Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 5/22/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,-4, 6-8,11-17, and the cancellation of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanchez US Patent 12067093.
Regarding claim 1, Sanchez teaches a wearable system communicatively coupled with a vehicle (fig. 4), comprising: a finger-worn wearable ring device configured to acquire physiological data from a user (col. 3 lines 30-40); and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the vehicle and the finger-worn wearable ring device(col. 5 lines 37-45), the one or more processors configured to: determine that the user is positioned within a determined proximity of the vehicle based, at least in part, on a communication detected between the vehicle and the finger- worn wearable ring device (col. 8 lines 29-40,col. 9 lines 3-20); retrieve the physiological data acquired from the user via the finger-worn wearable ring device based, at least in part, on the determination that the user is positioned within the determined proximity of the vehicle (col. 8 line 41-co. 9 line 2); authenticate an identity of the user by comparing the physiological data acquired via the finger-worn wearable ring device to a stored user profile associated with the user, wherein the stored user profile comprises baseline physiological data associated with the user collected over a duration; and control access of the user to one or more features associated with the vehicle via transmission of at least one signal, to the vehicle, based, at least in part, on the authentication (col. 12 line 56-col. 13 line 30, Col. 13 line 30-col. 15 line 4). .
Regarding claim 2, Sanchez teaches control the access of the user to the one or more features associated with the vehicle, the one or more processors are further configured to: allow the access of the user to the one or more features associated with the vehicle based at least in part on authenticating the identity of the user via the comparison (col. 15 lines 18-25, col. 12 line 18-25, col. 25 lines 16-30).
Regarding claim 11, Sanchez teaches comparing the physiological data acquired via the finger-worn wearable ring device to the stored user profile associated with the user,
comparing the physiological data acquired via the finger-worn wearable ring device to a plurality of stored user profiles including at least the stored user profile associated with the user, wherein the plurality of stored user profiles are associated with a plurality of users authorized to access the one or more features of the vehicle (col. 13 lines 38-58, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Sanchez teaches the physiological data acquired from the user via the finger-worn wearable ring device comprises current physiological data acquired from the user at a time at which the user is positioned within the determined proximity of the vehicle, historical physiological data acquired from the user within a threshold duration prior to the time at which the user is positioned within the determined proximity of the vehicle, or both (fig. 5, col. 13 lines 38-58).
Regarding claim 13, Sanchez teaches determine that the user is positioned within the determined proximity of the vehicle, the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the user is approaching the vehicle, wherein retrieving the physiological data measured-acquired from the user via the finger-worn wearable ring device is based at least in part on determining that the user is approaching the vehicle (col. 8 lines 29-50, Col. 14 line 57-col. 14 lines 57-67).
Regarding claim 14, Sanchez teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via the finger-worn wearable ring device, a user device associated with the finger- worn wearable ring device, the vehicle, or any combination thereof, a user input enabling a capability of the wearable system to control the access of the user to the one or more features associated with the vehicle, wherein controlling the access of the user to the one or more features associated with the vehicle is based at least in part on receiving the user input (col. 12 lines 18-25, col. 25 lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 16, Sanchez teaches the transmission of the at least one signal to the vehicle is via Bluetooth, Near Field Communications, or both (col. 9 lines 3-22).
Regarding claim 17, Sanchez teaches the one or more features associated with the vehicle comprises access to the vehicle, an ability to operate the vehicle, or both (col. 13 lines 38-58, fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent 12067093 in view of Isaac US Patent Application Publication 20220024414.
Regarding claims 3-4, Sanchez teaches authenticate the identity of the user (col. 12 line 56-col. 13 line 30, Col. 13 line 30-col. 15 line 4) but is silent on teaching the one or more processors are further configured to: identify that the physiological data acquired is within a threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data, wherein authenticating the identity of the user is based at least in part on the physiological data acquired being within the threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data. Isaac in an analogous art teaches a processor configured to: identify that the physiological data acquired is within a threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data, wherein authenticating the identity of the user is based at least in part on the physiological data acquired being within the threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data (paragraph 069). Isaac teaches fail to authenticate the identity of the user, the one or more processors are further configured to: identify that the physiological data acquired exceeds a threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data associated with the stored user profile, wherein failing to authenticate the identity of the user is based at least in part on the physiological data acquired exceeding the threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data (paragraph 069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Isaac because such modification represents an improvement over the system by further increasing the reliability of the authentication process by controlling the accuracy of the authentication process.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent 12,067,093 in view of Sato et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220048470.
Regarding claim 5, Sanchez is silent on teaching generate a signal to cause the vehicle to transmit an alert to one or more external devices associated with the vehicle based at least in part on failing to authenticate the identity of the user, the alert indicating an unauthorized attempt to access the vehicle. Sato et al. in an analogous art teaches generating a signal to cause the vehicle to transmit an alert to one or more external devices associated with the vehicle based at least in part on failing to authenticate the identity of the user, the alert indicating an unauthorized attempt to access the vehicle (paragraph 078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Sato because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Sanchez by providing the means to provide notification when authentication to control the vehicle fails and allows for corrective actions to be taken for the safe and secure operation of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent 12,067,093 in view of Shouldice et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0383580.
Regarding claim 6, Sanchez is not explicit in teaching to deny the user-access of the user to the one or more features, the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a signal to cause the vehicle to disable the one or more features based at least in part on failing to authenticate the identity of the user. Shouldice et al in an analogous art teaches denying the user-access of the user to the one or more features, the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a signal to cause the vehicle to disable the one or more features based at least in part on failing to authenticate the identity of the user(paragraph 015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Shouldice et al. because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Shouldice et al. by increasing the security of the vehicle by ensuring only authorized users can have access to certain vehicle function.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent 12067093 in view of Ghannam et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230281949.
Regarding claim 7, Sanchez teaches receiving, via the finger-worn wearable ring device, the vehicle, a user device associated with the finger-worn wearable ring device (paragraph 024) but is silent on teaching a second form of authentication based at least in part on authenticating an identity of the user via the comparison, wherein controlling access of the user to the vehicle is based at least in part on the second form of authentication. Ghannam et al. in an analogous art teaches a second form (biometric) of authentication based at least in part on authenticating an identity of the user via the comparison, wherein controlling access of the user to the vehicle is based at least in part on the second form of authentication (paragraph 012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Ghannam et al. because such modification represents an improvement in the access control system of the vehicle by requiring additional authentication means and further improving the security of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Regarding Sanchez teaches receiving, via the finger-worn wearable ring device, the vehicle, a user device associated with the finger-worn wearable ring device (col. 13 line 59-col. 14 line 10,col. 14 lines 43-56) but is silent on teaching allow the user to access to the one or more features of the vehicle based at least in part on authenticating an identity of the user via the comparison and based at least in part on the second form of authentication being valid; or deny the user access to the one or more features of the vehicle based at least in part on authenticating an identity of the user via the comparison and based at least in part on the second form of authentication being in invalid. Ghannam et al. in an analogous art teaches allowing the user to access to the one or more features of the vehicle based at least in part on authenticating an identity of the user via the comparison and based at least in part on the second form of authentication being valid; or deny the user access to the one or more features of the vehicle based at least in part on authenticating an identity of the user via the comparison and based at least in part on the second form of authentication being in invalid (paragraph 012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Ghannam et al. because such modification represents an improvement in the access control system of the vehicle by requiring additional authentication means and further improving the security of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Sanchez teaches the second form of authentication comprises a gesture associated with the finger-worn wearable ring device col. 7 lines 38-55).
Regarding claim 10, Sanchez teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a signal to cause the finger-worn wearable ring device, the vehicle, the user device, or any combination thereof, to prompt the user to input the second form of authentication (col. 16 line 60-col. 17 line 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent 12,067,093 in view of Cansino US Patent Application Publication 20170188110.
Regarding claim 15, Sanchez is silent on teaching receive, via the finger-worn wearable ring device, a user device associated with the finger-worn wearable ring device, the vehicle, or any combination thereof, a user input disabling a capability of the wearable system to control access of the user to one or more features of the vehicle and refraining from controlling the access of the user to the one or more features of the vehicle based on additional comparisons based at least in part on receiving the user input. Cansino in an analogous art teaches receive, via wearable device a user input disabling a capability of the wearable system to control access of the user to one or more features of the vehicle and refraining from controlling the access of the user to the one or more features of the vehicle based on additional comparisons based at least in part on receiving the user input (the wearable device is disconnected from the vehicle, paragraph 0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sanchez as disclosed by Cansino because such modification provide for a more adaptable and convenient control system that allows the physiological characteristics of the user to monitored and applied to the control of the vehicle when desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights