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 .
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.
Claims 16-17, 28-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shang (CN 111404993 A: Note: please refer to the paragraphs labeled in the attached Machine Translation).
As of claims 16 and 28, Shang discloses a method for revocation of a digital key for locking/unlocking a vehicle (via canceling the digital key sharing; see abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining information on a use status of the digital key (Step S203: the server determines whether the reception time of the digital key sharing cancellation request is within a preset sharing time period, see paragraph [0033]); and
revoking the digital key based on the information on the use status of the digital key (via server obtaining the vehicle usage information including the ignition information and other information characterizing the vehicle is in use and executing the invalidation operation to the digital key based on the vehicle information; see paragraphs [0034]-[0038]).
As of claim 32, Shang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 16 above, Shang further discloses that the server comprises one or more interfaces for communication (via network communication unit) and a data processing circuit (via a processor; see paragraph [0026]).
As of claims 17 and 29, Shang discloses that the information on the use status indicates whether the digital key is currently used or expected to be used (via disclosing that the vehicle usage information includes unlocking information of the shared vehicle, ignition operation information, and other information that can characterize whether the vehicle is being used; see paragraphs [0042]- [0043]).
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 18-27, 30-31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang (CN 111404993) in view of Kano et al. (US Pub 2021/0370872).
As of claims 18 and 30, Shang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 17 above, Shang further discloses that the information on the use status comprises information on a vehicle status of the vehicle, and wherein revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key based on the information on the vehicle status (via invalidating the digital key based on the vehicle information; see paragraphs [0034]-[0038]), however Shang does not explicitly disclose revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key based on the information on the use history of the digital key.
Kano discloses a method for invalidating an electronic key based on information on a use history (use records) of the electronic key (see paragraph [0052], [0055] and [0110]).
From the teaching of Kano, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Shan to include the function of using use history of the digital key in invalidating the digital key as taught by Kano in order to invalidate the digital key at the appropriate time.
As of claims 19 and 31, Kano discloses that the method further comprises obtaining information on a use status of an other digital key (via obtaining information on electronic key B), and wherein revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key based on the information on the use status of the digital key and the use status of the other digital key (see paragraphs [0105]-[0106], “it is judged that a mobile terminal using the electronic key A is the old terminal, and a mobile terminal using the electronic key B is the new terminal. In other words, it is judged that the electronic key A is to be invalidated”).
As of claims 20 and 34, Kano discloses that the information on the use status of the digital key comprises information on a use history of the digital key, and wherein the information on the use status of the other digital key comprises information on a use history of the other digital key, and wherein revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key based on the information on the use history of the digital key and of the other digital key (see paragraphs [0105]-[0106], “see paragraphs [0105]-[0106], “it is judged that a mobile terminal using the electronic key A is the old terminal, and a mobile terminal using the electronic key B is the new terminal. In other words, it is judged that the electronic key A is to be invalidated”).
As of claims 21 and 35, Kano discloses that the information on the use history of the digital key and the information on the use history of the other digital key indicate whether the other digital key was used after the digital key (via determining that the electronic key B was used after the electronic key A), and wherein revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key when the other digital key was used after the digital key (via invalidating the electronic key A when the electronic key B was used after the electronic key A; see paragraphs [0105]-[0106]).
As of claim 22, Kano discloses that the method further comprises configuring the vehicle for revoking the digital key when the other digital key was used after the digital key (via configuring the onboard apparatus 300 of a vehicle to delete the electronic key A; see paragraphs [0109]).
As of claim 23, Shang discloses that the digital key is stored on a first user device (via second client terminal), and wherein the other digital key is stored on a second user device (via first client terminal; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0036]).
Kano discloses that the digital key is stored on a first user device (via mobile terminal 200A), and wherein the other digital key is stored on a second user device (via mobile terminal 200B; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0106]).
As of claim 24, Shang discloses that the digital key was issued by the second user device storing the other digital key (via first client terminal issuing the digital key to the second client terminal; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0003]).
As of claim 25, Shang discloses that the method further comprises obtaining information on an expiration time of the digital key, and wherein revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key further based on the information on the expiration time (via invalidating the digital key when the service life of the digital key reaches the effective period set by the owner; see paragraph [0003]).
Kano further discloses invalidating the electronic key based on the expiration time (see paragraphs [0062] and [0101]).
As of claim 26, Shang discloses that the method further comprises obtaining information on a request of a holder of the digital key to revoke the digital key, and wherein revoking the digital key comprises revoking the digital key further based on the information on the request (via requesting invalidation using the client terminal; see paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
As of claim 27, Kano discloses the steps of generating information on the use status of the digital key at a user device (via mobile terminal electronic key use record data; see paragraph [0080]); and transmitting the information on the use status of the digital key for revocation of the digital key based on the information on the use status (transmitting the record data to the sever 100; see paragraphs [0066], [0067] and [0080]).
As of claim 33, Kano discloses that the apparatus is positioned in a vehicle (via information processing apparatus being a component of the vehicle; see paragraph [0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim 16 is the method, claim 28 is a CRM storing the instructions, and claim 32 is the apparatus. For analysis, attention will be directed to claim 16.
Claim 16. A method for revocation of a digital key for locking/unlocking a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining information on a use status of the digital key; and revoking the digital key based on the information on the use status of the digital key.
The abstract idea is directed to the “obtaining step” and the “revoking step”.
The remainder steps are then analyzed in Prong 2 of step 2a.
Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The same steps are then analyzed in Step 2b.
Step 2b. The additional steps do not add significantly more and do not seem to be unconventional elements or unconventional combination of elements. The claim recites the step of obtaining information and deleting (revoking), which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As of claim 32, claim includes additional elements “one or more interfaces for communication” and “a data processing circuit” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hioki et al. (US Pub 2019/0184939) discloses a key management device includes a server configured to issue an electronic key of a vehicle to a user device, configured to acquire position information of the vehicle, and configured to invalidate the electronic key issued to the user device when a determination is made from the position information of the vehicle that the vehicle is present at a predetermined position.
Esselink et al. (US Pub 2015/0161832) discloses the step of invalidating a digital key based on a use status of the digital key (see paragraph [0066]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686