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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 12/05/2025. Amendments received on 12/05/2025 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-14 are pending.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 17, 23-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vasudevan (US Pub 2012/0129493).
As of claim 15 and 24-25 Vasudevan discloses an access system in a vehicle for gaining access to the vehicle, comprising:
a communication unit configured to establish a communication channel with an external device and to receive at least one credential from the external device through the communication channel (via NFT module 212 configured to receive data form a mobile device 104; see fig. 2, Vasudevan discloses that the mobile device sends data that was generated using the one or more credentials stored in the secure element of the mobile device which is verified by the vehicle’s secure element. Claim language does not define “credential”, so any data that is received by the vehicle to verify the authenticity of the mobile device is interpreted as credential); and
a secure element configured to perform a verification of the at least one credential and to grant or deny access to the vehicle based on a result of the verification of the at least one credential (see paragraph [0047], “The vehicle 202 may then process the result using the secure element 216 to determine whether the credentials 204 of the mobile communication device 104 indicate that the mobile communication device 104 is authorized to initiate functions of the vehicle 202”);
wherein the secure element is further configured to transmit, upon or after a positive verification of the credential, a message to a controller comprised in the vehicle, wherein said message contains an instruction to unlock the vehicle (via secure element permitting the requested function (unlock) if the secure element authenticates the credential by unlocking a physical lock 218. As seen the figure 2, the secure element 216 will send a message to the lock 218 to unlock if the credentials are verified by the secure element 216; see paragraphs [0043]- [0044]).
As of claims 17 and 27, Vasudevan discloses that the communication unit is a near field communication (NFC) unit (via near field technology (NFT) module 212; see paragraph [0042]).
As of claim 23, Vasudevan discloses a vehicle comprising the access system of claim 15 (via vehicle 202; see fig. 2).
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 16, 18-22, 26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan (US Pub 2012/0129493) in view of Ledvina et al. (US Pub 2019/0135229).
As of claims 19 and 29, Vasudevan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 15 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the communication unit is a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication unit.
Ledvina discloses a vehicle access system, wherien a vehicle uses Bluetooth low energy communication to receive credentials from a mobile device (see paragraph [0020]).
From the teaching of Ledvina it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Vasudevan to include the function of using Bluetooth low energy as taught by Ledvina since it is well known in the art that the NFC or Bluetooth or both communication techniques could be used to gain access to vehicle.
As of claims 20 and 30, Ledvina discloses that the access system further comprising an additional communication unit configured to perform one or more ultra-wideband (UWB) ranging operations with the external device (via using UWB for ranging; see paragraph [0030]).
As of claims 21 and 31, Vasudevan discloses that the secure element grants or deny access to the vehicle based on the result of verification of the at least one credential (see rejection of claim 1).
Ledvina further discloses that the secure element is further configured to grant or deny access to the vehicle in dependence on the result of the verification of the credential (see paragraphs [0057]-[0058]) and in dependence on a result of the ranging operations performed by the further communication unit (see fig. 3; also see paragraphs [0074]-[0075]).
As of claims 16 and 26, Vasudevan and Ledvina discloses a vehicle comprising different elements (communication module, secure element, locks etc.) that exchange messages to implement the system disclosed in the references. Even though the references do not explicitly state that the message is a controller area network (CAN) message, the exchange of messages within a vehicle through a controller area network (CAN) bus is well known in the art (see CN-113911065A paragraph [0051]; also see Smith (US Pub 2022/0322029; paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
As of claims 18 and 28, Even though not explicitly stated, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that an application identifier (AID) is used as credentials to identify a user or user’s mobile device (see Ho (US Pub 2016/0042333) paragraph [0031]). The well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art since applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03)
As of claim 22, Ledvina discloses that the mobile device acts as a Bluetooth peripheral device and transmits an advertisement and vehicle acts as a Bluetooth central (see paragraph [0027]). The Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the vehicle access control that a vehicle acts as a peripheral and transmits an advertisement and a mobile device acting as central unit transmits credential in response to the advertisements. (see Verma et al. (US Pub 2022/0343705), paragraph [0005]; also see Lazarini et al. (US Pub 2018/0339676) paragraph [0032]). The well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art since applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vasudevan fails to disclose the features of claim 15, including an access system in a vehicle comprising a communication unit that receives at least one credential from the external device, a secure element of the access system that performs a verification of that received credential, and transmits, upon positive verification, a message to a controller comprising an instruction to unlock the vehicle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants are reminded that during examination, claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation . . ..” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).1 Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Examiner maintains her interpretations.
Claim language does not define “credential”, so any data that is received by the vehicle to verify the authenticity of the mobile device is interpreted as credential. Vasudevan discloses that the data, for instance, may be generated using credentials that support a pseudo-random number generator, employ one or more cryptographic keys, and even include the credentials themselves (see paragraph [0059]). Vasudevan further discloses that NFT module 212 receives data from a mobile device 104; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0046]), hence disclosing the limitation of a communication unit that receives at least one credential from the external device.
Vasudevan further discloses that the secure element 216 performs a verification of the data received from the mobile device (see paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), hence disclosing the limitation of a secure element of the access system that performs a verification of that received credential.
Based on figure 2, it can be seen that the data is received by the communication module 210, then secure element 216 verifies the data and responsive to verification unlocking (function) is authorized, performance of the unlocking (function) is initiated (see paragraph [0004]). In the system of Vasudevan verification is performed by the secure element 216 and only after verification does the vehicle unlocks.
Claim language does not define “a controller”. In the system of Vasudevan once the secure element 216 verifies the data from the mobile device and permit the requested function (unlocking; paragraph [0046]) based on fig. 2 the logical next step would be to generate and send an internal authorization signal to the vehicle body control module (controller) to unlock the physical lock 218, hence disclosing a message to a controller comprising an instruction to unlock the vehicle (see fig. 5; also see paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Based on the explanation given above it is the Examiner’s position that references applied disclose the invention as claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
1 19 See also MPEP §2111; In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).