DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe 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 is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/787,315 filed on 07/29/2024. Claims _ have been examined.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A vehicle owned by an owner and previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving, comprising:
a first memory configured to store reference information for authentication of a second user planning to use the vehicle;
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the owner of the vehicle or with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a processor configured to
obtain first information for authentication about the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle, and
perform a first authentication to authenticate the second user based on the obtained first information for authentication about the second user and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information for authentication about the second user; and
a second memory configured to store connection information for wirelessly connecting with the owner’s device or the first user’s device to request authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails, wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails,
a request for authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle to the owner’s device or the first user’s device, and
second information for authentication about the second user to the first user’s device or the owner’s device that is usable by the first user or the owner to decide whether to permit authentication of the second user,
the processor is also configured to authenticate the second user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user via the wireless communicator after sending the request for authenticating and the second information for authentication to the owner or the first user, and
the processor is further configured to actuate operation of the vehicle for the second user in a case where the first or the second authentication performed by the processor succeeds."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“reference information for authentication”
“a second user planning to use the vehicle”
“first information for authentication”
“first authentication to authenticate the second user”
“connection information for wirelessly connecting”
“connection information … to request authenticating”
“a request for authenticating”
“second information for authentication”
“second information for authentication … to decide whether to permit authentication”
“the request for authenticating”
“the second information for authentication”
“operation of the vehicle for the second user”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A vehicle owned by an owner and previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving, comprising:
a first memory configured to store reference information [intended for authentication of a second user [intending to use the vehicle]];
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the owner of the vehicle or with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a processor configured to
obtain first information [intended for authentication about the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle], and
perform a first authentication [intended to authenticate the second user based on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about the second user] and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about the second user]]; and
a second memory configured to store connection information [intended for wirelessly connecting with the owner’s device or the first user’s device [intended to request authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails]], wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails,
a request [intended for authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle to the owner’s device or the first user’s device], and
second information [intended for authentication about the second user to the first user’s device or the owner’s device that is usable by the first user or the owner [intended to decide whether to permit authentication of the second user]],
the processor is also configured to authenticate the second user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user via the wireless communicator after sending the request [intended for authenticating] and the second information [intended for authentication] to the owner or the first user, and
the processor is further configured to actuate operation of the vehicle [intended for the second user in a case where the first or the second authentication performed by the processor succeeds]."
Claims 2-12 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 2 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
the reference information for authentication is a telephone number,
the first information for authentication is the second user’s telephone number obtained when the second user calls the vehicle, and
the first memory stores the telephone number as the reference information for the authentication."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
the reference information [intended for authentication] is a telephone number,
the first information [intended for authentication] is the second user’s telephone number obtained when the second user calls the vehicle, and
the first memory stores the telephone number as the reference information [intended for the authentication]."
Claim 4 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor sends a notification of the failure in the authentication of the second user to the second user’s device via the wireless communicator in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail."
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the failure”
“the authentication of the second user”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor sends a notification of a failure in an authentication of the second user to the second user’s device via the wireless communicator in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail."
Claim 5 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor actuates a speaker in the vehicle to output a voice message to encourage the second user to exit the vehicle in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor actuates a speaker in the vehicle to output a voice message [intended to encourage the second user to exit the vehicle in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail]."
Claim 6 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the reference information stored in the first memory is for authenticating the second user when the second user is determined to be the first user who previously exited the vehicle or for authenticating a user who is assumed to have previously used the vehicle,
wherein the first memory stores the reference information for authenticating the second user when the second user is determined to be the first user who previously exited the vehicle or for authenticating a user who is assumed to have previously used the vehicle."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the reference information stored in the first memory is [intended for authenticating the second user when the second user is determined to be the first user who previously exited the vehicle] or [intended for authenticating a user who is assumed to have previously used the vehicle],
wherein the first memory stores the reference information [intended for authenticating the second user when the second user is determined to be the first user who previously exited the vehicle] or [intended for authenticating a user who is assumed to have previously used the vehicle]."
Claim 9 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs the first authentication by determining whether names, addresses, the date of birth, IDs, passwords, telephone numbers or email addresses, or combinations thereof stored in the first memory as the reference information coincide with or do not coincide with names, addresses, the date of birth, IDs, passwords, telephone numbers or email addresses, or combinations thereof of the first information for authentication obtained from the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs the first authentication by determining whether names, addresses, the date of birth, IDs, passwords, telephone numbers or email addresses, or combinations thereof stored in the first memory as the reference information coincide with or do not coincide with names, addresses, the date of birth, IDs, passwords, telephone numbers or email addresses, or combinations thereof of the first information [intended for authentication obtained from the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle]."
Claim 13 recites: "A vehicle previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving, comprising:
a first memory configured to store reference information for authentication of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a processor configured to
obtain first information for authentication about a would-be user who is entering the vehicle to use the vehicle when the would-be user is entering the vehicle, and
perform a first authentication to confirm that the would-be user who is entering the vehicle is the first user who previously exited the vehicle based on the obtained first information for authentication about the user who is entering the vehicle and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information; and
a second memory configured to store connection information for wirelessly connecting with a device of the first user who previously used the vehicle to request authenticating the would-be user who is entering the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails, wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails,
a request for authenticating the would-be user who is entering the vehicle to the device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle, and
second information for authentication about the would-be user who is entering the vehicle to the device of the first user who previously entered the vehicle to decide whether to permit authentication of the would-be user who is entering the vehicle,
the processor is also configured to authenticate the would-be user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the would-be user from the first user who previously exited the vehicle via the wireless communicator after sending the request for authenticating and the second information for authentication to the first user who previously exited the vehicle, and
the processor is further configured to actuate operation of the vehicle for the would-be user in a case where the first or the second authentication performed by the processor succeeds."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A vehicle previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving, comprising:
a first memory [intended to store reference information [intended for authentication of the first user who previously exited the vehicle];
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a processor configured to
obtain first information [intended for authentication about a would-be user who is entering the vehicle [intended to use the vehicle when the would-be user is entering the vehicle]], and
perform a first authentication [intended to confirm that the would-be user who is entering the vehicle is the first user who previously exited the vehicle based on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about a user who is entering the vehicle and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information; and
a second memory [intended to store connection information [intended for wirelessly connecting with a device of the first user who previously used the vehicle [intended to request authenticating the would-be user who is entering the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails]]], wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails,
a request [intended for authenticating the would-be user who is entering the vehicle to the device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle], and
second information [intended for authentication about the would-be user who is entering the vehicle to the device of the first user who previously entered the vehicle [intended to decide whether to permit authentication of the would-be user who is entering the vehicle]],
the processor is also configured to authenticate the would-be user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the would-be user from the first user who previously exited the vehicle via the wireless communicator after sending the request [intended for authenticating] and the second information [intended for authentication to the first user who previously exited the vehicle], and
the processor is further configured to actuate operation of the vehicle [intended for the would-be user in a case where a first or a second authentication performed by the processor succeeds]."
Claims 13-14 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 16 recites: "A vehicle owned by an owner and previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving, comprising:
a first memory configured to store reference information for authentication of a second user planning to use the vehicle;
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the owner of the vehicle or with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a processor configured to
obtain first information for authentication about the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle, and
perform a first authentication to authenticate the second user based on the obtained first information for authentication about the second user and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information about the second user;
a second memory configured to store connection information for wirelessly connecting with the owner’s device or the first user’s device to request authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails, wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails
a request for authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle to the owner’s device or the first user’s device, and
second information for authentication about the second user to the first user’s device or the owner’s device that is usable by the first user or the owner to decide whether to permit authentication of the second user,
the processor is also configured to authenticate the second user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user via the wireless communicator after sending the request for authenticating and the second information for authentication to the owner or the first user,
the processor is also configured to fail to authenticate the second user in the second authentication in response to failing to receive the permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user,
the processor is further configured to instruct the vehicle to move to a specified location according to an instruction received through the wireless communicator, and
the processor is also configured to send, through the wireless communicator, to the owner’s device or the first user’s device, a request for the instruction to move the vehicle to the specified location in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A vehicle owned by an owner and previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving, comprising:
a first memory [intended to store reference information [intended for authentication of a second user intending to use the vehicle]]];
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the owner of the vehicle or with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle;
a processor configured to
obtain first information [intended for authentication about the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle], and
perform a first authentication [intended to authenticate the second user based on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about the second user and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information about the second user]];
a second memory [intended to store connection information [intended for wirelessly connecting with the owner’s device or the first user’s device [intended to request authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails]]], wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails
a request [intended for authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle to the owner’s device or the first user’s device], and
second information [intended for authentication about the second user to the first user’s device or the owner’s device that is usable by the first user or the owner [intended to decide whether to permit authentication of the second user]],
the processor is also configured to authenticate the second user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user via the wireless communicator after sending the request [intended for authenticating and the second information [intended for authentication to the owner or the first user]],
the processor is also configured to fail to authenticate the second user in the second authentication in response to failing to receive the permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user,
the processor is further configured to instruct the vehicle to move to a specified location according to an instruction received through the wireless communicator, and
the processor is also configured to send, through the wireless communicator, to the owner’s device or the first user’s device, a request for the instruction to move the vehicle to the specified location in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail.”
Claim 18 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 16, wherein
the reference information for authentication is a telephone number,
the first information for authentication is the second user’s telephone number obtained when the second user calls the vehicle, and
the first memory stores the telephone number as the reference information for the authentication."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 16, wherein
the reference information [intended for authentication] is a telephone number,
the first information [intended for authentication] is the second user’s telephone number obtained when the second user calls the vehicle, and
the first memory stores the telephone number as the reference information [intended for the authentication]."
Claim 19 recites: "The vehicle according to claim 16, wherein the processor sends a notification of the failure in the authentication of the second user to the second user’s device via the wireless communicator in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The vehicle according to claim 16, wherein the processor sends a notification of a failure in an authentication of the second user to the second user’s device via the wireless communicator in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail."
Claim 20 recites: "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program instructing the processor of the vehicle recited in Claim 16 to perform the obtaining, performing, sending, authenticating, instructing, failing the authenticate, and actuating operations of the processor recited in Claim 16.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program instructing the processor of the vehicle recited in Claim 16 to perform the obtaining, performing, sending, authenticating, instructing, failing to authenticate, and actuating operations of the processor recited in Claim 16.”
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuyuki (JP 2007/186144 A. For purposes of this examination, Examiner will refer to the English language translation of this reference provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Fuyuki discloses a vehicle owned by an owner and previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving (e.g. at least vehicle 10, see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text), comprising:
a first memory configured to store reference information [intended for authentication of a second user [intending to use the vehicle]] (e.g. at least camera 11, scanner 12, data storage unit 23, recording media, flash memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13, 15, cl. 1, Fig. 1, and related text);
a wireless communicator (e.g. at least control unit 13, transmission/reception unit 14, 21, see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 14, cl. 5, Fig. 1, and related text) configured to communicate with a device of the owner of the vehicle or with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle (e.g. at least cell phone 30, id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 11, 15, 17);
a processor (e.g. at least control unit 13, CPU, see e.g. at least ¶ 14, Fig. 1, and related text) configured to
obtain first information [intended for authentication about the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle] (see e.g. at least p. 20, 22, Fig. 3, and related text), and
perform a first authentication [intended to authenticate the second user based on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about the second user] and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about the second user]] (see e.g. at least ¶ 17, 21, Fig. 3, and related text); and
a second memory configured to store connection information [intended for wirelessly connecting with the owner’s device or the first user’s device [intended to request authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails]] (e.g. at least data storage unit 23, recording media, flash memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13, 15, 23, cl. 1, Fig. 1, 3, and related text, contacting the owner of the vehicle using the phone number of cell phone 30, pre-registered in the vehicle), wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text),
a request [intended for authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle to the owner’s device or the first user’s device] (id., see e.g. step S05-S09), and
second information [intended for authentication about the second user to the first user’s device or the owner’s device that is usable by the first user or the owner [intended to decide whether to permit authentication of the second user]] (id.),
the processor is also configured to authenticate the second user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user via the wireless communicator after sending the request [intended for authenticating] and the second information [intended for authentication] to the owner or the first user (id.), and
the processor is further configured to actuate operation of the vehicle [intended for the second user in a case where the first or the second authentication performed by the processor succeeds] (id., see e.g. at least step S05, releasing the drive restriction).
Regarding claim 2, Fuyuki discloses that
the reference information [intended for authentication] is a telephone number (see e.g. at least ¶ 23, Fig. 3, and related text),
the first information [intended for authentication] is the second user’s telephone number obtained when the second user calls the vehicle (id.), and
the first memory stores the telephone number as the reference information [intended for the authentication] (id.).
Regarding claim 3, Fuyuki discloses that
the processor is configured to instruct the vehicle to lock itself in a traveling impossible state so as not to allow the second user to use the vehicle in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text), and
the vehicle locks itself into the traveling impossible state in response to an instruction from the processor to lock itself into the traveling impossible state (id.).
Regarding claim 4, Fuyuki discloses that the processor sends a notification of a failure in an authentication of the second user to the second user’s device via the wireless communicator in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Fuyuki discloses that the processor actuates a speaker in the vehicle to output a voice message [intended to encourage the second user to exit the vehicle in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail] (see e.g. at least p. 18, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 6, Fuyuki discloses that the reference information stored in the first memory is [intended for authenticating the second user when the second user is determined to be the first user who previously exited the vehicle] or [intended for authenticating a user who is assumed to have previously used the vehicle] (see e.g. at least p. 17, 20-22, Fig. 3, and related text),
wherein the first memory stores the reference information [intended for authenticating the second user when the second user is determined to be the first user who previously exited the vehicle] or [intended for authenticating a user who is assumed to have previously used the vehicle] (id.).
Regarding claim 7, Fuyuki discloses that the processor is also configured to select an OFF state turning off the function of the processor to perform the first and the second authentications (see e.g. at least ¶ 24-25, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Fuyuki discloses that the processor performs the first authentication by using biometric information including face image recognition, voice recognition, fingerprint authentication, vein authentication and iris authentication (see e.g. at least ¶ 23-26, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Fuyuki discloses that the processor performs the first authentication by determining whether names, addresses, the date of birth, IDs, passwords, telephone numbers or email addresses, or combinations thereof stored in the first memory as the reference information coincide with or do not coincide with names, addresses, the date of birth, IDs, passwords, telephone numbers or email addresses, or combinations thereof of the first information [intended for authentication obtained from the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle] (see e.g. at least ¶ 23-25, Fig. 3, and related text)..
Regarding claim 10, Fuyuki discloses that the processor performs the second authentication by using biometric information of the second user including: face image; voice; fingerprint; vein; and iris, name, address, the date of birth, ID, password, telephone number or email address, or a combination thereof (see e.g. at least ¶ 23-25, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Fuyuki discloses that the wireless communicator performs communication through a communication network including a mobile phone network and the Internet (see e.g. at least ¶ 10, 15, 22-25, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Fuyuki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program instructing the processor of the vehicle recited in 1 to perform the obtaining, performing, sending, authenticating, and actuating operations of the processor recited in 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above; see also e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13-15, cl. 1, Fig. 1, 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Fuyuki discloses a vehicle previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving (e.g. at least vehicle 10, see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text), comprising:
a first memory [intended to store reference information [intended for authentication of the first user who previously exited the vehicle] (e.g. at least camera 11, scanner 12, data storage unit 23, recording media, flash memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13, 15, cl. 1, Fig. 1, and related text);
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle (e.g. at least control unit 13, transmission/reception unit 14, 21, see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 14, cl. 5, Fig. 1, and related text);
a processor (e.g. at least control unit 13, CPU, see e.g. at least ¶ 14, Fig. 1, and related text) configured to
obtain first information [intended for authentication about a would-be user who is entering the vehicle [intended to use the vehicle when the would-be user is entering the vehicle]] (see e.g. at least p. 20, 22, Fig. 3, and related text), and
perform a first authentication [intended to confirm that the would-be user who is entering the vehicle is the first user who previously exited the vehicle based on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about a user who is entering the vehicle and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information (see e.g. at least ¶ 17, 21, Fig. 3, and related text); and
a second memory [intended to store connection information [intended for wirelessly connecting with a device of the first user who previously used the vehicle [intended to request authenticating the would-be user who is entering the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails]]] (e.g. at least data storage unit 23, recording media, flash memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13, 15, 23, cl. 1, Fig. 1, 3, and related text, contacting the owner of the vehicle using the phone number of cell phone 30, pre-registered in the vehicle), wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text),
a request [intended for authenticating the would-be user who is entering the vehicle to the device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle] (id.), and
second information [intended for authentication about the would-be user who is entering the vehicle to the device of the first user who previously entered the vehicle [intended to decide whether to permit authentication of the would-be user who is entering the vehicle]] (id.),
the processor is also configured to authenticate the would-be user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the would-be user from the first user who previously exited the vehicle via the wireless communicator after sending the request [intended for authenticating] and the second information [intended for authentication to the first user who previously exited the vehicle] (id.), and
the processor is further configured to actuate operation of the vehicle [intended for the would-be user in a case where a first or a second authentication performed by the processor succeeds] (id., see e.g. at least step S05, releasing the drive restriction).
Regarding claim 14, Fuyuki discloses that
the processor is configured to instruct the vehicle to lock itself in a traveling impossible state so as not to allow the second user to use the vehicle in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text), and
the vehicle locks itself into the traveling impossible state in response to an instruction from the processor to lock itself into the traveling impossible state (id.).
Regarding claim 15, Fuyuki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program instructing the processor of the vehicle recited in 13 to perform the obtaining, performing, sending, authenticating, and actuating operations of the processor recited in 13 (see rejection of claim 13, above; see also e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13-15, cl. 1, Fig. 1, 3, and related text).
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 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 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuyuki (JP 2007/186144 A) in view of Walker (US 2003/0093187 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fuyuki discloses a vehicle owned by an owner and previously used by a first user who previously exited the vehicle and for performing autonomous driving (e.g. at least vehicle 10, see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text), comprising:
a first memory [intended to store reference information [intended for authentication of a second user intending to use the vehicle]]] (e.g. at least camera 11, scanner 12, data storage unit 23, recording media, flash memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13, 15, cl. 1, Fig. 1, and related text);
a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a device of the owner of the vehicle or with a device of the first user who previously exited the vehicle (e.g. at least control unit 13, transmission/reception unit 14, 21, see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 14, cl. 5, Fig. 1, and related text);
a processor (e.g. at least control unit 13, CPU, see e.g. at least ¶ 14, Fig. 1, and related text) configured to
obtain first information [intended for authentication about the second user when the second user is entering the vehicle] (see e.g. at least p. 20, 22, Fig. 3, and related text), and
perform a first authentication [intended to authenticate the second user based on the obtained first information [intended for authentication about the second user and the reference information stored in the first memory, the first authentication succeeding or failing, depending on the obtained first information about the second user]] (see e.g. at least ¶ 17, 21, Fig. 3, and related text);
a second memory [intended to store connection information [intended for wirelessly connecting with the owner’s device or the first user’s device [intended to request authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle through the wireless communicator when the first authentication fails]]] (e.g. at least data storage unit 23, recording media, flash memory, see e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13, 15, 23, cl. 1, Fig. 1, 3, and related text, contacting the owner of the vehicle using the phone number of cell phone 30, pre-registered in the vehicle), wherein
the processor is also configured to send via the wireless communicator using the stored connection information, when the first authentication fails (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text),
a request [intended for authenticating the second user’s use of the vehicle to the owner’s device or the first user’s device] (id.), and
second information [intended for authentication about the second user to the first user’s device or the owner’s device that is usable by the first user or the owner [intended to decide whether to permit authentication of the second user]] (id.),
the processor is also configured to authenticate the second user in a second authentication in response to receiving permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user via the wireless communicator after sending the request [intended for authenticating and the second information [intended for authentication to the owner or the first user]] (id.),
the processor is also configured to fail to authenticate the second user in the second authentication in response to failing to receive the permission to authenticate the second user from the owner or the first user (id.),
the processor is further configured to instruct the vehicle according to an instruction received through the wireless communicator (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-23, Fig. 3, and related text, instructing the vehicle via the phone 30 to release or lock the drive restriction unit), and
the processor is also configured to send, through the wireless communicator, to the owner’s device or the first user’s device, a request for an instruction for the vehicle in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail (id.).
Additionally, Walker teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Fuyuki including namely: [a processor is further configured to instruct a vehicle] to move to a specified location [according to an instruction received through a wireless communicator] (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 83-84, 87, 121, 133, 138, 191, 195, cl. 23), and
[the processor is also configured to send, through a wireless communicator, to an owner’s device or a first user’s device, a request for an instruction] to move the vehicle to the specified location [in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail] (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 12-13, 77, 83-84, 87, 121, 133, 138, 191, 195, cl. 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Fuyuki by configuring that the processor is further configured to instruct the vehicle to move to a specified location according to an instruction received through the wireless communicator, and the processor is also configured to send, through the wireless communicator, to the owner’s device or the first user’s device, a request for the instruction to move the vehicle to the specified location in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail as taught by Walker in order to augment and upgrade public safety and security of vehicle platforms by stopping and controlling the unauthorized use or unsafe use of vehicles (Walker: Abstract, ¶ 12).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Fuyuki teaches that
the reference information [intended for authentication] is a telephone number (Fuyuki: see e.g. at least ¶ 23, Fig. 3, and related text),
the first information [intended for authentication] is the second user’s telephone number obtained when the second user calls the vehicle (Fuyuki: id.), and
the first memory stores the telephone number as the reference information [intended for the authentication] (Fuyuki: id.).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Fuyuki teaches that the processor sends a notification of a failure in an authentication of the second user to the second user’s device via the wireless communicator in a case where both the first and the second authentications fail (Fuyuki: see e.g. at least ¶ 19-23, Fig. 1, 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 20, Fuyuki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program instructing the processor of the vehicle recited in 16 to perform the obtaining, performing, sending, authenticating, instructing, failing to authenticate, and actuating operations of the processor recited in 16 (see rejection of claim 16, above; see also e.g. at least ¶ 6, 13-15, cl. 1, Fig. 1, 3, and related text).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662