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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 7/5/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites retrieving the verified identification information. Claim 1 provides the antecedent basis for the verified identification information. The identification is obtained before it is verified, i.e. has already been gathered by sensors and processed. It is unclear how the verified information can be retrieved by sensors. For purposes of further examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as retrieving the identification information.
Claim 15 recites heart bit rate instead of heart beat rate.
Claim 17 recites verifying… the identification information of the user… and the vehicle. There is no antecedent basis for the identification information of the vehicle. For purposes of further examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as the information of the vehicle.
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 11, 17, and 20 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.
Claims 11, 17, and 20 recite proximate to the steering wheel. Proximate is relative and unclear. For purposes of further examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as accessible by the driver of the vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a machine, independent claim 10 is directed to a machine, and independent claim 17 is directed to a method. Therefore, each of the independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claim(s), under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation(s) cover(s) certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 17 is used for illustration:
A method, comprising:
scanning, by a processing system including a processor, identification information of a user and information of a vehicle associated with the user using a first group of sensors integrated with or arranged proximate to a steering wheel;
verifying, by the processing system, the identification information of the user and the vehicle associated with the user (A human could visually examine a scanned identification document, e.g. a driver’s license, and verify that it appears legitimate. This is a mental process.);
upon the verification of the identification information, registering and storing, by the processing system, the verified identification information in a data storage of the steering wheel of the vehicle; and
outputting, by the processing system, the verified identification information on a user interface arranged in connection with the steering wheel of the vehicle.
As explained above, independent claim 17 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim(s), claim(s) 1 and 10, which is/are similar in scope to claim 17 likewise recite(s) at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 such as 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"; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 10, and 17 recite additional elements. These/this limitation(s) amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a processing system… found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
a memory… found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
a memory… found in independent claim(s) 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
A non-transitory machine-readable medium… found in independent claim(s) 10. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
obtaining identification information… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
transmitting the identification information… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
receiving verification… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
registering and storing the verified information… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
outputting the verified information… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
a connected car… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
a steering wheel… found in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17. This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components or limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the remaining limitation(s) as recited above, is/are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of a processing system, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, because the specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything more than conventional computer(s). Additionally, the remaining element(s) has/have been deemed insignificant extra-solution activity by one or more courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
obtaining identification information… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (mere data gathering).
transmitting the identification information… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
receiving verification… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
registering and storing the verified information… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (mere data gathering).
outputting the verified information… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 (Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 is/are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub No. US 20240425014 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor (See Fig. 1 and [0111]-[0135], the system obtains biometric and identity document information and verifies both. See [0121] specifically, verification can take place on an edge computing module. This indicates that the system necessarily comprises a processing system including a processor.); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (See Fig. 1 and [0111]-[0135], the system obtains biometric and identity document information and verifies both. See [0121] specifically, verification can take place on an edge computing module. Functionality executed by a computing module is necessarily the result of corresponding executable instructions stored in the memory.), the operations comprising:
obtaining identification information of a driver and information of a connected car associated with the driver using a first group of sensors integrated with the device or arranged in an interior structure of the connected car (See [0010], the system acquires document information and biometric information of a current driver and uses the information to identify the driver, i.e. the document and biometric information are identification information. See [0008], the system can perform remote driver verification, i.e. the vehicle is a connected car. All information gathered by the connected car is information of a connected car. See [0014]-[0028], the system comprises modules for acquiring identification information and biometric information for the driver. These modules necessarily comprise sensors acquiring the information.);
transmitting the identification information to a relevant authority system via a communication interface of the connected car (See [0074]-[0077], the communication center can transmit the document and biometric information to the government industry management client, i.e. a relevant authority system, which comprises a public security industry management client software. The public security industry management verifies whether the previously computed driver verification was correct, i.e. performs its own verification, and can send a command to issue an alarm.);
receiving verification of the identification information of the driver and the connected car associated with the driver (See [0074]-[0077], the communication center can transmit the document and biometric information to the government industry management client, i.e. a relevant authority system, which comprises a public security industry management client software. The public security industry management verifies whether the previously computed driver verification was correct, i.e. performs its own verification, and sends a command to issue an alarm. This means that the system receives verification of the identification information.);
upon the verification of the identification information, registering and storing the verified identification information (See [0010], the remote management unit stores identity information and biometric information of an authorized driver, i.e. upon verification of the identification information.); and
outputting the verified identification information on a user interface arranged on the device or in connection with the interior structure of the connected car (See [0071], the government industry management client software displays the driver identity document acquisition result, i.e. identification information, and the identity verification result. When the verification is successful, this is verified identification information. Display of information necessarily takes place on a user interface.).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu further discloses upon failing to verify the identification information via the relevant authority system, taking actions to disable the driver from using the connected car, generate an alert, or both (See [0076], if the information received by the public security industry management client software is inconsistent with the motor vehicle driving license file information, i.e. the identification information is not verified by the relevant authority system, an alarm, i.e. an alert, is issued.).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu further discloses receiving biometric information of the driver using a second group of sensors integrated with the device or arranged in the interior structure of the connected car (See [0019], the biometric information acquisition unit comprises a number of information acquisition devices, each of which necessarily comprises a sensor to receive the biometric information. The sensors are necessarily integrated with the device in order for the information to be used for driver verification.).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu discloses enabling an owner of the connected car to configure one or more security levels applicable to a control of the connected car, wherein a highest security level comprises blocking the driver from controlling the connected car when the received biometric information of the driver is not verified (See [0041], the ACC (adaptive cruise control) vehicle start control module determines whether the vehicle is permitted to start, i.e. whether the driver can control the connected car, following reception of the driver identity verification result. See [0039], the vehicle can be set to “emergency mode” which allows the vehicle to start the vehicle without driver identity verification. Default (non-emergency) and emergency mode are security levels, with the normal mode being the highest security level that blocks the driver if the biometric information is not verified.).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 4. Liu discloses one of the one or more security levels comprises enabling a new driver to control the connected car upon verification of identification information of the new driver via the relevant authority system, even if biometric information of the new driver does not match with the received biometric information of the driver (See [0232], the driver identity verification management can receive the identity verification alarm and provide emergency authorization to the driver. Emergency authorization is not necessary if the driver has already been authorized, i.e. the driver is a new driver whose biometric information did not match the stored, i.e. received, received biometric information of the original driver.).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu discloses upon a request, retrieving the verified identification information using a third group of sensors which is neither a part of the connected car nor arranged in the connected car (See [0266], the method can be implemented by a smart phone, which is held by the driver and not part of the car or arranged in the car unless the device is specifically set into a holder. Executing the method comprises use of the smart phone’s sensors.).
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, 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 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 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu in view of US 20230227002 A1 (hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 3. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first group of sensors, the second group of sensors, or both are arranged in a steering wheel of the connected car.
Smith renders obvious wherein the first group of sensors, the second group of sensors, or both are arranged in a steering wheel of the connected car (See Abstract, the biometric steering wheel comprises sensors, i.e. a group of sensors, for scanning, i.e. obtaining, the user’s biometrics, i.e. biometric data.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu to include arranging biometric sensors on the steering wheel of Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because certain biometrics, i.e. fingerprints, are conveniently obtained by integrating the sensors into the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029].
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the outputting the verified identification information on the user interface comprises outputting the verified identification information on a user display installed in the connected car, on a surface of a steering wheel, or on a windshield of the connected car.
Smith renders obvious wherein the outputting the verified identification information on the user interface comprises outputting the verified identification information on a user display installed in the connected car, on a surface of a steering wheel, or on a windshield of the connected car (See Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029], the user authentication message, i.e. whether the user has been verified, is displayed on a surface of the steering wheel.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu to include displaying verified identification information on the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it displays the results of the identity verification in a location easily visible to the driver, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029].
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is a steering wheel of the connected car or a cover for the steering wheel of the connected car.
Smith renders obvious wherein the device is a steering wheel of the connected car or a cover for the steering wheel of the connected car (See Abstract, the biometric steering wheel comprises sensors, i.e. a group of sensors, for scanning, i.e. obtaining, the user’s biometrics, i.e. biometric data and displaying the authentication results.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu to include arranging biometric sensors on the steering wheel of Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because certain biometrics, i.e. fingerprints, are conveniently obtained by integrating the sensors into the steering wheel and relevant output can be easily viewed, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029].
Claims 10-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu and Smith in view of US 20180336537 A1 (hereinafter “Maenpaa”).
Regarding claim 10 Liu discloses A machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor facilitate performance of operations (See Fig. 1 and [0111]-[0135], the system obtains biometric and identity document information and verifies both. See [0121] specifically, verification can take place on an edge computing module. This indicates that the system necessarily comprises a processing system including a processor. Functionality executed by a computing module is necessarily the result of corresponding executable instructions stored in the memory.), the operations comprising:
scanning identification information of a user using a first group of sensors integrated with or arranged in the connected car (See [0010], the system acquires document information and biometric information of a current driver and uses the information to identify the driver, i.e. the document and biometric information are identification information. See [0008], the system can perform remote driver verification, i.e. the vehicle is a connected car. All information gathered by the connected car is information of a connected car. See [0014]-[0028], the system comprises modules for acquiring identification information and biometric information for the driver. These modules necessarily comprise sensors acquiring the information.);
transmitting the identification information of the user to a relevant authority system via a communication interface of the connected car (See [0074]-[0077], the communication center can transmit the document and biometric information to the government industry management client, i.e. a relevant authority system, which comprises a public security industry management client software. The public security industry management verifies whether the previously computed driver verification was correct, i.e. performs its own verification, and can send a command to issue an alarm.);
receiving verification of the identification information of the user and the connected car associated with the user (See [0074]-[0077], the communication center can transmit the document and biometric information to the government industry management client, i.e. a relevant authority system, which comprises a public security industry management client software. The public security industry management verifies whether the previously computed driver verification was correct, i.e. performs its own verification, and sends a command to issue an alarm. This means that the system receives verification of the identification information. If the identification is obtained by sensors in the connected car, the information is identification. See [0046], the edge computing module performs the consistency comparison and then performs comparison verification with the database of authorized drivers, i.e. verifies or fails to verify association of the current user, i.e. user, with the car.);
upon the receiving verification of the identification information, registering and storing the verified identification information (See [0010], the remote management unit stores identity information and biometric information of an authorized driver, i.e. upon verification of the identification information.); and
outputting the verified identification information on a user interface (See [0071], the government industry management client software displays the driver identity document acquisition result, i.e. identification information, and the identity verification result. When the verification is successful, this is verified identification information. Display of information necessarily takes place on a user interface.).
Liu does not explicitly disclose non-transitory, and information of a connected car associated with the user, or integrated with or arranged in a steering wheel of the connected car, or on a user interface arranged in connection with the steering wheel of the connected car.
Liu renders obvious non-transitory (See Fig. 1 and [0111]-[0135], the system obtains biometric and identity document information and verifies both. See [0121] specifically, verification can take place on an edge computing module. This indicates that the system necessarily comprises a processing system including a processor. Functionality executed by a computing module is necessarily the result of corresponding executable instructions stored in the memory. It would be obvious to use non-transitory memory so that the system does not have to be programmed after every power cycle.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu to include use of a non-transitory computer-readable medium. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the system does not have to be programmed after every power cycle, as suggested by Liu at [0111]-[0135].
Smith renders obvious integrated with or arranged in a steering wheel of the connected car (See Abstract, the biometric steering wheel comprises sensors, i.e. a group of sensors, for scanning, i.e. obtaining, the user’s biometrics, i.e. biometric data and displaying the authentication results.); and
on a user interface arranged in connection with the steering wheel of the connected car (See Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029], the user authentication message, i.e. whether the user has been verified, is displayed on a surface of the steering wheel.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu to include arranging biometric sensors on the steering wheel and displaying verified identification information on the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because certain biometrics, i.e. fingerprints, are conveniently obtained by integrating the sensors into the steering wheel and relevant output can be easily viewed, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029].
Maenpaa renders obvious and information of a connected car associated with the user (See [0025], proof of registration, which is identification information for the connected car, is displayed in the vehicle. It would be obvious to scan and display proof of registration along with the other identification documents rendered obvious to display by Liu and Smith, i.e. in the case of a traffic stop, and to scan the corresponding document along with the identification documents already scanned by Liu.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification and information display disclosed by Liu and Smith to include displaying and scanning registration information, as suggested by Maenpaa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make display of proof of registration easier, as suggested by Maenpaa at [0003].
Regarding claim 11, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 10. Liu discloses wherein the operations further comprise receiving biometric information of the user using a second group
of sensors, wherein the biometric information of the user comprises fingerprints, facial recognition, voice recognition, iris recognition, or a combination thereof (See [0019], the system acquires face information, i.e. facial recognition, fingerprint information, iris information. The information is necessarily obtained by sensors.).
Liu does not explicitly disclose integrated with or arranged proximate to the steering wheel.
Smith renders obvious Smith renders obvious integrated with or arranged in a steering wheel of the connected car (See Abstract, the biometric steering wheel comprises sensors, i.e. a group of sensors, for scanning, i.e. obtaining, the user’s biometrics, i.e. biometric data and displaying the authentication results. See Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029], this specifically includes thumbprint, i.e. fingerprint, sensors.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu and Maenpaa to include arranging biometric sensors on the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because certain biometrics, i.e. fingerprints, are conveniently obtained by integrating the sensors into the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029].
Regarding claim 12, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 11. Liu discloses checking the received biometric information of the user against the stored verified identification information (See [0054], the built-in read-only memory stores the identity information database and biometric information database of authorized drivers.); and
upon determining of no match between the received biometric information of the user and the stored verified identification information, generating an alert notifying no match and prompting to rescan the biometric information of the user using the second group of sensors (See [0039], if the user cannot be verified, the vehicle ACC is not activated, an alarm prompt is activated, i.e. an alert is generated, and the driver is prompted to adjust posture for re-acquiring the biometric feature, i.e. a rescan is prompted.).
Regarding claim 13, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 11. Liu discloses the operations further comprise disabling the user from controlling the connected car upon receiving no verification information of the user and determining no match between the received biometric information and the scanned identification information (See [0039], the system performs a person-document consistency comparison, i.e. checks for a match between the received biometric information and scanned identification information. The switch of the ACC cannot be activated normally if the consistency check fails. See [0040]-[0041], the ACC vehicle start control module determines whether the vehicle can be operated, i.e. failing the consistency check disables the user from controlling the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 14, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 11. Liu discloses scanning identification information of a temporary user using the first group of sensors (See [0039], the system performs a person-document consistency comparison, i.e. checks for a match between the received biometric information and scanned identification information, based on the information acquired on site, i.e. the identification information was necessarily scanned and not obtained remotely. The comparison with biometric information necessarily comprises use of biometric sensors. See [0077], the traffic industry management client software receives the driver identity verification result and provides emergency, i.e. temporary, authorization to the driver.);
upon transmitting the identification information of the user to the relevant authority system via the communication interface of the connected car, receiving verification of the identification information of the temporary user and receiving failure to verify association of the temporary user with the connected car (See [0039], the remote management unit performs the person-document consistency check, i.e. is a relevant authority system the information was necessarily sent to. See [0046], the edge computing module performs the consistency comparison and then performs comparison verification with the database of authorized drivers, i.e. verifies or fails to verify association of the current user, i.e. temporary user, with the car. See [0077], the traffic industry management client software receives the driver identity verification result and provides emergency, i.e. temporary, authorization to the driver.);
receiving biometric information of the temporary user using the second group of sensors (See [0019]-[0038], biometric information from a large number of sensors is collected from the current driver and used for biometric comparison.); and
enabling the temporary user to control the connected car matching of the biometric information of the temporary user with the verified identification information (See [0077], the traffic industry management client software receives the driver identity verification result and provides emergency, i.e. temporary, authorization to the driver, allowing the driver to control the car. See [0039], the remote management unit performs the person-document consistency check, i.e. is a relevant authority system the information was necessarily sent to. This comprises matching and failing to match the biometric information with the verified identification information.)
Liu does not explicitly disclose scanning identification information of the connected car.
Maenpaa renders obvious scanning identification information of the connected car (See [0025], proof of registration, which is identification information for the connected car, is displayed in the vehicle. It would be obvious to scan and display proof of registration along with the other identification documents rendered obvious to display by Liu and Smith, i.e. in the case of a traffic stop, and to scan the corresponding document along with the identification documents already scanned by Liu.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification and information display disclosed by Liu and Smith to include displaying and scanning registration information, as suggested by Maenpaa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make display of proof of registration easier, as suggested by Maenpaa at [0003].
Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa does not explicitly disclose enabling the temporary user to control the connected car.
Regarding claim 16, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 10. Smith renders obvious outputting the verified identification information on the user interface further comprises outputting the verified identification information on a user display installed in the connected car, on a surface of the steering wheel, or on a windshield of the connected car (See Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029], the user authentication message, i.e. whether the user has been verified, is displayed on a surface of the steering wheel. It would be obvious to display the other relevant information displayed in Liu on the same screen.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu and Maenpaa to include displaying verified identification information on the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because relevant output can be easily viewed on the wheel, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029].
Regarding claim 17 Liu discloses, A method, comprising:
scanning, by a processing system including a processor, identification information of a user using a first group of sensors integrated with or arranged proximate to a steering wheel (See [0010], the system acquires document information and biometric information of a current driver and uses the information to identify the driver, i.e. the document and biometric information are identification information. See [0008], the system can perform remote driver verification, i.e. the vehicle is a connected car. All information gathered by the connected car is information of a connected car. See [0014]-[0028], the system comprises modules for acquiring identification information and biometric information for the driver. These modules necessarily comprise sensors acquiring the information.);
verifying, by the processing system, the identification information of the user and the vehicle associated with the user (See [0074]-[0077], the communication center can transmit the document and biometric information to the government industry management client, i.e. a relevant authority system, which comprises a public security industry management client software. The public security industry management verifies whether the previously computed driver verification was correct, i.e. performs its own verification, and sends a command to issue an alarm. This means that the system receives verification of the identification information. If the identification is obtained by sensors in the connected car, the information is identification. See [0046], the edge computing module performs the consistency comparison and then performs comparison verification with the database of authorized drivers, i.e. verifies or fails to verify association of the current user with the car);
upon the verification of the identification information, registering and storing, by the processing system, the verified identification information in a data storage (See [0010], the remote management unit stores identity information and biometric information of an authorized driver, i.e. upon verification of the identification information.); and
outputting, by the processing system, the verified identification information on a user interface (See [0071], the government industry management client software displays the driver identity document acquisition result, i.e. identification information, and the identity verification result. When the verification is successful, this is verified identification information. Display of information necessarily takes place on a user interface).
Liu does not explicitly disclose scanning information of a vehicle associated with the user, data storage of the steering wheel of the vehicle, or a user interface arranged in connection with the steering wheel of the vehicle.
Smith renders obvious data storage of the steering wheel of the vehicle (See Abstract, the registered biometrics, which are identification information, are stored in the on-board controller. See [0038], the on-board controller is disposed within the steering wheel.); and
a user interface arranged in connection with the steering wheel of the vehicle (See Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029], the user authentication message, i.e. whether the user has been verified, is displayed on a surface of the steering wheel.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification disclosed by Liu to include storing information in the steering wheel and displaying verified identification information on the steering wheel, as suggested by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it displays the results of the identity verification in a location easily visible to the driver, as suggested by Smith at Fig. 7-8 and [0028]-[0029], and because fitting the device’s required storage in the wheel allows the biometric wheel to be fitted to cars without need to connect to an external storage system, as suggested by Smith at [0007]-[0008].
Liu combined with Smith does not explicitly disclose scanning information of a vehicle associated with the user.
Maenpaa renders obvious scanning information of a vehicle associated with the user (See [0025], proof of registration, which is identification information for the connected car, is displayed in the vehicle. It would be obvious to scan and display proof of registration along with the other identification documents rendered obvious to display by Liu and Smith, i.e. in the case of a traffic stop, and to scan the corresponding document along with the identification documents already scanned by Liu.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification and information display disclosed by Liu and Smith to include displaying and scanning registration information, as suggested by Maenpaa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make display of proof of registration easier, as suggested by Maenpaa at [0003].
Regarding claim 19, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 17. Liu discloses transmitting, by the processing system, a notification to an owner of the vehicle upon failing to verify the identification information of the user, the vehicle associated with the user, or both (See [0065]-[0068], if driver identification fails, the software clients corresponding to the vehicle’s owner are notified.).
Regarding claim 20, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 17. Liu discloses scanning, by the processing system, biometric information of the user using a second group of sensors integrated with or arranged proximate to a steering wheel of the vehicle, wherein the biometric information of the user comprises fingerprints, facial recognition, voice recognition, iris recognition, or a combination thereof, wherein the processing system is arranged in the steering wheel of the vehicle (See [0019], the system acquires face information, i.e. facial recognition, fingerprint information, iris information. The information is necessarily obtained by sensors accessible to the driver.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu, Smith, and Maenpaa in view of US 20180276672 A1, hereinafter “Breed”.
Regarding claim 15, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 11. Liu combined with Smith does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprise receiving health state information of the user using the second group of sensors, where the health state information of the user comprises a heart bit rate of the user or a posture of the user indicative of a dozing off state or an unconscious state.
Norton renders obvious the operations further comprise receiving health state information of the user using the second group of sensors, where the health state information of the user comprises a heart bit rate of the user or a posture of the user indicative of a dozing off state or an unconscious state (See [0040], heart rate is used to determine whether a user attempting to log in to a computer system is an authorized user.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification and information display disclosed by Liu and Smith to include use of heartbeat data for authorization, as suggested by Norton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase accuracy in identifying authorized users of the vehicle, as suggested by Norton at [0040].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu, Smith, and Maenpaa in view of JP 2008120284 A, hereinafter “Yamashita”.
Regarding claim 18, Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa renders obvious the limitations of claim 17. Liu combined with Smith and Maenpaa does not explicitly disclose configuring, by the processing system, a plurality of security levels controlling vehicle access, wherein the plurality of security levels are triggered at least based on the verification of the identification information.
Yamashita renders obvious configuring, by the processing system, a plurality of security levels controlling vehicle access, wherein the plurality of security levels are triggered at least based on the verification of the identification information (See Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph 8-page 4 paragraph 2, the system takes vein readings to identify the registered driver. See Fig. 2 page 1 paragraph 4-6, the biometric authentication unit uses the vein sensor readings in setting the bullet key, i.e. valet key, permission setting. Enabling use of the valet key to access the vehicle using the vein reading information is configuring a security level controlling vehicle access based on the verification of identification information.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for driver identification verification and information display disclosed by Liu, Smith, and Maenpaa to include verifying the identity of a user before allowing the user to set a security level of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid a malicious third party accessing the vehicle without permission, as suggested by Yamashita at page 1 paragraph 3-page 2 paragraph 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120144204 A1 which relates to performing updates for a biometric access system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/3/26