Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments are with respect to the newly provided amendments are rejected with the rejections made to the amendments. Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s arguments:
Regarding Suzuki:
Applicant argues that Suzuki teaches binary and only two states, no third state. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims are based on the limitation of the usage rule being set based on a key mode identified in a request message, the key mode being selected from a plurality of key modes including which is Markush Groupings as stated in the rejection. As such the limitations of “selected form a plurality of a key modes” clearly addresses the claimed limitations as a selection of at least one has been made.
Applicant further argues that Fig. 10 and 11. Fig.10 and 11 are not used in the rejections. However, Applicant argues that Fig.10 and 11 do not teach shared mode. “shared mode” is not selected form the Markush groupings.
Regarding Penilla:
Applicants argue that Penilla does not teach a plurality of key modes. Examiner notes that the plurality of key mode was addressed by Suzuki.
Applicant argues that Paragraph [0032] of Penilla identifies what those templates are: "the template is one of a child template, or a teen template, or a spouse template, or a mechanic template, or a valet attendant template, or a friend template, or a custom template." See also paragraphs [0278] and [0306]. Each of those templates is a category of person. None is a level of permitted usage of the vehicle. Examiner strongly disagrees; the settings are on the vehicle not the person. The naming is made for ease of understanding. The vehicle does not know the difference between the persons; however, the vehicle is set at a template i.e. level of restricted usage based on a naming.
Applicant argues Penilla does not teach a first, second and third prohibition of driving. 1) This argument clearly shows that Applicant themselves are using naming to refer to the driver i.e. person. 2) Nowhere in the claims is a first, second, or third related to restrictions to a vehicle as augured by Applicant. However, first and second are immediately followed by a user in claims 2 and 3.
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 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 1-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI US 2019/147679 in view of Penilla US 20200361335.
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry 400 configured to create a digital key to operate a vehicle 10, and
set a usage rule for the digital key, Fig. 6-8 and par. 90-93, 105-108 transfer of the authentication information [digital] to third party terminal key system.
the usage rule including usage rule information that sets permitted conditions of usage of the vehicle, Fig.6 "function restriction information"; "use restriction information"
the usage rule being set based on a key mode identified in a request message, the key mode being selected from a plurality of key modes including Markush Groupings
a full control mode in which the vehicle is operable without restriction, Fig.6 #2041
a share mode in which driving of the vehicle is permitted and permitted usage of the vehicle is partially restricted, and
a non-driver mode in which driving of the vehicle is prohibited and permitted usage of the vehicle is partially restricted; and
Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches (see the figures and par. [0093], [0108]; see also par. [0113]) but does not teach “to the vehicle ‘and’ information processing terminal”
Regarding
a transmitter configured to transmit the digital key to the vehicle and an information processing terminal that uses the digital key, and transmit the usage rule information to the vehicle and the information processing terminal.
Penella teaches
a transmitter configured to transmit the digital key to the vehicle and an information processing terminal that uses the digital key, and transmit the usage rule information to the vehicle and the information processing terminal. Fig. 30 A and 267; electronic keys transferred to a guest that requires access to the vehicle. The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest. 280; assigned to different devices/people with different privileges [usage rule].
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the purpose of sharing digital car keys such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. The combination is also considered obvious to try as stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
[Claim 2] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry sets the usage rule for the digital key according to a first user, the usage rule being set for a role allocated to the first user.Fig.6 2014 and 2042
[Claim 3] The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry sets the usage rule to be associated with the role allocated to the first user in accordance with the request message, the request message being initiated by a second user who has been allocated an owner-like role. Fig.6 2041 owner-like role
[Claim 4] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the usage rule for the digital key represents at least one of functional permitted usage of the vehicle, temporal permitted usage of the vehicle, 2041 and/or spatial permitted usage of the vehicle.
[Claim 5] The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the functional permitted usage of the vehicle includes at least one of:
permitted usage regarding doors of the vehicle that are permitted to lock and unlock; Fig. 2 #12 Also para. 12 predetermined control may include a locking-unlocking control of locking or unlocking
permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle;
permitted usage of an HMI (Human Machine Interface) function of the vehicle;
permitted usage regarding accessible content in the vehicle;
permitted usage of a maintenance function of the vehicle; and/or an extent to which a driving situation of the vehicle is sharable.
[Claim 6] The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the temporal permitted usage of the vehicle includes a usage-permitted period of time for the vehicle. Par.20; predetermined control may include a locking-unlocking control of locking or unlocking
[Claim 7] The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the spatial permitted usage of the vehicle includes a movable area in which the vehicle is permitted to be located. Fig.6 2041 permitted usage of all areas, 2042 does not permit in any area. 2041 and 2042 are spatial permitted per user.
[Claim 9] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to set content of the usage rule in accordance with a user-initiated request. Fig.6 2041 and 2042
[Claim 8] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the usage rule information sets permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle, and the permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle includes a maximum speed restriction of the vehicle.
Regarding Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 The information processing apparatus according to claim 1; but does not explicitly teach the limitations of wherein the usage rule information sets permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle, and the permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle includes a maximum speed restriction of the vehicle.
However, Penilla teaches wherein the usage rule information sets permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle, and the permitted usage of driving functions of the vehicle includes a maximum speed restriction of the vehicle. 14; the condition of use is one of a geographic restriction for where the vehicle is allowed to be used, or a speed restriction, or an occupancy restriction, or a time frame of use, or a time expiration of use, or combinations thereof.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to share digital car keys using mobile devices such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
[Claim 10] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the digital key to the information processing terminal and transmit the usage rule information to the vehicle. Fig. 4
[Claim 11] The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the usage rule information to the information processing terminal. Infor from Fig.6 is transmitted in Fig.4
[Claim 12] The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is configured to create a key pair that includes authentication information to authenticate the digital key, and par. 90 FIG. 7 is a diagram for describing a transfer of the authentication information
the transmitter is configured to transmit the key pair to the vehicle. Fig.4 200b to 10
Claims 13-14 canceled.
[Claim 15] is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1.
16-21 Canceled
Claim 21 The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the digital key is directly transmitted from the information processing apparatus to the vehicle and the information processing terminal. Penilla 267; The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest. [the vehicle can only verify the key if it receives the key from a source other than the guest beforehand]
Claim 22 The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the usage rule information is directly transmitted from the information processing apparatus to the vehicle and the information processing terminal. Pennilla 8; The privileges are defined for the unique access code, and the vehicle is configured to receive information from the server to authenticate the request by the mobile device [directly transmitted to the vehicle]. 49; receiving, at a server, a request to generate e-keys; The access code is transmitted [from the server] to the device of the recipient from the vehicle, such that the vehicle provides access for use to the device when the access code is used by the device having the device ID. The access code functions as the e-keys for the vehicle and the metadata includes privileges for use of the vehicle while using the e-keys. Also see 8-9, 44
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pehilla US 9365188 all claims 102
Wunsche US 10872252
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights