DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-55 were previously pending. Claims 1, 19, 32, and 47 were amended and claims 2-3, 20-21, 33-34, and 48-49 were canceled in the reply filed July 10, 2026. Claims 1, 4-19, 22-32, 35-47, and 50-55 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Roy’s cryptographic tokens do not include the recited digital signature and digital certificates. Remarks, 16. Applicant also argues that Rubin’s messages also do not supply the missing disclosure. Remarks, 16-17.
Identity of terminology is not a requirement of a prior art reference. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the Specification defines the term "signed document" broadly and in two different senses. "As described above and as used herein, the term 'signed document' refers to a document that indicates one or more privileges and/or priorities assigned temporarily or permanently to a vehicle…. The collection comprising the document indicating the one or more privileges and/or priorities related to a vehicle, the digital signature and the one or more digital certificates, if included, is referred to herein as a 'signed document'. A signed document may also be referred to as a certificate, a signed certificate, a privilege certificate or by some other name. The use of digital signatures (e.g. based on public key-private key pairs) to authenticate documents and the use of digital certificates to provide and authenticate public keys is widely known in the art." Published Specification, ¶ 0028, emphasis added.
At the passages cited, Roy’s messages include tokens that grant privileges and/or priorities assigned to a vehicle. Rubin additionally discloses that vehicle messages such as these are digitally signed and also include certificates with encryption keys. The first sense of a "signed document" in the disclosure reads on Roy’s token (i.e., “a document that indicates one or more privileges and/or priorities assigned temporarily or permanently to a vehicle”). The second sense of a "signed document" in the disclosure reads on the messages in Roy/Rubin that include the token, are digitally signed, and include certificates with encryption keys (i.e., “a collection comprising the document” as well as “the digital signature and the one or more digital certificates”). Thus, these references viewed together describe messages with the same "collection" of data referred to in the Specification (¶ 0028) and recited in the claims. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15-16, 18-19, 22-29, 32, 35-41, 43-44, 46-47, and 50-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 11,763,410 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20260410) (which incorporates by reference Rubin, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,231,187 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20260410), see col. 30, lines 46-47).
As per claim 1, Roy teaches a method at a device for enabling permissions related to maneuvering of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, at the device from a privilege-granting authority server, a signed document indicative of a grant of one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 34-45; Examiner is construing the broadest reasonable interpretation of a signed document to read on the cryptographic token of Roy; see also Rubin col. 51, lines 49-55 and col. 74, lines 13-19—vehicle messages are digitally signed), wherein:
the signed document comprises a document indicating the one or more permissions, a digital signature for the document (col. 30, lines 34-45; see also Rubin col. 51, lines 49-55 and col. 74, lines 13-19—vehicle messages are digitally signed), and one or more digital certificates indicating and authenticating a public key used to verify the digital signature (col. 30, lines 39-43—token is cryptographic in nature; see also Rubin col. 74 discussing signatures and certificates with encryption keys),
the device comprises the vehicle or an associated device, the associated device associated with the vehicle (col. 30, lines 34-45), and
the one or more permissions authorize the vehicle to perform one or more actions related to the maneuvering of the vehicle (col. 30, lines 39-45); and
subsequent to receiving the signed document, wirelessly transmitting messages comprising the signed document from the device to one or more additional devices separate from the vehicle, wherein the wirelessly transmitting of the messages is configured to invoke a response from the one or more additional devices in accordance with the one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 39-46).
As per claim 4, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches the vehicle comprises: a road vehicle (col. 7, line 4), an airborne vehicle, a marine vehicle, or a space vehicle.
As per claim 5, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches determining a triggering event for requesting the one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 29-34); and sending, from the device to the privilege-granting authority server, a request for the one or more permissions, wherein receiving the signed document is responsive to the request (col. 30, lines 34-45).
As per claim 6, Roy teaches claim 5 as above. Roy further teaches the triggering event comprises: an existence of an emergency condition (col. 30, lines 29-34); a user input indicative of a desire to obtain the one or more permissions; a need to obtain the one or more permissions to travel along a certain route, to a certain destination, or at a certain time; a need to obtain the one or more permissions to travel in a certain manner; or a combination thereof.
As per claim 7, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches sending vehicle information from the device to the privilege-granting authority server prior to receiving the signed document, wherein the vehicle information is indicative of one or more characteristics of an operator or passenger of the vehicle, one or more characteristics of the vehicle, one or more requirements for maneuvering of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (col. 30, lines 29-45).
As per claim 8, Roy teaches claim 7 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more characteristics of the operator or the passenger of the vehicle comprise: a VIP status, employment as a doctor, government official, military official, or public safety official, having a medical condition, performing an important or urgent action using the vehicle, or a combination thereof (col. 30, lines 29-45, 64).
As per claim 9, Roy teaches claim 7 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more characteristics of the vehicle comprise: a weight of the vehicle, a size of the vehicle, a type of the vehicle (col. 30, lines 32-33; Rubin col. 4, lines 1-2), a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, a cargo of the vehicle, a maximum range of the vehicle, a maximum speed of the vehicle, a maximum altitude of the vehicle, a measure of a noise of the vehicle, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 10, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more actions related to the maneuvering of the vehicle comprise: accessing a shipping channel, flying area, roadway, or traffic lane; accessing a priority route of travel; using a certain parking spot, landing location, dock location, or Earth orbit; transporting a certain item or item type; moving to an alternate Earth orbit; traveling at a certain speed or range of speeds (col. 30, lines 29-45); traveling at a certain altitude or range of altitudes; performing one or more maneuvers; or a combination thereof.
As per claim 11, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more permissions are temporary (col. 30, line 67).
As per claim 12, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches the signed document is further indicative of a priority level of the one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 32-45).
As per claim 13, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches the device wirelessly transmits the messages to the one or more additional devices separate from the vehicle while the vehicle travels along a route (col. 30, lines 39-46), wherein a selection of the route, a way in which the vehicle travels along the route, or both, is responsive to the response from the one or more additional devices (col. 29, lines 1-4; col. 30, lines 39-45).
As per claim 15, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches the messages or the signed document further comprise information indicative of: a destination of the vehicle, a time duration of the one or more permissions, a route of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (col. 30, lines 59-67).
As per claim 16, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches wirelessly transmitting the messages comprises: broadcasting a message (col. 30, lines 39-45), multicasting a message, or transmitting a message by unicast to a specific receiving device.
As per claim 18, Roy teaches claim 1 as above. Roy further teaches subsequent to transmitting the messages, receiving one or more acknowledgements of receipt of the messages from the one or more additional devices (col. 29, lines 1-4).
As per claim 19, Roy teaches a method at a privilege-granting authority server for enabling a device to obtain and use permissions related to maneuvering of a vehicle, the method comprising:
establishing a communication link between the privilege-granting authority server and the device, the device comprising the vehicle or an associated device, the associated device associated with the vehicle (col. 30, lines 34-45); and
sending, from the privilege-granting authority server to the device, a signed document indicative of a grant of one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 34-45; Examiner is construing the broadest reasonable interpretation of a signed document to read on the cryptographic token of Roy; see also Rubin col. 51, lines 49-55 and col. 74, lines 13-19—vehicle messages are digitally signed), wherein:
the signed document comprises a document indicating the one or more permissions, a digital signature for the document (col. 30, lines 34-45; see also Rubin col. 51, lines 49-55 and col. 74, lines 13-19—vehicle messages are digitally signed), and one or more digital certificates indicating and authenticating a public key used to verify the digital signature (col. 30, lines 39-43—token is cryptographic in nature; see also Rubin col. 74 discussing signatures and certificates with encryption keys),
the one or more permissions authorize the vehicle to perform one or more actions related to the maneuvering of the vehicle (col. 30, lines 39-45), and
the signed document is configured to, when wirelessly transmitted from the device to one or more additional devices separate from the vehicle, invoke a response from the one or more additional devices in accordance with the one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 39-46).
As per claim 22, Roy teaches claim 19 as above. Roy further teaches the vehicle comprises: a road vehicle (col. 7, line 4), an airborne vehicle, a marine vehicle, or a space vehicle.
As per claim 23, Roy teaches claim 19 as above. Roy further teaches prior to sending the signed document: determining to grant the one or more permissions, wherein determining to grant the one or more permissions is based at least in part on: a weather condition, an emergency condition related to the vehicle (col. 30, lines 29-45), a destination of the vehicle, a period of time during which the vehicle will travel with the one or more permissions, one or more characteristics of an operator or passenger of the vehicle, one or more characteristics of the vehicle, one or more requirements of the vehicle, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 24, Roy teaches claim 23 as above. Roy further teaches determining a priority level of the one or more permissions; and including the priority level in the signed document (col. 30, lines 32-45).
As per claim 25, Roy teaches claim 23 as above. Roy further teaches receiving, at the privilege-granting authority server, a request for the one or more permissions, wherein determining to grant the one or more permissions is responsive to receiving the request for the one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 29-45).
As per claim 26, Roy teaches claim 23 as above. Roy further teaches receiving, at the privilege-granting authority server, vehicle information for the vehicle, wherein determining to grant the one or more permissions is based at least in part on the vehicle information, wherein the vehicle information is indicative of one or more characteristics of an operator or passenger of the vehicle, one or more characteristics of the vehicle, one or more requirements for maneuvering of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (col. 30, lines 29-45).
As per claim 27, Roy teaches claim 26 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more characteristics of the operator or the passenger of the vehicle comprise: a VIP status, employment as a doctor, government official, military official, or public safety official, having a medical condition, or performing an important or urgent action using the vehicle, or a combination thereof (col. 30, lines 29-45, 64).
As per claim 28, Roy teaches claim 26 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more characteristics of the vehicle comprise: a weight of the vehicle, a size of the vehicle, a type of the vehicle (col. 30, lines 32-33; Rubin col. 4, lines 1-2), a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, a cargo of the vehicle, a maximum range of the vehicle, a maximum speed of the vehicle, a maximum altitude of the vehicle, a measure of a noise of the vehicle, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 29, Roy teaches claim 19 as above. Roy further teaches the one or more actions related to the maneuvering of the vehicle comprise: accessing a shipping channel, flying area, roadway or traffic lane; accessing a priority route of travel; using a certain parking spot, landing location, dock location, or Earth orbit; transporting a certain item or item type; moving to an alternate Earth orbit; traveling at a certain speed or range of speeds (col. 30, lines 29-45); traveling at a certain altitude or range of altitudes; performing one or more maneuvers; or a combination thereof.
As per claims 32, 35-41, 43-44, and 46, Roy teaches a device for enabling permissions related to maneuvering of a vehicle, the device comprising: a transceiver (col. 7, line 63—col. 8, line 20); a memory (col. 33, line 43); and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory (col. 8, lines 64-65; col. 22, line 49; col. 33, line 43), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform the steps of analogous claims 1, 4-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 18 (see citations above).
As per claims 47 and 50-53, Roy teaches a privilege-granting authority server for enabling a device to obtain and use permissions related to maneuvering of a vehicle, the privilege-granting authority server comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory (col. 30, lines 36-39; col. 33, lines 39-61), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform the steps of analogous claims 19 and 23-26 (see citations above).
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 14, 30-31, 42, and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy in view of Toyokita, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0407283 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20260410).
As per claims 14 and 42, Roy teaches claims 13 and 41 as above. Roy does not explicitly teach receiving a signed document from the privilege-granting authority server (col. 30, lines 29-45); wirelessly transmitting the signed document from the device to further additional devices separate from the vehicle (col. 30, lines 29-45); and responsive to receiving the signed document or to responses from the further additional vehicles: adjusting the route, adjusting the way in which the vehicle travels along the route, or both (col. 30, lines 44, 59-63). Roy does not explicitly teach that the document is updated. However, Toyokita teaches that updated conditions can no longer allow for the prioritized travel permissions, and sending updated messages informing the vehicle of the updates (¶¶ 0067, 81-82). Both Roy and Toyokita deal with granting priority permissions to vehicles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that issuing updated documents/messages/permissions would improve Roy's system for the same reasons they are useful in Toyokita. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating this technique from Toyokita would result in a system as in Roy that is also able to respond to changing conditions. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating this technique could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claims 30 and 54, Roy teaches claims 19 and 47 as above. Roy further teaches subsequent to sending the signed document, determining to revoke the one or more permissions (col. 30, lines 65-66). Roy does not explicitly teach sending, from the privilege-granting authority server to the device, a message indicative of a revocation of the one or more permissions; which is taught by Toyokita (¶ 0067). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Toyokita—namely, to inform the vehicle that updated conditions no longer allow for the prioritized travel permissions. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of vehicle permissions and communications. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claims 31 and 55, Roy in view of Toyokita teaches claims 30 and 54 as above. Roy further teaches determining to revoke the one or more permissions is based at least in part on: a determination that the vehicle has arrived at a designated destination, a determination that the vehicle has left a designated route of travel of the vehicle (col. 30, lines 65-66), an emergency condition impacting a designated route of travel of the vehicle, a traffic condition impacting a designated route of travel of the vehicle, or a combination thereof.
Claims 17 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy in view of Futaki, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0028862 (Reference D of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20260410).
As per claims 17 and 45, Roy teaches claims 1 and 32 as above. Roy does not explicitly teach transmitting the messages comprises transmitting the messages using proximity-based services (ProSe) or sidelink communication; which is taught by Futaki (¶ 0008). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because, as shown in Futaki, this is a known communications protocol (among others) that can be used to send vehicle messages such as those in Roy. Moreover, based on the level of skill in the references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Roy's messages could be sent via one of these protocols though routine engineering producing predictable results.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights