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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/02/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. 12,103,494 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
Rejections of claims 1-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been removed in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 03/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsay et al. (US 2020/0238952 A1) in view of Marciniak (US 2015/0349959 A1) and Lemberger (US 2016/0364009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lindsay discloses a vehicle entry system (e.g. [0095-0096, 0111]) comprising:
an image sensor (e.g. Fig. 2: 44) configured to capture real-time images according to a predetermined field of view from a vehicle (e.g. [0095]);
a lockout device (e.g. [0096]: door lock) configured to selectably provide access to the vehicle; and
a controller (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0097]) configured to authenticate a primary authorized user of a vehicle and a secondary authorized user of the vehicle (e.g. [0095-0097]: authorized users):
(A) analyze a first one of the captured images for matching to a stored facial pattern corresponding to the primary authorized user (e.g. [0095-0097]: one of the authorized users) of the vehicle, and issue a command for the lockout device to grant the access to the vehicle (e.g. [0095-0096]);
Lindsay fails to disclose, but Marciniak teaches (B) detect a request for a secondary authentication (e.g. Fig. 3: 316: fails fingerprint authentication over a predetermined number of times) after the captured image being analyzed fails to match the stored facial pattern (e.g. Fig. 300-316 & [0030]: biometric sensing could be facial recognition instead of fingerprint authentication) ; (C) analyze a nonbiometric secondary authentication code entrusted to a secondary user (e.g. Fig. 3: 318 & [0055]: any other well-known authentication method); and (D) issue a command to grant the access when the secondary code entrusted to a secondary authorized user is detected (e.g. [0003]: successful authentication implies granting access).
Thus, Lindsay in combination with Marciniak discloses(D) issue a command for the lockout device to grant the access when the secondary code is detected.
In addition, the combination of Lindsay (teaches more than one authorized users stored in a database for authentication comparison) and Marciniak would teach that: 1) failed to match in step (B) is “corresponding to the primary authorized user” since Marciniak determines whether there is a match by comparing the captured image with images of all the authorized users stored in a database (i.e. including one of the primary and the secondary authorized users as claimed), and 2) the secondary code is entrusted to a secondary authorized user (since Lindsay teaches there are more than one authorized user, and it would be obvious that Marciniak is comparing with all authorized users stored in database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lindsay with the teachings of Marciniak to request to use another authentication method when failure attempts to authenticate via biometric images over a limit so as to increase greater level of security by performing additional security operation.
Lindsay and Marciniak in combination fails to disclose, but Lemberger teaches (C) analyze a second one of the captured images for a nonbiometric secondary code (e.g. [0149]) entrusted to the secondary user (e.g. Figs. 18-19 & [0127, 0149, 0152]: authentication could be facial recognition and/or gesture recognition based on captured images).
Marciniak teaches the secondary code could be in any form of authentication other than biometric data, and Lemberger teaches gesture recognition is another type of authentication well-known in the art that is also based on captured images.
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lindsay and Marciniak with the teachings of Lemberger to utilize gesture as the nonbiometric secondary code since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another (replacing passcode as taught by Marciniak with gestures as suggested by Lemberger since they are known alternative in the art) according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable result to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Lindsay discloses a method for controlling entry into a vehicle (e.g. [0095-0096, 0111]), comprising the steps of:
capturing real-time images according to a predetermined field of view from the vehicle (e.g. [0095]);
analyzing, in a controller configured to authenticate a primary authorized user of a vehicle and a secondary authorized user of the vehicle (e.g. [0095-0097]: authorized users), a first one of the captured images for matching to a stored facial pattern corresponding to the primary authorized user of the vehicle (e.g. [0095-0097]: one of the authorized users), and issue a command for the lockout device to grant the access to the vehicle (e.g. [0095-0096]);
Lindsay fails to disclose, but Marciniak teaches detecting a request for a secondary authentication (e.g. Fig. 3: 316: fails fingerprint authentication over a predetermined number of times) after the captured image being analyzed fails to match the stored facial pattern (e.g. Fig. 300-316 & [0030]: biometric sensing could be facial recognition instead of fingerprint authentication); analyzing a nonbiometric secondary code entrusted to a secondary user (e.g. Fig. 3: 318 & [0055]: any other well-known authentication method); and issuing a command to grant the access when the secondary code entrusted to the secondary authorized user is detected (e.g. [0003]: successful authentication implies granting access).
Thus, Lindsay in combination with Marciniak discloses(D) issue a command for the lockout device to grant the access when the secondary code is detected.
In addition, the combination of Lindsay (teaches more than one authorized users stored in a database for authentication comparison) and Marciniak would teach that: 1) failed to match in step (B) is “corresponding to the primary authorized user” since Marciniak determines whether there is a match by comparing the captured image with images of all the authorized users stored in a database (i.e. including one of the primary and the secondary authorized users as claimed), and 2) the secondary code is entrusted to a secondary authorized user (since Lindsay teaches there are more than one authorized user, and it would be obvious that Marciniak is comparing with all authorized users stored in database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lindsay with the teachings of Marciniak to request to use another authentication method when failure attempts to authenticate via biometric images over a limit so as to increase greater level of security by performing additional security operation.
Lindsay and Marciniak in combination fails to disclose, but Lemberger teaches (C) analyze a second one of the captured images for a nonbiometric secondary code (e.g. [0149]) entrusted to the secondary user (e.g. Figs. 18-19 & [0127, 0149, 0152]: authentication could be facial recognition and/or gesture recognition based on captured images).
Marciniak teaches the secondary code could be in any form of authentication other than biometric data, and Lemberger teaches gesture recognition is another type of authentication well-known in the art that is also based on captured images.
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lindsay and Marciniak with the teachings of Lemberger to utilize gesture as the nonbiometric secondary code since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another (replacing passcode as taught by Marciniak with gestures as suggested by Lemberger since they are known alternative in the art) according to KSR, and the modification would have yielded only predictable result to one skilled in the art.
Therefore, Lindsay, Marciniak and Lemberger in combination discloses a method for controlling entry into a vehicle which responds to users with an initial biometric authentication and a backup nonbiometric authentication.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lindsay discloses the access to the vehicle is comprised of unlocking of a vehicle closure (e.g. [0024, 0028, 0095, 0096]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lindsay discloses the access to the vehicle is comprised of enabling an operation of a powertrain of the vehicle (e.g. [0089, 0107]: engine operation).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lemberger teaches the secondary code is comprised of an alphanumeric series (e.g. [0127, 0149, 0152]: sign language, sequences of fingers showing numbers, sequences of hand gestures).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lemberger teaches the secondary code is comprised of a graphical pattern (e.g. [0127, 0149, 0152]: sequences of head movement, different faces, hand shapes, etc.).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lemberger teaches the secondary code is comprised of a series of gestures over a sequence of the captured images (e.g. [0127, 0149, 0152]: sequences of head movement, different faces, hand shapes, etc.).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17, Lindsey, Marciniak and Lemberger in combination discloses the step of detecting a trigger condition, wherein the step of analyzing a first one of the captured images is initiated in response to detecting the trigger condition (e.g. Lindsey: Fig. 2: 42; Marciniak: Fig. 3: 300), and wherein the request for the secondary authentication is comprised of a repetition of the trigger condition (e.g. Marciniak: Fig. 3: 316, 318: repeatedly using the fingerprint image sensor over a predetermined number of times).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lindsey, Marciniak and Lemberger in combination discloses the trigger condition is comprised of a manual contact of the secondary user with the vehicle (e.g. Marciniak: Fig. 3: 316, 318: repeatedly using the fingerprint image sensor over a predetermined number of times).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsay et al. (US 2020/0238952 A1) in view of Marciniak (US 2015/0349959 A1) and Lemberger (US 2016/0364009 A1) as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Pophale et al. (US 10,421,435 B2).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lindsey, Marciniak and Lemberger in combination fails to explicitly disclose, but Pophale teaches the trigger condition is comprised of a manual contact of the secondary user with the vehicle (col 2 lines 31-38).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lindsay, Marciniak and Lemberger with the teachings of Pophale to activate a camera by touching a door handle so as to avoid mistaken initiation of authentication.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsay et al. (US 2020/0238952 A1) in view of Marciniak (US 2015/0349959 A1) and Lemberger (US 2016/0364009 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Petersson et al. (US 2021/0213909 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Lindsay, Marciniak and Lemberger in combination fails to disclose, but Petersson teaches the controller is further configured to (1) analyze a plurality of captured images (e.g. Fig. 3: 304, 306 & [0082]) after the secondary authentication code (e.g. Fig. 3: 300, 302) to identify a supplemental action code, and (2) generate a command for a vehicle accessory to execute an accessory function corresponding to the supplemental action code (e.g. Fig. 3: 310, 312, 314, 318).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lindsay, Marciniak and Lemberger with the teachings of Petersson to further detect a command for operating a vehicle accessory after successfully authenticated an user so as to assist the user to open a tailgate of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding to amendments of claims 1 and 11, the examiner disagrees with the following reason(s):
Lindsay at least in paragraphs [0095-0097] discloses there are more than one authorized user, and authentication is performed by comparing with all the images of the authorized users stored in a database;
Limitations regarding the steps of “analyze a first one of the captured real-time images…to the primary authorized user” and “analyze a second one of the captured real-time images for a nonbiometric secondary authentication code entrusted to the secondary authorized user” recited in claims 1 and 11 do not limit the authentication(s) in both steps to be performed only with the primary authorized user or the secondary authorized user, respectively, correspond to the limitations. The limitations only require the authentication being performed by comparing the captured images with stored data that are corresponding to the primary authorized user and/or entrusted to the secondary authorized user.
Since Lindsay discloses there are stored data correspond to a plurality of authorized users in a database, and Marciniak and Lemberger teach the stored data could be biometric and non-biometric data, the combination of Lindsay, Marciniak and Lemberger discloses authentication is performed by comparing captured images with all the authorized users (i.e. including the primary and the secondary authorized users as claimed) and the non-biometric data (e.g. code) are entrusted to all authorized users (i.e. including the primary and the secondary authorized users as claimed.
Thus, Lindsay, Marciniak and Lemberger in combination discloses the claimed invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are unpatentable at least in view of foregoing reason(s) and rejections set forth in current Office action.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571)270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688