DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
II. This action is in response to applicants amendment/arguments filed on August 23, 2026. This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
III. Applicant's arguments filed August 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Regarding claim 11 applicant argues that Houb fails to teach or suggest “determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle…using a second wireless communication protocol”.
The examiner disagrees.
Holub teaches determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol (see paragraphs [0012]; [0026]; [0029]). A particular location of, e.g., a specific seat occupied by a user in a vehicle can allow a vehicle computer to personalize the user experience. For example, adjustments can be made to seating systems, mirror position, and to safety systems according to the seating locations of one or more users in the vehicle. The vehicle computer can transmit messages to various devices in the vehicle and receive messages from the various devices via wireless mechanism. The seat sensors may determine whether a user is occupying a seat and the weight of the user. This information can be communicated to the vehicle computer via a wireless mechanism (see paragraph [0026]). The vehicle computer can use the information to determine a particular location of a specific seat occupied by a user in the vehicle. This reads on determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining a position of the mobile terminal by means of UWB and determining the seating location of the user on the basis of that UWB derived position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining a seating location using a second protocol that is different from the first protocol used to identify the mobile of the user) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a second wireless communication protocol distinct from the first wireless communication protocol with which the mobile terminal of the user is identified) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
B. Regarding claim 17 applicant argues that Penilla does not teach one single interaction with one single button.
The examiner disagrees.
Penilla teaches wherein the message to log user into the determined seating location includes one single button on a graphical user interface of the mobile terminal, with which the user can log into the determined seating location in the vehicle (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22). When the user is seated within the vehicle, a user interface screen can request the user to confirm which seat the user is seated in via a user interface. The user can confirm the seating location with a selection. The user interface can be a graphical user interface with buttons to receive input from the user (see paragraph [0303]). This reads on message to log user into the determined seating location includes one single button on a graphical user interface of the mobile terminal, with which the user can log into the determined seating location in the vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “one single button” on the user interface includes a user interface screen with a button that will log or confirm a seating location.
C. Regarding claim 18 applicant argues that Penilla does not teach one single interaction with one single button.
The examiner disagrees.
Penilla teaches wherein the confirmation message includes one single interaction of the user with one single button on the graphical user interface of the mobile terminal (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22). When the user is seated within the vehicle, a user interface screen can request the user to confirm which seat the user is seated in via a user interface. The user can confirm the seating location with a selection. The user interface can be a graphical user interface with buttons to receive input from the user (see paragraph [0303]). This reads on the confirmation message includes one single interaction of the user with one single button on the graphical user interface of the mobile terminal. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “one single interaction of the user with one single button” on the user interface includes a user interface with a button that the user can use to log or confirm a seating location.
D. Regarding claims 13, 15, and 21-22 applicant argues that Wahlberg does not teach the second wireless communication is ultra-wideband.
The examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Holub teaches determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol (see paragraphs [0012]; [0026]; [0029]). A particular location of, e.g., a specific seat occupied by a user in a vehicle can allow a vehicle computer to personalize the user experience. For example, adjustments can be made to seating systems, mirror position, and to safety systems according to the seating locations of one or more users in the vehicle. The vehicle computer can transmit messages to various devices in the vehicle and receive messages from the various devices via wireless mechanism. The seat sensors may determine whether a user is occupying a seat and the weight of the user. This information can be communicated to the vehicle computer via a wireless mechanism (see paragraph [0026]). The vehicle computer can use the information to determine a particular location of a specific seat occupied by a user in the vehicle.
Wahlberg teaches a wireless communication protocol that is ultra-wideband (see paragraph [0105]). The vehicle network is implemented as one or vehicle area networks including a UWB vehicle network. This teaching in Wahlberg is being used to show that the wireless mechanism in Holub used to transmit messages regarding seating location can be modified to include UWB.
The combination teaches the limitations found in claims 13, 15, and 21-22.
E. Regarding claim 26 applicant argues that Wahlberg does not teach a user code or a verification URI of the OAuth 2.0 protocol transmitted from the vehicle to the mobile terminal via a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol.
The examiner disagrees.
Wahlberg teaches wherein a user code or a verification URI of the OAuth 2.0 protocol is transmitted from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user via a Bluetooth Lowe Energy protocol (see paragraphs [0019] & [0045]). Credentials are used for authentication and/or to gain access to particular services. Using credentials to access services includes performing authentication using OAUTH 2.0. Bluetooth Low Energy can be used to communicate identification information with devices (see paragraph [0045]). This reads on a user code or a verification URI of the OAuth 2.0 protocol transmitted from the vehicle to the mobile terminal via a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a user code” includes user credentials and it is very well-known that OAuth 2.0 is frequently used to authorize devices using Bluetooth Low Energy.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
IV. Claims 11-12 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 19-23 of copending Application No. 18/835,900 in view of Pub. No.: US 2016/03326356 A1 to Holub.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the 18/835,900 application in view of Holub teaches similar limitations on logging a user into a vehicle.
Claim Mapping:
Claim 11 of the instant application and claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/835,900 is mapped below.
Instant Application
Application No. 18/835,900
Claim 11. A method for logging a user into a vehicle, the method including:
identifying a mobile terminal of the user, the mobile terminal of the user being identified using a first wireless communication protocol;
determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol;
and
logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle using the vehicle.
Claim 14. A method for logging a user into a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting a mobile terminal belonging to the user, wherein the mobile terminal belonging to the user is detected using a wireless communication protocol, wherein detecting comprises the vehicle providing a predefined log-in service via Bluetooth Low Energy;
determining a seating position of the user in the vehicle;
and
logging in the user at the determined seating position in the vehicle by means of the vehicle, after the vehicle generates a public vehicle identifier for the predefined log-in service, the mobile terminal requests the public vehicle identifier from the vehicle, and the public vehicle identifier is checked by a backend server and determined to be valid.
The 18/835,900 application does not teach determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle using a second wireless communication protocol.
Holub teaches (see paragraphs [0012]; [0026]; [0029], Determining a particular location of, e.g., a specific seat occupied by a user in a vehicle. Seat sensors may include occupancy sensors to determine whether a user is occupying a seat. Via the CAN bus and/or other wired or wireless mechanisms, the vehicle computing device may transmit and receive messages from the various devices including sensors. This reads on determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claims of the 18/835,900 adapt to include determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle using a second wireless communication protocol because using a first and second wireless protocol is a well-known efficient mechanism for communicating within a local area network.
Claim 12 is also rejected under obviousness-type double patenting by claim 19 of the 18/835,900 application in view of Holub.
Claim 17 is also rejected under obviousness-type double patenting by claim 20 of the 18/835,900 application in view of Holub.
Claim 18 is also rejected under obviousness-type double patenting by claim 21 of the 18/835,900 application in view of Holub.
Claim 19 is also rejected under obviousness-type double patenting by claim 22 of the 18/835,900 application in view of Holub.
Claim 20 is also rejected under obviousness-type double patenting by claim 23 of the 18/835,900 application in view of Holub.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
V. Claims 11 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holub (US 2016/0332635 A1).
Regarding claim 11 Holub teaches a method for logging a user into a vehicle (see paragraph [0010] and Fig. 1, Based on the identification data, the vehicle 24 computer 100 may associate the portable device with a specific user. This reads on a method for logging a user into a vehicle), the method including: identifying a mobile terminal of the user (see paragraph [0010], The computer 100 may determine or confirm an identity of the user driving the vehicle 25. The portable device 20 may send identification data to the computer 100. Based on the identification data, the computer 100 may associate the portable device 20 with a specific user. This reads on identifying a mobile terminal of the user), the mobile terminal of the user being identified using a first wireless communication protocol (see paragraphs [0010]; [0020] and Fig. 1, The portable device 20 may be configured for short range, wireless communication with the vehicle 25. For example, the portable device 20 transceiver 80 may be a BLUETOOTH® transceiver (see paragraph [0022]). A portable device 20 may transmit a signal including, e.g., identification data (identifying the type of user device, the identity of a user, etc.), movement data, etc. to the vehicle 25. This reads on the mobile terminal of the user being identified using a first wireless communication protocol); determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol (see paragraphs [0012]; [0026]; [0029], Determining a particular location of, e.g., a specific seat occupied by a user in a vehicle. Seat sensors may include occupancy sensors to determine whether a user is occupying a seat. Via a wireless mechanisms, the vehicle computing device may transmit and receive messages from the various devices including sensors. This reads on determining a seating location of the user in the vehicle, the seating location of the user in the vehicle being determined using a second wireless communication protocol); and logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle using the vehicle (see paragraph [0010], The computer 100 may determine or confirm an identity of the user driving the vehicle 25. For example, the portable device 20 may send identification data to the computer 100. Based on the identification data, the computer 100 may associate the portable device 20 with a specific user. In this manner, the computer 100 can determine that the user is located in the driver's seat. This reads on logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle using the vehicle).
Regarding claim 27 Holub teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium for logging a user into a vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium includes instructions which, when run on a computing device, carry out the method as claimed in claim 11 (see paragraph [0077], Computer executable instructions that may be compiled or interpreted from computer programs and a processor for executing the instructions reads on a computer-readable medium for logging a user into a vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium includes instructions which, when run on a computing device, carry out the method as claimed in claim 11).
Regarding claim 28 Holub teaches a system for logging a user into a vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method as claimed claim 11 (see abstract and paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 29 Holub teaches a vehicle including the system for logging a user into a vehicle as claimed in claim 28 (see abstract; paragraph [0010]; and Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
VI. Claims 12, 14, 16-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub (US 2016/0332635 A1) in view of Penilla et al. (US 2018/0024725 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for providing a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user; receiving a confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle; and once the confirmation message has been received, logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle by means of the vehicle.
Penilla teaches providing a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22, Once jack is seated within the vehicle, one optional screen can request Jack to confirm that he is indeed sitting in seat number 3. This reads on providing a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user); receiving a confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle; and once the confirmation message has been received, logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle by means of the vehicle (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22, Once jack is seated within the vehicle, one optional screen can request Jack to confirm that he is indeed sitting in seat number 3. Here, Jack has selected seat 3 (confirmation message). Once Jack selects his seat, Jack may be requested to verify if he wants to access his previous seat settings. The request from the vehicle to verify if the user wants access to his previous seat seatings indicates that the user is logged into the determined seating location. This reads on receiving a confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle; and once the confirmation message has been received, logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle by means of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make logging the user into the determined seating location in Holub adapt to include providing a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user; receiving a confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle; and once the confirmation message has been received, logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle by means of the vehicle because this would allow for an efficient mechanism for further enabling passengers of vehicles to connect with electronics of the vehicle to access specific vehicle controls (see Penilla, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 14 Penilla teaches configuring a determined seating location in the vehicle according to a user-specific profile once the user has been logged into the determined seating location (see paragraph [0275], Once Jack selects his seat, Jack may be requested to verify if wants to access his previous settings. Here, Jack has selected seat 3. If Jack determines that he wishes to adjust settings to his previous settings, additional screens can ask Jack if he wishes to revert to previously set temperature settings, adjust certain temperature settings, or Jack can manually navigate to other settings he wishes to access. This reads on configuring a determined seating location in the vehicle according to a user-specific profile once the user has been logged into the determined seating location).
Regarding claim 16 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for receiving a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user; receiving a confirmation message to log the user into the determined seating location from the user by the mobile terminal; transmitting the received confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle.
Penilla teaches receiving a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22, Once jack is seated within the vehicle, one optional screen can request Jack to confirm that he is indeed sitting in seat number 3. This reads on receiving a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user); receiving a confirmation message to log the user into the determined seating location from the user by the mobile terminal; transmitting the received confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22, Once jack is seated within the vehicle, one optional screen can request Jack to confirm that he is indeed sitting in seat number 3. Here, Jack has selected seat 3 (confirmation message). Once Jack selects his seat, Jack may be requested to verify if he wants to access his previous seat settings. The request from the vehicle to verify if the user wants access to his previous seat seatings indicates that the confirmation was received by the vehicle computer and the user is logged into the determined seating location. This reads on receiving a confirmation message to log the user into the determined seating location from the user by the mobile terminal; transmitting the received confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make logging the user into the determined seating location in Holub adapt to include receiving a message to log the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user; receiving a confirmation message to log the user into the determined seating location from the user by the mobile terminal; transmitting the received confirmation message from the mobile terminal to the vehicle because this would allow for an efficient mechanism for further enabling passengers of vehicles to connect with electronics of the vehicle to access specific vehicle controls (see Penilla, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 17 Penilla teaches wherein the message to log the user into the determined seating location includes one single button on a graphical user interface of the mobile terminal, with which the user can log into the determined seating location in the vehicle (see paragraphs [0275] & [0303] and Fig. 22, Once jack is seated within the vehicle, one optional screen can request Jack to confirm that he is indeed sitting in seat number 3. Once Jack selects his seat, Jack may be requested to verify if wants to access his previous settings. Here, Jack has selected seat 3. The user interface can be a graphical user interface with buttons to receive input from the user (see paragraph [0303]). This reads on wherein the message to log the user into the determined seating location includes one single button on a graphical user interface of the mobile terminal, with which the user can log into the determined seating location in the vehicle).
Regarding claim 18 Penilla teaches wherein the confirmation message includes one single interaction of the user with the one single button on the graphical user interface of the mobile terminal (see paragraph [0275] and Fig. 22, Once jack is seated within the vehicle, one optional screen can request Jack to confirm that he is indeed sitting in seat number 3. Once Jack selects his seat, Jack may be requested to verify if wants to access his previous settings. Here, Jack has selected seat 3. The user interface can be a graphical user interface with buttons to receive input from the user (see paragraph [0303]). This reads on wherein the confirmation message includes one single interaction of the user with the one single button on the graphical user interface of the mobile terminal).
Regarding claim 19 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for configuring a determined seating location in the vehicle according to a user-specific profile once the user has been logged into the determined seating location.
Penilla teaches configuring a determined seating location in the vehicle according to a user-specific profile once the user has been logged into the determined seating location (see paragraph [0275], Once Jack selects his seat, Jack may be requested to verify if wants to access his previous settings. Here, Jack has selected seat 3. If Jack determines that he wishes to adjust settings to his previous settings, additional screens can ask Jack if he wishes to revert to previously set temperature settings, adjust certain temperature settings, or Jack can manually navigate to other settings he wishes to access. This reads on configuring a determined seating location in the vehicle according to a user-specific profile once the user has been logged into the determined seating location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make logging the user into the determined seating location in Holub adapt to include for configuring a determined seating location in the vehicle according to a user-specific profile once the user has been logged into the determined seating location because this would allow for an efficient mechanism for further enabling passengers of vehicles to connect with electronics of the vehicle to access specific vehicle controls (see Penilla, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 23 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for wherein logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle includes an authentication and authorization of the user carried out using a standardized authentication or authorization protocol.
Penilla teaches wherein logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle includes an authentication and authorization of the user carried out using a standardized authentication or authorization protocol (see paragraph [0274], Once Jack enters his credentials, his credentials can be verified. After the credentials have been verified, the user profile for Jack is accessed. This reads on wherein logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle includes an authentication and authorization of the user carried out using a standardized authentication or authorization protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Holub adapt to include wherein logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle includes an authentication and authorization of the user carried out using a standardized authentication or authorization protocol because this would allow for an efficient and well-known mechanism for logging a user into a system (see Penilla, paragraph [0274]).
VII. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub (US 2016/0332635 A1) in view of Penilla et al. (US 2018/0024725 A1) and Wahlberg et al. (US 2019/0327225 A1).
Regarding claim 13 Holub and Penilla teach the method as claimed in claim 12 except for wherein the second wireless communication protocol is ultra-wideband.
Wahlberg teaches a wireless communication protocol that is ultra-wideband (see paragraph [0105], The network includes wired and/or wireless links, including ultra-wideband (UWB). The network is implemented at as one or more vehicle area networks. This reads on wherein the second wireless communication protocol is ultra-wideband).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second wireless communication protocol in Holub adapt to include ultra-wideband because ultra-wideband is a well-known mechanism for facilitate transmitting/broadcasting identification codes from one device to another (see Wahlberg above).
Regarding claim 15 Holub, Penilla, and Wahlberg teach limitations as recited in claim 13 and therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
VIII. Claims 20-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub (US 2016/0332635 A1) in view of Wahlberg et al. (US 2019/0327225 A1).
Regarding claim 20 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for wherein the first wireless communication protocol is Bluetooth Low Energy.
Wahlberg teaches a wireless communication protocol that is Bluetooth Low Energy (see paragraph [0045], A target device broadcasts the identification code, such as by providing a broadcast that includes the identification code. Where the target device broadcasts using a radio frequency technology, the radio frequency broadcast can have one or more attributes: have a frequency of approximately 2.4 GHz, use a low-energy radiofrequency transmission protocol (e.g., BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY). This reads on wherein the second wireless communication protocol is Bluetooth Low Energy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first wireless communication protocol in Holub adapt to include wireless communication protocol is Bluetooth Low Energy because Bluetooth Low Energy is a well-known mechanism for facilitate transmitting/broadcasting identification codes from one device to another (see Wahlberg above).
Regarding claim 21 Wahlberg teaches a wireless communication protocol that is ultra-wideband (see paragraph [0105], The network includes wireless links, including ultra-wideband (UWB). The network is implemented at as one or more vehicle area networks. This includes two wireless networks operating using one or more vehicle networks (see paragraph [0105]). This reads on wherein the second wireless communication protocol is ultra-wideband).
Regarding claim 22 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for wherein the second wireless communication protocol is ultra-wideband.
Wahlberg teaches a wireless communication protocol that is ultra-wideband (see paragraph [0105], The network includes wired and/or wireless links, including ultra-wideband (UWB). The network is implemented at as one or more vehicle area networks. This reads on wherein the second wireless communication protocol is ultra-wideband).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second wireless communication protocol in Holub adapt to include ultra-wideband because ultra-wideband is a well-known mechanism for facilitate transmitting/broadcasting identification codes from one device to another (see Wahlberg above).
Regarding claim 24 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for wherein logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle includes an authentication on the basis of OpenID Connect.
Wahlberg teaches logging the user into includes an authentication on the basis of OpenID Connect (see paragraph [0019], Credentials are usable for authentication and/or to gain access to particular services. Using credentials to access content includes performing an authentication process with an application or server, such as using OAUTH 2.0, OPENID CONNECT (maintained by the OPENID Foundation). This reads on logging the user into includes an authentication on the basis of OpenID Connect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle in Holub adapt to include an authentication on the basis of OpenID Connect because OpenID Connect is well-known to allow for the use of credentials to be usable for authentication and/or to gain access to particular services (see Wahlberg above).
Regarding claim 25 Holub teaches the method as claimed in claim 11 except for wherein logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle includes an authorization of the user using an OAuth 2.0 protocol.
Wahlberg teaches logging the user into includes an authorization of the user using an OAuth 2.0 protocol (see paragraph [0019], Credentials are usable for authentication and/or to gain access to particular services. Using credentials to access content includes performing an authentication process with an application or server, such as using OAUTH 2.0, OPENID CONNECT (maintained by the OPENID Foundation). This reads includes an authorization of the user using an OAuth 2.0 protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make logging the user into the determined seating location in the vehicle in Holub adapt to includes an authorization of the user using an OAuth 2.0 protocol because OAuth 2.0 protocol is well-known to allow for the use of credentials to be usable for authentication and/or to gain access to particular services (see Wahlberg above).
Regarding claim 26 Wahlberg teaches wherein a user code or a verification URI of the OAuth 2.0 protocol (see paragraph [0019], Credentials are usable for authentication and/or to gain access to particular services. Using credentials to access content includes performing an authentication process with an application or server, such as using OAUTH 2.0, OPENID CONNECT (maintained by the OPENID Foundation). The user code can include user credentials used for authentication and it is very well-known that OAuth 2.0 is frequently used to authorize devices using Bluetooth Low Energy. This reads on wherein a user code or a verification URI of the OAuth 2.0 protocol) is transmitted from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user via a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol (see paragraph [0045], A target device broadcasts the identification code, such as by providing a broadcast that includes the identification code. Where the target device broadcasts using a radio frequency technology, the radio frequency broadcast can have one or more attributes: have a frequency of approximately 2.4 GHz, use a low-energy radiofrequency transmission protocol (e.g., BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY). This reads on transmitted from the vehicle to the mobile terminal of the user via a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol).
IX. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub (US 2016/0332635 A1) in view of Wahlberg et al. (US 2019/0327225 A1) and Pierfelice (US 2021/0311478 A1).
Regarding claim 30 Holub and Wahlberg teach the method as claimed in claim 22 except for wherein determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle includes: determining a position of the mobile terminal of the user using UWB device localization; and determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle based on the determined position of the mobile terminal.
Pierfelice teaches determining a position of the mobile terminal of the user using UWB device localization; and determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle based on the determined position of the mobile terminal (see paragraphs [0021] & [0035], Via the UWB sensor, the autonomous vehicle detects when the user is in the autonomous vehicle in the collected position. Based on the interaction between the UWB sensor and the smart mobile device of the user to determine the distance to and the direction toward the user, the autonomous vehicle may determine when the user is in the collected position and seated in the autonomous vehicle. The localization component of the vehicle is used to locate a user via UWB sensing between a smart mobile device of the user and a UWB sensor of the vehicle. This reads on determining a position of the mobile terminal of the user using UWB device localization; and determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle based on the determined position of the mobile terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle the Holub and Wahlberg combination adapt to include determining a position of the mobile terminal of the user using UWB device localization; and determining the seating location of the user in the vehicle based on the determined position of the mobile terminal because determining position/location of a user in a vehicle using UWB device localization is well-known and can be incorporated into the Holub and Wahlberg combination using well-known techniques. The combination would allow for an efficient mechanism to control vehicle systems based on user location (see Pierfelice, paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
X. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0171046 A1 discloses occupancy sensing using ultra-wide band (see abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 BRANDON J MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/BRANDON J MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
October 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights