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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 USC 112(d) is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that Nakata does not teach the limitations of the claim. In particular, Applicant asserts that gate control device 350 is not responsible for performing the available services. In addition, Applicant asserts that gate control device 350, while responsible for opening and closing the gates to the garage, does not do so in response to a request by the vehicle or enabled for control by the vehicle.
Therefore, Applicant asserts that Nakata does not teach the limitations of claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner concedes that gate controller 350 is not responsible for providing other services.
However, Nakata [0039] describes infrastructure management device 330 that “manages and controls the infrastructure facility 300 as a whole.” Examiner considers this comparable to the “second control apparatus” of claim 1. While the rest of the disclosure primarily refers to infrastructure facility 300 as performing different operations, it is implied that infrastructure management device 330 is responsible for performing the specific functions. Nakata figures 6 and 14, [0065], [0080], [0100] describe communication between the vehicle and the infrastructure facility, a request for valet parking of an autonomous vehicle, and control of the vehicle according to the requested parking and other services. Examiner considers the valet parking, which is explicitly described as being performed by management device 330, as comparable to a “requested predefined function.” While the vehicle charging and car wash are not explicitly described as being automatically performed by the facility (as opposed to manually performed by an employee), such automated systems are well known in the art.
In addition, per Nakata [0157], gate controller 350 does open the gate in response to a request from the vehicle. As the vehicle approaches the exit gate, the infrastructure facility 300 recognizes the vehicle and sends an exit gate notification to the vehicle. In return, the vehicle sends a departure notification, at which point the gate is opened.
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)(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.
(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 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata (US 20200198620 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nakata teaches: A control system, comprising:
a motor vehicle with a first control apparatus; (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0043] for vehicle 100 with control device 210)
an infrastructure with a second control apparatus; (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039] for infrastructure facility 300 with infrastructure management device 330 and gate control device 350)
wherein the first and second control apparatuses are configured to establish a wireless connection to one another and to carry out a bilateral authentication via the wireless connection, (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0040] for wireless communication. See Fig. 5 and Fig. 19 for secure communication authentication between vehicle and infrastructure.)
wherein the motor vehicle is configured to request a predefined function of the infrastructure via the wireless connection, and
wherein the second control apparatus is configured to perform the requested predefined function of the infrastructure if the function is enabled for control by way of the motor vehicle. (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039]-[0042] for control of entrance and exit gates, see [0157] for opening exit gate in response to a departure notification from the vehicle. See [0145] for infrastructure management device 330 providing instructions to move the vehicle to park or provide other services. See Fig. 6 and [0080] for transmission of additional available services and response from the vehicle. See Fig. 8 for example services.)
Regarding claim 12, Nakata teaches: The control system according to claim 11, wherein the function of the infrastructure relates to the motor vehicle. (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039]-[0042] for control of entrance and exit gates of a parking facility. See Fig. 6 and [0080] for transmission of additional available services and response from the vehicle. See Fig. 8 for example services.)
Regarding claim 13, Nakata teaches: The control system according to claim 11, wherein
the infrastructure is configured to request a predefined function of the motor vehicle via the wireless connection, and
the first control apparatus is configured to perform the requested predefined function of the motor vehicle if the function is enabled for control by way of the infrastructure. (See Nakata Fig. 6 and [0095]-[0098] for movement instructions transmitted from the facility and performed by the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 14, Nakata teaches: The control system according to claim 11, wherein authenticating takes place via an asymmetric cryptographic method. (See Nakata Figs. 18-21 and [0186]-[0210] for encrypted communication details.)
Regarding claim 15, Nakata teaches: The control system according to claim 11, further comprising:
an external location, from which a public key of a participant is obtainable. (See Nakata [0187]-[0197] for transmission of electronic certificate of the infrastructure which includes the public key of the infrastructure facility.)
Regarding claim 17, Nakata teaches: An apparatus, comprising:
an infrastructure control apparatus, (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039] for infrastructure facility 300 with gate control device 350)
wherein the infrastructure control apparatus is configured to:
establish a wireless connection to a motor vehicle and to perform a bilateral authentication via the wireless connection; (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0040] for wireless communication. See Fig. 5 and Fig. 19 for secure communication authentication between vehicle and infrastructure.)
receive a request of a motor vehicle via the wireless connection with regard to a function of the infrastructure; and
perform the requested function if the function is enabled for control by way of the motor vehicle. (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039]-[0042] for control of entrance and exit gates. See Fig. 6 and [0080] for transmission of additional available services and response from the vehicle. See Fig. 8 for example services.)
Regarding claim 18, Nakata teaches: The apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising:
an actuator for controlling a function of the infrastructure. (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039]-[0042] for control of entrance and exit gates. Physical gates require actuation. See Fig. 6 and [0080] for transmission of additional available services and response from the vehicle. See Fig. 8 for example services. A car wash would require actuation.)
Regarding claim 19, Nakata teaches: A method, comprising:
generating a two-part digital key;
providing a first part of the key to a motor vehicle;
providing a second part of the key to an infrastructure; and
performing a bilateral authentication between the motor vehicle and the infrastructure based on the first and second parts and via a wireless connection; (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0040] for wireless communication. See [0190] for certificate authority which provides electronic certificate for the infrastructure certificate. See [0187]-[0190] for public key provided to the vehicle with the certificate and secret key provided to the infrastructure facility. This is a commonly known method of secure communications.)
requesting, by the motor vehicle via the wireless connection, performance of a function by the infrastructure; and
performing the requested function by the infrastructure if the function is enabled for control by the motor vehicle. (See Nakata Fig. 1 and [0039] for infrastructure facility 300 with infrastructure management device 330 and gate control device 350. See Fig. 1 and [0039]-[0042] for control of entrance and exit gates, see [0157] for opening exit gate in response to a departure notification from the vehicle. See [0145] for infrastructure management device 330 providing instructions to move the vehicle to park or provide other services. See Fig. 6 and [0080] for transmission of additional available services and response from the vehicle. See Fig. 8 for example services.)
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a method of operating the control system of claim 11 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (US 20200198620 A1) in view of Hayward (US 9832241 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Nakata teaches: The control system according to claim 15, further comprising:
a mobile device, (See Fig. 16 and [0162]-[0177] for user option terminal 490 which may be a smartphone.)
Nakata does not explicitly teach:
wherein the mobile device is configured to establish the wireless connection to the infrastructure and to perform a bilateral authentication via the connection, and
wherein enabling of a function of the infrastructure is controlled with regard to a request by way of the motor vehicle via the wireless connection.
Examiner notes that this is essentially the same as replacing the vehicle-side communication device 110 of Nakata Fig. 1 with the mobile device. Examiner asserts that it is commonly known in the art for vehicles which lack their own wireless communication capabilities to use the communication capabilities of a connected smartphone or similar device.
For example, Hayward teaches a system of vehicle communication and information sharing incorporating mobile devices (See Hayward Fig. 2 and col 12 ln 48 to col 14 ln 22 for mobile devices 204 which communicate with any other device, including infrastructure 208.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Nakata to incorporate the use of a mobile device to facilitate communication between the vehicle and the infrastructure, as taught in Hayward, in the case that the vehicle does not possess the necessary capability to do so on its own.
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 JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights