DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/9/26 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim 7 is amended and new claim 8 has been added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the pending claims, Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant asserts the combined teachings of Ibrahim and Nagai fail to teach, disclose or suggest the limitation “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle” (emphasis added). Applicant asserts this is because although Ibrahim discloses identifying a first user operating the vehicle, Ibrahim fails to teach, disclose or suggest “identifying/determining one or more user being absent from the vehicle”. However, claim 1 does not require “identifying/determining” that a second user associated with the vehicle is absent. See MPEP § 2145, VI; Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations on which appellant relied were not stated in the claims; the specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms.).
Furthermore, the specification makes clear that the limitation “while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle” includes any period of time when the second user is not affirmatively identified. FIG. 8 and its corresponding description in ¶¶ 47-48 appear to be the only portions of the specification that discuss the relevant portion of claim 1 cited above. Here, the specification, referencing FIG. 8, indicates a first user is detected at the vehicle via a mobile device associated with the first user. This user then requests access to a steaming service associated with the second user (804, Fig. 8)(i.e., a specific known person, not simply a second individual in the vehicle). The flowchart of FIG. 8, step 806 states “Second user present?” If the second user is present the requested streaming service can be played. Until the second user is positively detected, i.e., “via mobile device carried by the second user 202b” (¶ 47) the system assumes the second user is not present and declines the first users request (810 “decline request”), i.e., prior to positively detecting the second user at 812. Matching FIG. 8, 806 with the corresponding specification clarifies that “while a second user . . . is absent” means that the second user has not affirmatively been detected, i.e., silence as to the presence a second user qualifies as “while a second user . . . is absent”.
This appears to be the only disclosure of the limitation “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle”. Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle” includes any period of time when the second user is not affirmatively identified. Interpreting the limitation as advocated by Applicant would result in an enablement rejection since the specification does not indicate how detection of the absence of specific person would be carried out, i.e., as further discussed in the 112(a) rejection of new claim 8 below. For example, in the example provided using identification for the first and second user via an associated mobile device, the second user could be in the vehicle without carrying their mobile device such that an affirmatively detected absence of the second user is not disclosed. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide guidance sufficient for a PHOSITA to make or use the invention at the time of effective filing where the absence of a specific person in a vehicle is affirmatively detected. Accordingly, Applicants arguments as to this point are unpersuasive.
Applicant further asserts “the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness” because Ibrahim “does not teach or suggest ‘receiving the payment consent from the mobile device’" and because “the Examiner disregarded the "from the mobile device" feature recited in claim 1. (Office Action at 4.)” (Amend. 5). Such an assertion is an obvious misrepresentation of the record and is factually incorrect. First, the mobile device was not “disregarded”. Rather, the Examiner explicitly indicated Ibrahim fails to teach the mobile device limitation and explicitly indicated this was taught in Nagi:
However, Ibrahim fails to explicitly disclose:
determining the first user does not have a payment profile associated with the vehicle and sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network such that the payment consent is from a mobile device of the second user.
However, the use case where a payment profile, wallet, etc. of a first user vehicle driver is not available and subsequently a request for payment consent is sent to a second user such that the payment consent is from a mobile device of the second user would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing in view of Nagai.
For example, Nagai discloses a user 32 without a payment profile at a credit/ money server 2, 61 wherein a request for payment consent to a mobile device of a predefined party (second user) via a wireless network is sent (i.e., FIG. 1 family charge request) and the payment consent from the predefined party (second user/ parent) via the wireless network is sent in response (i.e., family charge permission FIG. 1) from the mobile device of the second user
(i.e., parent mobile phone 31, FIG. 1, “family charge permission” is the payment consent)
(FIG. 8, i.e., s15, s25 and corresponding description)
(¶¶ 188 , 243 when the child mobile phone 32 asks for the charge with respect to the family account, a charge request permission mail may be transmitted to the parent mobile phone 31 and the family charge may be permitted after granting permission; 249, 363).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the teachings of Nagai cited above into the system of Ibrahim, such that the teachings of the mobile phone are applied to the vehicle of Nagai. Doing so would provide the benefit of efficient sharing of family resources while allowing for parental control of vehicle related charges associated with the family car, i.e., parents will want children to be allowed to use a family charge account for safety, i.e., running out of gas, but can also determine limits and permission on a case by case basis (Nagai, ¶¶ 160-161, 181-182)
(Non-final Act. 5).
Second, claim 1 was rejected using a combination of references, Ibrahim and Nagai and Applicant only refers to Ibrahim in the argument. Such arguments are not persuasive since one cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Applicant has failed to address any of the citations related to a mobile device from Nagai. Accordingly, Applicants arguments as to this point are unpersuasive.
With respect to newly amended claim 7, the arguments are moot in view of the new rejection necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show fail to show the steps recited in the combination of claims 1 and 8, i.e., including “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle . . . sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network . . . operating the vehicle to accept fuel supplied form the fueling station . . . detecting a presence of a first user in the vehicle and determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle”. As noted in the 112(b) rejection, it is unclear if the limitations of claim 8 are separate new steps or are further limitations of a previously recited step. If these are separate steps and antecedent characterization is simply missing, the drawings fail to show where they would occur, i.e., Fig. 8 appears to be the most similar to the recited language although it is not understood how this steps interrelate, when they occur, or how they result in the vehicle accepting fuel.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The originally filed application fails to disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 8, particularly “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle . . . sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network . . . detecting a presence of a first user in the vehicle and determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle”.
The originally filed specification fails to provide disclosure of detecting an absence of a second user as described in claim 1. FIG. 8 and its corresponding description in ¶¶ 47-48 appear to be the only portions of the specification that discuss the limitation cited above. Here, the specification, referencing FIG. 8, only discusses positively detecting a second user and fails to reasonably convey detection of the absence of a specific known person. The flowchart of FIG. 8, step 806 states “Second user present?” If the second user is present the requested streaming service can be played. Until the second user is positively detected, i.e., “via mobile device carried by the second user 202b” (¶ 47) the system assumes the second user is not present and declines the first users request (810 “decline request”). Here, in the example provided using identification of the first and second user via an associated mobile device, the second user could be in the vehicle without carrying their mobile device such that an affirmatively detected absence of the second user is not disclosed. In addition, it is unclear how the disclosed invention could affirmatively determine the absence of the second user. Each of the second user presence detection techniques listed in ¶ 48 do not detect the absence of the second user. For example, a mobile device may not be carried by a second user present in the vehicle such that absence of the second user could not be detected. In addition, even if computing platform 104 has positive identification techniques listed in ¶ 48, these do not preclude a second user from being present in the vehicle if failed. Although positively detecting the presence of the second user at a distant location while simultaneously detecting the first user in the vehicle may disclose at least a portion of the above cited limitation, the originally filed specification fails to provide such disclosure. . The claim limitations noted herein define the invention by “merely specifying a desired result” such that the specification fails to “sufficiently identify how a function is performed or the result is achieved”, i.e., how the absence of the second user from the vehicle is determined. See MPEP 2163.03 (“An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”).
Claim 8 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
To satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full
scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation." See, e.g., In re Wright, 999
F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2161.01, III. “The Federal Circuit has stated that "‘[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.’" Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1283, 84 USPQ2d at 1115 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir.1997)). The rule that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art is "merely a rule of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure." Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366. See MPEP 2161.01, III. Furthermore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement must be made when the specification does not enable the full scope of the claim. See MPEP 2161.01, III. Here, the specification fails to enable the full scope of the limitation “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle . . . sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network . . . detecting a presence of a first user in the vehicle and determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
To satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full
scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation." See, e.g., In re Wright, 999
F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2161.01, III. “The Federal Circuit has stated that "‘[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.’" Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1283, 84 USPQ2d at 1115 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir.1997)). The rule that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art is "merely a rule of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure." Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366. See MPEP 2161.01, III. Furthermore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement must be made when the specification does not enable the full scope of the claim. See MPEP 2161.01, III. Here, the specification fails to enable the full scope of the limitations “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle . . . sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network . . . detecting a presence of a first user in the vehicle and determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle”.
Specifically, the specification fails to provide a sufficiently enabling disclosure at the time of effective filing such that a PHOSITA could make and/ or use the claimed invention that determines a specific person, a second user, is absent from the vehicle while also detecting the presence of the first user in the vehicle. In addition, the recited claim language provides unclear, conflicting and overlapping terminology with unclear antecedent characterization further evidencing a lack of clear instruction for a PHOSITA. For example, claim 1 requires “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user is absent” and claim 8 requires “detecting a presence of the first user in the vehicle” wherein it is unclear if detection is the same step or a different step than identifying. Similarly, the recitation of “while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent” in claim 1 and “determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle” – such that it is unclear if these are separate requirements or refer to the same step. For example, do claims 1 and 8 require that determination of the absence of the second user occurs at the same time as identifying the first user? Are multiple second user absence detections required?
Accordingly, under the Wands factors (MPEP 2164.01(a) A-H), with respect to the above limitations, there are (G), no working examples for the full claim scope, (F) conflicting explanation provided by the inventor with overlapping or conflicting terminology used to describe related concepts that cannot be discerned; and (B) a highly complex nature of attempting to confirm that a specific person is not present using the options recited in Spec. ¶¶ 47-48.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, broadest reasonable interpretation of what is and is not required in the limitation “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle . . . sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network . . . detecting a presence of a first user in the vehicle and determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle” is unclear and indefinite in view of the remaining claim language, the specification and the drawings. In addition, the limitation constitutes unclear antecedent characterization.
Claim 1 requires “identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user is absent” and claim 8 requires “detecting a presence of the first user in the vehicle” wherein it is unclear if detection is the same step or a different step than identifying. Although the recitation “detecting” does not refer back to “identifying” recited in claim 1, there does not appear to be an enabling disclosure that uses two separate steps of detecting/ identifying, in order to operate the vehicle to operate the vehicle to accept fuel. Similarly, the recitation of “while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent” in claim 1 and “determining an absence of the second user from the vehicle” – such that it is unclear if these are separate requirements or refer to the same step. For example, do claims 1 and 8 require that determination of the absence of the second user occurs at the same time as identifying the first user? Are multiple second user absence detections required? It is recommended to clarify the interrelation of the above limitations as well as antecedent basis.
Accordingly, regarding claim 8, a great degree of uncertainty and confusion exists regarding the proper interpretation of the claim in light of the multiplicity and scope of rejections set forth under 35 USC §112(a) and (b) above and their interrelation with one another. Considerable speculation is required to interpret the intended meaning of the claim and what the claim is intended to encompass. As such, the examiner is unable to interpret the meaning and scope of this claim with substantial certainty that would be required to attempt to apply prior art to reject the claim. Therefore, the examiner will not attempt to apply prior art to reject this claim because unreasonable and speculative assumptions as to the proper interpretation of claimed limitations that would be required to reject the claim on the basis of prior art would be improper. (See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), MPEP §2143.03(I), MPEP §2173.06(II)¶2; “it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions”; “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”).
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20190378220 to Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim) in view of U.S. 20100145850 to Nagai et al. (Nagai)
With respect to claim 1, Ibrahim discloses a method for a vehicle (i.e., 110, FIG. 1-2), comprising:
identifying first user operating the vehicle while a second user associated with the vehicle is absent from the vehicle;
(¶¶ 20-21 user input, biometric security as a secondary form of identification, biometric sensor, in multimedia center 215 of vehicle 110 interfacing with fueling station 140 and/or cloud payment and vehicle database systems 170, biometric may include a user's voice, fingerprint, facial, ear, signature, vascular patterns, DNA sampling, hand geometry, sound, olfactory, keystroke/typing, iris, retinal or any other biometric relating to recognition based upon any body part, function, system, attribute and/or other characteristic, or any portion thereof; 38 user ID; 43 user may interface with multimedia center 215 to access payment network 170. In various embodiments, payment network 170 may require the user to login to access payment network 170 such as, for example, by inputting a username and password, biometric input, or the like; 44-45 user additional information fraud prevention, input user ID data, authentication, validate user ID, password, PIN; 54 payment network may prompt may the user to input the biometric input either alone or together with the user's password ( e.g., a 2-factor authentication), via multimedia center 215)
(i.e., examples provided in citations above and below only disclose a first identified user operating vehicle, wherein a second user associated with vehicle is further disclosed, i.e., ¶ 45 user may select to provision a different transaction account, or sub-account, based on . . . different operators of vehicle 110 (e.g., based on biometric input into multimedia center 215)”)
receiving a request for payment option from a fueling station and searching for a payment profile of the first user operating the vehicle;
(vehicle 110, payment network 170, fueling station 140, FIG. 1-2; process 301, FIG. 3 and corresponding description; 401, FIG. 4 and corresponding description; i.e., FIG. 2 request from 140 communications module 260 to vehicle communications module 227; ¶¶ 30 point of sale . . . enable refueling station 140 to receive automated payments from the vehicle 110 and submit a request to authorize the payment to the payment network; 32 Communications module 266 (e.g., a refueling station communications module) may be configured to communicate with vehicle 110 to initiate an automated remote payment; 38-39; vehicle database 285 . . . transaction account data . . user ID, transaction account number, Transaction systems 290 may be configured to register one or more vehicles 110 with payment network 170 and receive and settle the automated remote payments . . . accounts receivable systems and databases, accounts payable systems and databases, and/or the like.; 43-57, i.e., 45-47 select a transaction account for automated remote payments . . . provision a different transaction account, or sub-account, based on different refueling stations (e.g., by brand; by type, such as electric, gasoline, etc.; and the like), based on different operators of vehicle 110 . . . payment network 170 may store the vehicle identifying data and the associated user account data based on a user identifier or the like; 51 fueling station requests payment; 57 refueling station 140 may transmit a refueling completion notification to remote payment gateway 280. Payment network 170 may transmit transaction data to vehicle 110, and vehicle 110 may store the data as a record of automated remote payments completed by vehicle 110)
receiving a payment consent specifying a scope of payment includes one or more purchase category including refueling; and
(¶¶ 43-57; FIG. 3, 306-314 provide payment consent including payment token 314 which includes scope of payment and one or more purchase categories including refueling, i.e., 45-48 transaction account selected, account authorized for payments for categories, i.e., refueling station brand or type, such as electric, gasoline, etc. payment restriction controls . . . $50 monetary limit, i.e., remote payment is authorized up to $50 or any other suitable payment restriction control; 56 “remote payment approval may comprise data indicating that the transaction was successfully authorized”)
operating the vehicle to accept fuel supplied from the fueling station.
(¶ 56 “in response to receiving the remote payment approval, remote payment system 220 may transmit an electronic signal to the vehicle 110 fuel system to open and/or unlock the gas tank refueling cover. Remote payment system 220 may also notify the user, via multimedia center 215, that the user may begin refueling the vehicle 110. In response to receiving the remote payment approval, refueling station 140 may display that the user may begin refueling. In various embodiments, refueling station 140 may comprise an automated refueling station. In response to receiving the remote payment approval, refueling station 140 may be configured to automate the refueling process by connecting a gas hose, an electrical hose, etc. to vehicle 110, and begin the refueling process”; 420-422, FIG. 4)
However, Ibrahim fails to explicitly disclose:
determining the first user does not have a payment profile associated with the vehicle and sending a request for payment consent to a mobile device associated with the second user via a wireless network such that the payment consent is from a mobile device of the second user.
However, the use case where a payment profile, wallet, etc. of a first user vehicle driver is not available and subsequently a request for payment consent is sent to a second user such that the payment consent is from a mobile device of the second user would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing in view of Nagai.
For example, Nagai discloses a user 32 without a payment profile at a credit/ money server 2, 61 wherein a request for payment consent to a mobile device of a predefined party (second user) via a wireless network is sent (i.e., FIG. 1 family charge request) and the payment consent from the predefined party (second user/ parent) via the wireless network is sent in response (i.e., family charge permission FIG. 1) from the mobile device of the second user
(i.e., parent mobile phone 31, FIG. 1, “family charge permission” is the payment consent)
(FIG. 8, i.e., s15, s25 and corresponding description)
(¶¶ 188 , 243 when the child mobile phone 32 asks for the charge with respect to the family account, a charge request permission mail may be transmitted to the parent mobile phone 31 and the family charge may be permitted after granting permission; 249, 363).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the teachings of Nagai cited above into the system of Ibrahim, such that the teachings of the mobile phone are applied to the vehicle of Nagai. Doing so would provide the benefit of efficient sharing of family resources while allowing for parental control of vehicle related charges associated with the family car, i.e., parents will want children to be allowed to use a family charge account for safety, i.e., running out of gas, but can also determine limits and permission on a case by case basis (Nagai, ¶¶ 160-161, 181-182)
With respect to claim 3, Ibrahim in view of Nagai disclose the fueling station is a charging station.
(Ibrahim, ¶ 28 “refueling station 140 may comprise a gas station, a filling station, an electric vehicle charging station”)
With respect to claim 5, Ibrahim in view of Nagai disclose the payment consent further specifies a scope of payment including a maximum total amount for transaction.
(Ibrahim, ¶¶ 43-57; FIG. 3, 306-314 provide payment consent including payment token 314 which includes scope of payment and one or more purchase categories including refueling, i.e., 45-48 transaction account selected, account authorized for payments for categories, i.e., refueling station brand or type, such as electric, gasoline, etc. payment restriction controls . . . $50 monetary limit, i.e., remote payment is authorized up to $50 or any other suitable payment restriction control; 56 “remote payment approval may comprise data indicating that the transaction was successfully authorized”)
Claims 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20190378220 to Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim) in view of U.S. 20100145850 to Nagai et al. (Nagai) and further in view of US 20160185358 to Todasco et al. (Todasco)
With respect to claim 2, Ibrahim in view of Nagai fail to disclose consent includes a digital key to activate the vehicle to drive, the method further comprising: authorizing the first user to operate the vehicle using the digital key. Todasco, from the same field of endeavor, discloses consent includes a digital key to activate the vehicle to drive, the method further comprising: authorizing the first user to operate the vehicle using the digital key.
(abstract, usage of the vehicle may be monitored and enforced using the restrictions; 1, 6 restrictions on use of a vehicle by a detected user in the vehicle; 404, FIG. 4; ¶¶ 13, restrictions on who may use the vehicle, determined from stored information, server, user device, keyfob; 15, 17 user detected and identified . . . device digital detection, biometrics, restrictions may be set with vehicle device or vehicle user server; 23-27, a restriction may be placed on use of any vehicle that user 102 utilizes, such as preventing user 102 from travelling with passengers if user 102 has not met their state's age or driving experience requirements; 28 User detection module 112 may determine an identification for user 102 by detecting and connecting with a device associated with user 102 and receiving identification information for user 102 (e.g., a name, identifier, etc.). As previously discussed, vehicle device 110 may be located in, attached and connected to, and/or associated with a vehicle. User 102 may utilize a communication device (e.g., a mobile/smart phone, laptop or tablet computer, wearable computing device, or other device) to connect to vehicle device 110 in order to provide identification information to vehicle device 110. The connection between the user device and vehicle device 110 may utilize short range wireless communications of vehicle device 110 to establish the connection. For example, user detection module 112 may transmit an identifier such as a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) to the device. If user 102's device receives a request to establish the connection with vehicle device 110 and responds with an identifier for user 102, vehicle device 110 to ramp up in power and create a connection between user 102's device and vehicle device 110. The identifier for vehicle device 110 transmitted to user 102's device may be included in the received identifier for user 102 and/or user 102's device for example, the identifier may be transmitted with, concatenated with, or otherwise bundled with the identifier in the received token. In such embodiments, user detection module 112 may utilize communication module 118 of vehicle device 110 to receive the token from user 102's device, and process the token to establish a connection and determine an identity for user 102.; 28-29 unique identifier associated with user may be transmitted to vehicle to identify user and allow access to driving the vehicle; 30 vehicle device 110 may also request a log in from user 102 that detects and identifies user 102, for example, using an input device associated with vehicle device 110 (e.g., an input interface of a display module for vehicle device 110). In such embodiments, user 102 may provide an identifier, user account name, password, and/or PIN directly to vehicle device 110 without the use of the aforementioned device in possession of user 102. Once user 102 logs in to user detection module 112, an identity of user 102 may be accessed (e.g., from database 116) or determined using vehicle user server 130 or another service provider.; 11 once the vehicle's device and the user's communication device connect, the user may be identified and checked-in to the vehicle. Authorization may also be tied to a user account or anonymous token, which may be shared by more than one user. Thus, the aforementioned user detected in the vehicle may correspond more generally to a plurality of users sharing an identifier or identification information)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the payment consent of Ibrahim in view of Nagai to include a digital key to activate the vehicle to drive, such that the system authorizes the first user to operate the vehicle using the digital key, as taught by Todasco, in order to ensure that only authorized users are allowed to use the vehicle, i.e., after fueling, the vehicle will startup again and should include user authorization to begin driving vehicle, in order to prevent unauthorized users (i.e., age, not on insurance policy) from starting to drive the vehicle after fueling.
(Todasco, ¶¶ 67 an insurance policy associated with the vehicle. For example, the restriction may be at least one of health based, age based, spending based, and insurance based,1-2, 12, 14, 22-23, 33, 45, 52).
With respect to claim 4, Ibrahim in view of Nagai disclose the purchase category includes a fueling category but fails to explicitly disclose a toll payment category.
Todasco, from the same field of endeavor, discloses purchase categories including both fueling and toll payment (¶¶ 15 restrictions may be enforced on usage of the vehicle by the user. Thus, the user may be prevented from utilizing the vehicle in a way that violates the restrictions. For example, the user may be prevented from utilizing a satellite radio of the vehicle or from performing payments using a payment application . . . the user exerting control of the vehicle may allow for usage of a payment module associated with the vehicle to pay for fuel, tolls, or other items/services”; 2, 14, 22-23, 33, 45, 52)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the system of Ibrahim in view of Nagai to also include a toll payment category in order to provide a more refined payment permission structure, resulting in increased flexibility, i.e., for a parent who many want to allow for automatic payment of tolls but disallow other categories of payment such as subscription radio services (Todasco, ¶¶ 1-2, 12, 14, 22-23, 33, 45, 52).
With respect to claim 6, Ibrahim in view of Nagai fail to explicitly disclose the payment consent further specifies a scope of payment including a maximum number of transaction times. Todasco, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a scope of payment including a maximum number of transaction times
(¶ 13 “The authorizations may be set on a single or limited use basis, such as a restriction to prevent or allow usage of a vehicle entertainment system on a one time basis, or use of the vehicle's payment application on a once per week basis for fuel”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the payment consent of Ibrahim in view of Nagai to include a maximum number of transaction times in order to provide a more refined payment permission structure, resulting in increased flexibility, i.e., for a parent who many want to allow for automatic payment of certain items, but with a reasonable, predictable limit (Todasco, ¶¶ 1-2, 12, 14, 22-23, 33, 45, 52).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20190378220 to Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim) in view of U.S. 20100145850 to Nagai et al. (Nagai) and further in view of US 20180315042 to Rungta et al. (Rung)
With respect to claim 7, Ibrahim in view of Nagai fail to explicitly disclose the payment consent further specifies a scope of payment including a validity time period indicative of a time period during which the payment consent is valid.
Rungta, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a payment consent wherein a scope of payment is indicative of a time period during which the payment consent is valid.
(¶¶ 1 “account owner may wish to allow others to use an electronic account in certain situations”; 2 “Usage of another person's electronic payment device on a mobile computing device such as a mobile phone may be possible by requesting a one-time use dynamic token for a specific amount from an authority. An application may allow a user to view relevant details of friends' electronic payment devices such as a credit card issuer name and a credit card product type, seek their approval”; FIG. 2 process steps 240-260 including request and approval; ¶¶ 36-38 request to second user and approval of request by second user; FIG. 5 depicting request, request modification and approval or denial options; The approval comes with a user determined validity time period indicative of a time period during which payment consent is valid, FIG. 5, 573 “time limit: 15 minutes”; ¶ 39 user interface for approving request, the user may select to approve 505 . . . or modify the time limit 573 to complete the transaction; 16 “period of time”; 44 use time limit; 46 token will be reviewed to ensure it meets the expected details such as having a known one time use account number, being used within the expected time limits)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the scope of payment consent in Ibrahim in view of Nagai to include a validity time period indicative of a time period during which the payment consent is valid, as taught by Rung, in order to improve security, i.e., even if the payment authorization is intercepted, compromised or hacked, it will expire automatically reducing the chances the authorization is misused in an unintended manner. In addition, it gives the approver increased control preventing attempts to hold onto the approval for future unplanned transactions. In addition, the approver does not need to worry about forgetting to revoke access later if circumstances change since the approval expires automatically.
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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights