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
This office action is in response to communication filed 4/20/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,9, 15, the addition of claims 21-22, and the cancellation of claims 3,10,16.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the use of the mDL as disclosed by Weber, the reference of Weber teaches the use of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) in a rental transaction (abstract, paragraph 01,028,055). Weber teaches the issuer of the mDL include state DMV, financial institution and other private institution (paragraph 016). Vitug Webber et al. teaches providing, by the communications hardware, an mDL authentication request to an issuing authority (IA) system associated with an IA that provisioned the mDL (DMV validate mDL, paragraph 015,016,018) and teaches encrypting the information relating to the mDL verification (paragraph 027).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,9,11-12, and 15,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monette US Patent Application Publication 20170132862 in view of Vitug Weber US Patent Application Publication 20240340285.
Regarding claim 1, Monette teaches a method for providing a rental candidate with access to a rental asset, the method comprising:
receiving, by communications hardware and from a candidate device, a rental initiation request (paragraph 021-022) comprising (a) an indication of the rental asset (property identifier, paragraph 026), and (c) rental candidate information (paragraph 021,024);
authenticating, by authentication circuitry and identification information, the rental candidate (paragraph 024);
in response to authenticating the rental candidate, determining, by rental management circuitry and using a risk determination model, a risk level indicative of an inferred risk associated with renting the rental asset to the rental candidate (secure communication occur between the inquirer and the responder and the secure communication include data for authenticating the user. The communication system assess a degree of risk that indicate a level of confidence that the identities of the inquirer and the responder is authentic, the degree of risk is determined based on authenticating the data, in paragraph 023-027);
in response to the risk level satisfying a rental requirement, generating, by the rental management circuitry and based on the rental candidate information, a rental access key configured to enable use of the rental asset and providing, by the communications hardware, the rental access key to the candidate device (paragraph 031). Monette teaches providing user identification information and authenticating the renter based on the validity of the identification information (paragraph 021) but is silent on teaching an indication of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) associated with the rental candidate. Vitug Webber et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) in a rental transaction (abstract, paragraph 01,028,055). Vitug Webber et al. teaches providing, by the communications hardware, an mDL authentication request to an issuing authority (IA) system associated with an IA that provisioned the mDL (DMV validate mDL, paragraph 015,016,018) and teaches encrypting the information relating to the mDL verification (paragraph 027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Monette et al. as disclosed by Vitug Webber et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in order to provide a reliable source of authentication information.
Regarding claim 2, Monette teaches the rental candidate information comprises a payment account associated with the rental candidate (paragraph 031).
Regarding claim 4, Monette teaches determining, by the authentication circuitry, that the candidate device is associated with the rental candidate and that the rental candidate is in control of the candidate device (The communication system determine with a high degree of likelihood that the identity of the inquirer is authentic, the system determines that the user associated with the computing device is authentic, unique indicia associated with the renter such as IP, MAC, and/or Bluetooth identifier is used to determine the device is associated with the renter, paragraph 024-025,034).
Regarding claim 5, Monette et al. teaches determining the risk level further comprises:
selecting, by the rental management circuitry, a risk assessment type based on the rental asset, wherein the risk assessment type is associated with at least one rental requirement (paragraph 025);
generating, by the rental management circuitry and using the risk determination model, a risk score, wherein the risk score is generated based on a comparison between the rental requirement and the rental candidate information (paragraph 033); and determining, by the rental management circuitry and using the risk determination model, the risk level based on the risk score (paragraph 034).
Regarding claim 9, Monette et al. teaches an apparatus for providing a rental candidate with access to a rental asset, the apparatus comprising: communications hardware configured to: receive, from a candidate device, a rental initiation request (paragraph 021-022) comprising (a) an indication of the rental asset (property identifier, paragraph 026) and (c) rental candidate information (paragraph 021,024); authentication circuitry configured to: authenticate the rental candidate (paragraph 024); rental management circuitry configured to: in response to authenticating the rental candidate, determine, using a risk determination model, a risk level indicative of an inferred risk associated with renting the rental asset to the rental candidate (secure communication occur between the inquirer and the responder and the secure communication include data for authenticating the user. The communication system assess a degree of risk that indicate a level of confidence that the identities of the inquirer and the responder is authentic, the degree of risk is determined based on authenticating the data, paragraph 023-027), and in response to the risk level satisfying a rental requirement, generate, a rental access key configured to enable use of the rental asset, wherein the communications hardware is further configured to: provide the rental access key to the candidate device (paragraph 031). Monette teaches providing user identification information (paragraph 021) but is silent on teaching an indication of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) associated with the rental candidate. Vitug Webber et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) in a rental transaction (abstract, paragraph 01,028,055). Vitug Webber et al. teaches providing, by the communications hardware, an mDL authentication request to an issuing authority (IA) system associated with an IA that provisioned the mDL (DMV validate mDL, paragraph 015,016,018) and teaches encrypting the information relating to the mDL verification (paragraph 027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Monette et al. as disclosed by Vitug Webber et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in order to provide a reliable source of authentication information.
.
Regarding claim 11, Monette teaches determining, by the authentication circuitry, that the candidate device is associated with the rental candidate and that the rental candidate is in control of the candidate device (The communication system determine with a high degree of likelihood that the identity of the inquirer is authentic, the system determines that the user associated with the computing device is authentic, unique indicia associated with the renter such as IP, MAC, and/or Bluetooth identifier is used to determine the device is associated with the renter, paragraph 024-025,034).
Regarding claim 12, Monette et al. teaches determining the risk level further comprises:
selecting, by the rental management circuitry, a risk assessment type based on the rental asset, wherein the risk assessment type is associated with at least one rental requirement (paragraph 025);
generating, by the rental management circuitry and using the risk determination model, a risk score, wherein the risk score is generated based on a comparison between the rental requirement and the rental candidate information (paragraph 033); and determining, by the rental management circuitry and using the risk determination model, the risk level based on the risk score (paragraph 034).
Regarding claim 15, Monette teaches a computer program product for providing a rental candidate with access to a rental asset, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed, cause an apparatus to:
receive, from a candidate device, a rental initiation request (paragraph 021-022) comprising (a) an indication of the rental asset (property identifier, paragraph 026), and (c) rental candidate information (paragraph 021,024);
authenticate, based on the identification of the rental candidate (paragraph 024);
in response to authenticating the rental candidate, determine, using a risk determination model, a risk level indicative of an inferred risk associated with renting the rental asset to the rental candidate (secure communication occur between the inquirer and the responder and the secure communication include data for authenticating the user. The communication system assess a degree of risk that indicate a level of confidence that the identities of the inquirer and the responder is authentic, the degree of risk is determined based on authenticating the data, paragraph 023-027);
in response to the risk level satisfying a rental requirement, generate, a rental access key configured to enable use of the rental asset; and provide the rental access key to the candidate device (paragraph 031). Monette teaches providing user identification information (paragraph 021) but is silent on teaching an indication of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) associated with the rental candidate. Vitug Webber et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) in a rental transaction (abstract, paragraph 01,028,055). Vitug Webber et al. teaches providing, by the communications hardware, an mDL authentication request to an issuing authority (IA) system associated with an IA that provisioned the mDL (DMV validate mDL, paragraph 015,016,018) and teaches encrypting the information relating to the mDL verification (paragraph 027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Monette et al. as disclosed by Vitug Webber et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in order to provide a reliable source of authentication information.
Regarding claim 17, Monette teaches determining, by the authentication circuitry, that the candidate device is associated with the rental candidate and that the rental candidate is in control of the candidate device (The communication system determine with a high degree of likelihood that the identity of the inquirer is authentic, the system determines that the user associated with the computing device is authentic, unique indicia associated with the renter such as IP, MAC, and/or Bluetooth identifier is used to determine the device is associated with the renter, paragraph 024-025,034).
Regarding claim 18, Monette et al. teaches determining the risk level further comprises:
selecting, by the rental management circuitry, a risk assessment type based on the rental asset, wherein the risk assessment type is associated with at least one rental requirement (paragraph 025);
generating, by the rental management circuitry and using the risk determination model, a risk score, wherein the risk score is generated based on a comparison between the rental requirement and the rental candidate information (paragraph 033); and determining, by the rental management circuitry and using the risk determination model, the risk level based on the risk score (paragraph 034).
Claim(s) 6-8,13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monette US Patent Application Publication 20170132862 in view of Vitug Weber US Patent Application Publication 20240340285 and further in view of Cannon US Patent Application Publication 20230186705.
Regarding claim 6-8, .Monette is silent on teaching receiving, by the rental management circuitry and from the candidate device, an indication of a secondary rental candidate and secondary rental candidate information. Cannon in an analogous art teaches receiving, by the rental management circuitry and from the candidate device, an indication of a secondary rental candidate and secondary rental candidate information and generating, by the rental management circuitry and based on the secondary rental candidate information, a secondary rental access key, wherein the secondary rental access key is configured to enable use of the rental asset for the secondary rental candidate (the key provided to the visitor badge represents the secondary key, the primary key is provided to the guest paragraph 074-075). Cannon teaches providing, by the communications hardware, the secondary rental access key to a secondary candidate device (paragraph 074-075). Cannon teaches the secondary rental access key is configured to enable use of the rental asset for the secondary rental candidate based on access limitations dictated by the rental candidate (paragraph 074-075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber as disclosed by Cannon because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber by providing keys to the additional occupants of the rented property in order to conveniently provide access in a secure manner.
Regarding claims 13-14, .Monette is silent on teaching receiving, by the rental management circuitry and from the candidate device, an indication of a secondary rental candidate and secondary rental candidate information. Cannon in an analogous art teaches receiving, by the rental management circuitry and from the candidate device, an indication of a secondary rental candidate and secondary rental candidate information and generating, by the rental management circuitry and based on the secondary rental candidate information, a secondary rental access key, wherein the secondary rental access key is configured to enable use of the rental asset for the secondary rental candidate (the key provided to the visitor badge represents the secondary key, the primary key is provided to the guest paragraph 074-075). Cannon teaches providing, by the communications hardware, the secondary rental access key to a secondary candidate device (paragraph 074-075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber as disclosed by Cannon because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber by providing keys to the additional occupants of the rented property in order to conveniently provide access in a secure manner.
Regarding claims 19-20, .Monette is silent on teaching receiving, by the rental management circuitry and from the candidate device, an indication of a secondary rental candidate and secondary rental candidate information. Cannon in an analogous art teaches receiving, by the rental management circuitry and from the candidate device, an indication of a secondary rental candidate and secondary rental candidate information and generating, by the rental management circuitry and based on the secondary rental candidate information, a secondary rental access key, wherein the secondary rental access key is configured to enable use of the rental asset for the secondary rental candidate (the key provided to the visitor badge represents the secondary key, the primary key is provided to the guest paragraph 074-075). Cannon teaches providing, by the communications hardware, the secondary rental access key to a secondary candidate device (paragraph 074-075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber as disclosed by Cannon because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber by providing keys to the additional occupants of the rented property in order to conveniently provide access in a secure manner.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monette US Patent Application Publication 20170132862 in view of Vitug Weber US Patent Application Publication 20240340285 in view of Cannon US Patent Application Publication 20230186705 and further in view of Coffey et al. US Patent Application 2015/0120000.
Regarding claims 21-22, Monette is silent on teaching the secondary rental access key is configured to enable use of the rental asset for the secondary rental candidate based on access limitations dictated by the rental candidate. Coffey et al. in an analogous art teaches the secondary rental access key is configured to enable use of the rental asset for the secondary rental candidate based on access limitations dictated by the rental candidate (paragraph 0183-0185).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber in view of Canon as disclosed by Coffey because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Monette in view of Vitug Weber in view of Canon by further limiting access to the rental property by the guest and further improve the security of the rental property.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights