sarkar paragraph [0083], [0086], stored vehicle data).
Sarkar does not explicitly disclose a storage controller configured to control access to the storage unit.
Lee teaches a storage controller configured to control access to the storage unit (Lee paragraph [0025], [0041], storage controller).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sarkar of authenticating for access to stored vehicle data with the teachings of Lee to include a storage controller to control access to storage because the results would have been predictable and resulted in having a storage controller controlling access to the vehicle storage.
As per claim 3, Sarkar in view of Lee teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 2, wherein the storage unit includes a non-volatile memory and is configured to store the vehicle data in the non-volatile memory (Sarkar paragraph [0083], [0086], stored vehicle data; Lee paragraph [0033], non-volatile memory).
As per claim 5, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 4, wherein the smart key module is configured to change the storage module from the initial state to the unlock state (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
Sarkar does not explicitly disclose initial state to unlock state through a password setting operation.
Lee teaches initial state to unlock state through a password setting operation (Lee paragraph [0040]-[0043], [0055]-[0058], [0067]-[0069], [0072]-[0074], unlock state via password setting).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sarkar of storing encrypted vehicle data with the teachings of Lee to include setting a password and providing layers of encryption keys for encrypting data in order to enhance the security/encryption of the stored vehicle data.
As per claim 10, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 4.
Sarkar does not explicitly disclose wherein module is configured to change storage module from lock state or unlock state to initial state through a crypto erase operation.
Lee teaches wherein module is configured to change storage module from lock state or unlock state to initial state through a crypto erase operation (Lee paragraph [0056]-[0064], delete data and reset).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sarkar of storing encrypted vehicle data with the teachings of Lee to include setting a password, providing layers of encryption keys for encrypting data, and deleting data and resetting passwords/keys in order to enhance the security of the stored vehicle data by deleting the vehicle data and changing the storage password/keys.
As per claims 14 and 16, the claims claim a system essentially corresponding to the system claims 5 and 10 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Lee, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. US 2017/0374047 (hereinafter Fujiwara).
As per claim 6, Sarkar in view of Lee teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 5, wherein the smart key module is configured to provide a password setting command to the storage module upon authentication of the smart key being successful (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle; Lee paragraph [0040]-[0043], [0055]-[0058], [0067]-[0069], [0072]-[0074], password setting command).
Sarkar in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose module is configured to provide a response signal to another module in response to a command.
Fujiwara teaches module is configured to provide a response signal to another module in response to a command (Fujiwara paragraph [0061], send notification).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sarkar in view of Lee of providing a password setting command to set a password with the teachings of Fujiwara to include sending a notification to a requester in order to notify the requester of the password setting command that the command has been processed.
As per claim 7, Sarkar in view of Lee and Fujiwara teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 6, wherein upon the smart key module receiving a success response, the vehicle data access system is configured to encrypt the password according to an algorithm and store the encrypted password (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083]; Lee paragraph [0042]-[0043], [0046]-[0047], encrypt password and stored encrypted password; Fujiwara paragraph [0061]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar, in view of Fujiwara et al. US 2017/0374047 (hereinafter Fujiwara).
As per claim 9, Sarkar teaches the vehicle data access system of claim 8, wherein the smart key module is configured to provide an unlock command to the storage module when authentication of the smart key is successful (Sarkar paragraph [0082]-[0083], authenticate request and provide access to vehicle data).
Sarkar does not explicitly disclose module provides a success response or a fail response to another module in response to a command (Fujiwara paragraph [0061], send notification).
Fujiwara teaches provides a success response or a fail response to another module in response to a command (Fujiwara paragraph [0061], send notification).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sarkar of providing an unlock command with the teachings of Fujiwara to include sending a notification to a requester in order to notify the requester of the unlock command that the command has been processed and is successful or not.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY TSANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (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 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.
/HENRY TSANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495