977DETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a missing semicolon after the words, “a first hashed encrypted data” on line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 cites “…one or more processors on a server to perform acts comprising… hashing the first encrypted historic data generating a first hashed encrypted data” which fails the written description requirement.
Applicant’s specification [0130]-[0134] and Fig 15A shows essential steps 1506/1508 where the telematic unit 1508 will perform the hashing process of the historic data (step 1504). The specification does not detail any acts of the server performing the process of hashing the first encrypted historic data and generating a first hashed encrypted data.
Incorporation of claims 2 and 3 in a proper manner would ultimately resolve these issues. Therefore, correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected on the dependency basis of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 cites, “hashing the first encrypted historic data generating a first hashed encrypted data; hashing the second encrypted historic data generating a second hashed encrypted data;” which renders the claim indefinite and vague.
The claims seems to be missing a coordinating conjunction word such as “and” and should be written as:
“hashing the first encrypted historic data and generating a first hashed encrypted data;
hashing the second encrypted historic data and generating a second hashed encrypted data;”.
Moreover, the claim seems to lack the end result with respect to the deliverance of the first symmetrical key and the second symmetrical key as specified in Par. [0130] citing, “If the hashes are the same, the data that the user device sent to the TU was up to date and the remote server sends the old and new encryption keys (or first and second symmetric keys) back to the TU 1518. “
Ultimately, the claims would be more complete and less vague if the claimed invention included the features stated above. Therefore, correction is required.
Lastly, claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependency of claim 1.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
- the telematic unit applying a hashing algorithm on a first hashed encrypted data from the first encrypted historic data and a user device identification received from a user device; and
- the server transmitting the first and second symmetrical keys when the first and second historic data are a match.
Applicant’s specification [0130]-[0134] and Fig 15A shows essential step 1506/1508 where the telematic unit 1508 will perform the hashing process of the historic data (step 1504) and requesting for the first symmetrical key (step 1508). Therefore, Applicant is required to add the essential element(s) in order to overcome the rejection.
Moreover, the claim seems to lack the end result with respect to the deliverance of the first symmetrical key and the second symmetrical key as specified in Par. [0130] citing, “If the hashes are the same, the data that the user device sent to the TU was up to date and the remote server sends the old and new encryption keys (or first and second symmetric keys) back to the TU 1518. “
Ultimately, the claims would be more complete and less vague if the claimed invention included the features stated above. Therefore, correction is required. (See MPEP 2163.06, Heading V. Original Claim Not Sufficiently Described)
Lastly, claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependency of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “transmitting a second request to the server” in line 9, and “receiving the first symmetrical key” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no proper declaration of “the server” and “the first symmetrical key”.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
- the telematic unit applying a hashing algorithm on a first hashed encrypted data from the first encrypted historic data and a user device identification received from a user device;
-the telematic unit transmitting a request for a first symmetrical key;
-the server hashing the second encrypted historic data by generating a second hashed encrypted data;
-the server comparing the first encrypted historic data with the second hashed encrypted data from the server’s database and the server transmitting the first and second symmetrical keys when the first and second historic data are a match.
Specifically, claim 7 cites” receiving the first symmetrical key and the second symmetrical key from the server when the first hashed encrypted data matches a second hashed encrypted historic data stored on the server…”. However, the claim lacks the reason for receiving the first symmetrical key, the second symmetrical key and the first hashed encrypted data. Applicant’s specification [0130]-[0134] and Fig 15A shows essential steps 1506/1508 where the telematic unit 1508 will perform the hashing process of the historic data (step 1504) and requesting for the first symmetrical key (step 1508). Furthermore, the server has essential steps 1510, 1512, 1514, and 1516. Without these essential steps, one ordinarily skilled would not be able to coherently convey the process in a manner which makes the claim complete. The claim requires a necessity to adequately describe the invention, or to make and use the invention (See MPEP 2163.06, Heading V. Original Claim Not Sufficiently Described).
Therefore, Applicant is required to add the essential element(s) in order to overcome the rejection.
Lastly, claims 8-13 are rejected for their dependency of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Vladimerou (US 20210064778 A1) was the closest prior art to teach the use of a mobile device, a telematics unit and a server which the mobile device collects telematics information and hashes and generates a cryptographic key to secure the telematic information. However, the prior art fails to teach a telematics unit communicating a first request for a first symmetrical key and the first and second symmetrical keys.
Unagami (US 20200050774 A1) was the closest prior art to teach an authentication server to receive a hash value of encrypted history information from a home device and a second hash value from another server which is then compared to determine hash value matching. However, the prior art is silent in regards to a telematics unit, a first request for a first symmetrical key and the first and second symmetrical keys.
Lyons (US 20190109834 A1) was the closest prior art to teach an a server which generates a hash file of a copy of an image from a user device to determine if the hash value matches the user device generated hash file.
Sim (US 20190080540 A1) was the closest prior art to teach a server which delivers a hash key and an encryption key to a mobile device and a telematics unit so that an encrypted command can be used to unlock a vehicle door.
Other prior art such as Alvarez (US 20180091596 A1), Ahmed (US 20150133108 A1) were considered pertinent prior art related to encryption keys, telematic units and servers in communication to sharing keys for access control.
However, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to specifically teach receiving a communication from a telematic unit, the communication includes a first request for a first symmetrical key; the server generating a second symmetrical key; and the telematics unit receiving the first symmetrical key and the second symmetrical key from the server when the first hashed encrypted data matches a second hashed encrypted historic data stored on the server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689