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 1/05/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,8, and 14-15.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the proximity of the user to the vehicle, it is the examiner’s position that the Sanchez teaches the smart ring communicate with the vehicle using Bluetooth or NFC (paragraph 038), the use of NFC or Bluetooth communication inherently indicates that the user is proximate to the vehicle. The collection of the user physiological data is based on the user’s device with the communication range (NFC, Bluetooth) to the vehicle.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the limitation of comparison indicating whether the physiological data collected matches the stored user profile associated with the user, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art of Sanchez teaches indicating whether the physiological data collected matches the stored user profile associated with the user because during the driving session data on the user physiological and behavioral parameters are collected and compared to user physiological and behavioral parameters collected earlier( fig. 7, paragraph 078-079,84).
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 -4,6,11-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanchez US Patent Application Publication 20230174114.
Regarding claim 1, Sanchez teaches a wearable system communicatively coupled with a vehicle, comprising:
a finger-worn wearable ring device configured to acquire physiological data from a user (paragraph 024); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the vehicle and the finger-worn wearable ring device (server, fig. 4), 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 (Bluetooth, NFC, the use of NFC or Bluetooth communication inherently indicates that the user is proximate to the vehicle, paragraph 038);
retrieve the physiological data measured 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 (paragraph 036-039);
compare the physiological data collected via the finger-worn wearable ring device to a stored user profile associated with the user 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 comparison indicating whether the physiological data collected matches the stored user profile associated with the user (during the driving session data on the user physiological and behavioral parameters are collected and compared to user physiological and behavioral parameters collected earlier, fig. 7, paragraph 078-079,84).
Regarding claim 2, Sanchez 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 or deny the user access to the one or more features of the vehicle based at least in part on failing to authenticate the identity of the user via the comparison (fig. 7, paragraph 079)..
Regarding claim 3, Sanchez teaches identify that the physiological data is within a threshold deviation of baseline physiological data associated with the stored user profile, wherein authenticating the identity of the user is based at least in part on the physiological data being within the threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data (fig. 7, paragraph 079).
Regarding claim 4, Sanchez teaches identify that the physiological data exceeds a threshold deviation of 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 exceeding the threshold deviation of the baseline physiological data (step 712 of fig. 7, paragraph 079).
Regarding claim 6, Sanchez teaches generating 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 083).
determine that the user is positioned in the determined proximity of the vehicle, the one or more processors are further configured to:
Regarding claim 11, Sanchez teaches comparing the physiological data collected via the finger-worn wearable ring device to the stored user profile associated with the user, the one or more processors are further configured to:
compare the physiological data collected 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 (fig. 7, paragraph 078).
Regarding claim 12, Sanchez teaches the physiological data measured from the user via the finger-worn wearable ring device comprises current physiological data measured from the user at a time at which the user is positioned in the determined proximity of the vehicle, historical physiological data measure from the user within a threshold duration prior to the time at which the user is positioned in the determined proximity of the vehicle, or both .
Regarding claim 13, Sanchez teaches determining that the user is approaching the vehicle, wherein retrieving the physiological data measured 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. NFC detecting proximity, paragraph 038)
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 access of the user to one or more features of the vehicle, wherein controlling the access of the user to the one or more features of the vehicle is based at least in part on receiving the user input (fig. 7, paragraph 078-079).
Regarding claim 16, Sanchez teaches the transmission of the at least one signal to the vehicle is via Bluetooth, Near Field Communications, or both (paragraph 038).
Regarding claim 17, Sanchez teaches the one or more features of the vehicle comprises access to the vehicle, an ability to operate the vehicle, or both (paragraph 083).
Regarding claim 18, Sanchez teaches the stored user profile associated with the user comprises baseline physiological data associated with the user collected over a duration (paragraph 055-056,064).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent Application Publication 20230174114 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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent Application Publication 20230174114 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 (paragraph 024) 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 (paragraph 080).
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, or the user device, or any combination thereof, to prompt the user to input the second form of authentication (paragraph 078).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez US Patent Application Publication 20230174114 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
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 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