Detail Action
This office action is a response to an application filed on 09/19/2024.
Claims 1- 6 are pending for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/19/2024. These drawings are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of definitions” in lines 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear “a plurality of definitions” in lines 9 is same as “a plurality of definitions for the SCP as described in line 3.
Claim 1 further recites “the gateway vehicle device” in line 12. It is unclear whether “the gateway vehicle device” in line 12 refers to “a gateway vehicle device of a vehicle and the mobile device” or a different gateway vehicle device. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 2-6 are depend on their parent claim 1, thus they are also rejected for the same reasoning.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 time wise 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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12133274 B2 and US 11330644 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the application is an obvious variants of the claims of the Patent. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1-6 are to be found in patent claims and recite language that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as substantially identical subject matter. The reasons for concluding that the invention defined in the independent claim 1 of application would have been an obvious variation to have modified by claim 1 of conflicting patent, and thus, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the patent.
Claim 1 of Instant application 18/889373
Conflicting Claim 1 of US 12133274 B2
1. A method for a secure connection to a wireless network of a vehicle, the method comprising:
defining, at an assigning authority at a server, a secure connection packet (SCP);
compiling, at the assigning authority at the server, a plurality of definitions for the SCP by accessing a dataset and obtaining driver information, vehicle information, MAC address information for a mobile device, and beacon identification information for a beacon;
1. A method for a secure connection to a wireless network of a vehicle, the method comprising:
compiling, at a server, a secure connection packet (SCP) by accessing a dataset and obtaining driver information, vehicle information, MAC address information for a mobile device, and beacon identification information;
transmitting, from the server, a plurality of definitions to a vehicle gateway device of a vehicle and the mobile device;
transmitting, from the server, a plurality of SCP definitions to a vehicle gateway device and the mobile device;
authorizing, at the server, the SCP;
authorizing, at the server, the SCP;
receiving, at the server from the gateway vehicle device, a compiled SCP, the complied SCP compiled from the plurality of SCP definitions, the beacon identification information, and a scan of a wireless device;
compiling, at the vehicle gateway device, a complied SCP from the plurality of SCP definitions, the beacon ID, and a scan of a plurality of wireless devices;
receiving, at the server from the vehicle gateway device, the compiled SCP;
.
transmitting the authorization for the compiled SCP from the server to the gateway vehicle device for creation of a validated SCP to enable the gateway vehicle device to broadcast a secure wireless network with a hidden and hashed SSID unique to the vehicle and protected by a passphrase, the hidden and hashed SSID and passphrase generated from the validated SCP, and connect the gateway vehicle device over the secure wireless network to the mobile device that generated the hashed SSID and the passphrase from the dataset generated from the plurality of definitions.
transmitting the authorization for the compiled SCP from the server to the vehicle gateway device for creation of a validated SCP;
broadcasting, at the vehicle gateway device, a secure wireless network with a hidden and hashed SSID unique to the vehicle and protected by a passphrase, the hidden and hashed SSID and passphrase generated from the validated SCP; and
connecting, over the secure wireless network, the vehicle gateway device to the mobile device that generated the hashed SSID and the passphrase from a dataset generated from the plurality of definitions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1- 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights