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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “a management section configured to manage”, “a determination section configured to determine”, “ an acquisition section configured to acquire”, “a management data storage section configured to store” and “an access section configured to access” (claims 1 and 8) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a management section configured to manage”, “a determination section configured to determine”, “ an acquisition section configured to acquire”, “a management data storage section configured to store” and “an access section configured to access” (invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claim function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently to perform the functions because the applicant’s specification does not describe a particular structure and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure perform the claim functions. Applicant’s specification paragraphs 0098-0104 discloses the access authorization system 23 functionally includes a service request determination section 23a, a user authentication information management section 23b, an access authorization section 23c, a vehicle information acquisition section 23d, and a vehicle information providing section 23e; however the specification does not explicitly disclose the specific corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of a claim upon which it depends.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claim functions of “a management section configured to manage”, “a determination section configured to determine”, “ an acquisition section configured to acquire”, “a management data storage section configured to store” and “an access section configured to access”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient details that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has position of claimed invention.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of a claim upon which it depends.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US Patent No. 11,696,126) in view of HOFFEN (US Pub No. 2020/0380148).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chun teaches an access authorization system that authorizes access to privacy information based on an authentication result of a user of a vehicle, authentication of the user being performed based on the authentication result obtained by a different authentication method, the access authorization system comprising: a management section configured to manage, for each seat of the vehicle, management data indicating which user has been authenticated by which authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication method for each user).
Chun discloses a personalization service that includes personal privacy information (Chun, column 10, lines 37-38) but does not explicitly teach a determination section configured to determine, for access to the privacy information of the user, which user associated with each of the seats is required to make agreement based on the management data.
HOFFEN teaches a determination section configured to determine, for access to the privacy information of the user, which user associated with each of the seats is required to make agreement based on the management data (HOFFEN, page 3, paragraphs 0030-0032 and page 2, paragraphs 0026-0027; which automotive data requires user consent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chun with the teachings of HOFFEN to require user consent to provide the advantage of effectively managing data (HOFFEN, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 2, Chun in view of HOFFEN teaches the system wherein each of the seats on which each user is seated is estimated based on the authentication result by each of authentication methods and an authentication level set based on accuracy of authentication of each of the authentication methods (Chun, column 8, lines 5-32 and column 9, lines 20-35; security intensity level).
Regarding claim 3, Chun in view of HOFFEN teaches the system wherein for each of the seats, the user with a highest authentication level is associated with the seat (Chun, column 8, lines 5-17).
Regarding claim 4, Chun in view of HOFFEN teaches the system wherein for each piece of the privacy information, it is managed that the user seated on which of the seats is required to make agreement (Chun, column 11, lines 56-60 and column 9, lines 20-35; security intensity level).
Regarding claim 5, Chun in view of HOFFEN teaches each and every claim limitations of claim 1, however, HOFFEN teaches the system wherein in a case where different users have been associated with a same seat, agreement is obtained from all the users having been associated with the seat (HOFFEN, page 3, paragraphs 0030-0032 & 0034 and page 2, paragraphs 0026-0027; aggregated user consent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chun with the teachings of HOFFEN to require user consent to provide the advantage of effectively managing data (HOFFEN, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 6, Chun in view of HOFFEN teaches the system wherein the management data in which a result of the authentication is stored is updated in a case where a predetermined data update condition is satisfied (Chun, column 12, line 49- column 13, line 11; second authentication method).
Regarding claim 7, Chun in view of HOFFEN teaches the system wherein data used to determine the user whose agreement is needed is deleted in a case where a predetermined data deletion condition is satisfied (Chun, column 13, lines 40-45).
Regarding independent claim 8, Chun teaches an electronic control device having a function of relaying data transmitted from a plurality of other electronic control devices mounted on a vehicle (Chun, column 5, line 54-column 6, line 28), the electronic control device comprising: an acquisition section configured to acquire an authentication result of a user of the vehicle by a different authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication of user based on determined authentication method); a management data storage section configured to store, for each seat of the vehicle, management data indicating which user has been authenticated by which authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication method for each user).
Chun discloses a personalization service that includes personal privacy information (Chun, column 10, lines 37-38) but does not explicitly teach a determination section configured to determine, for access to privacy information of the user, which user associated with each seat is required to make agreement based on the management data stored in the management data storage section; and an access section configured to access privacy information of the user stored in the electronic control device or privacy information of the user stored in the other electronic control devices.
HOFFEN teaches a determination section configured to determine, for access to privacy information of the user, which user associated with each seat is required to make agreement based on the management data stored in the management data storage section (HOFFEN, page 3, paragraphs 0030-0032 and page 2, paragraphs 0026-0027; which automotive data requires user consent); and an access section configured to access privacy information of the user stored in the electronic control device or privacy information of the user stored in the other electronic control device (HOFFEN, page 3, paragraphs 0030-0032 and page 2, paragraph 0026; provide access to automotive data based on consent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chun with the teachings of HOFFEN to require user consent to provide the advantage of effectively managing data (HOFFEN, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding independent claim 9, Chun teaches an access authorization method that authorizes access to privacy information based on an authentication result of a user of a vehicle, the access authorization method comprising: authentication of the user being performed based on the authentication result obtained by a different authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication of user based on determined authentication method); managing, for each seat of the vehicle, management data indicating which user has been authenticated by which authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication method for each user).
Chun discloses a personalization service that includes personal privacy information (Chun, column 10, lines 37-38) but does not explicitly teach determining, for access to privacy information of the user, which user associated with each seat is required to make agreement based on the management data.
HOFFEN teaches determining, for access to privacy information of the user, which user associated with each seat is required to make agreement based on the management data (HOFFEN, page 3, paragraphs 0030-0032 and page 2, paragraphs 0026-0027; which automotive data requires user consent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chun with the teachings of HOFFEN to require user consent to provide the advantage of effectively managing data (HOFFEN, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Regarding independent claim 10, Chun teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by an access authorization system that authorizes access to privacy information based on an authentication result of a user of a vehicle, the program comprising: authentication of the user being performed based on the authentication result obtained by a different authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication of user based on determined authentication method); managing, for each seat of the vehicle, management data indicating which user has been authenticated by which authentication method (Chun, Figure 3, column 8, lines 24-32, column 9, lines 20-47, column 10, lines 3-13, column 11, lines 6-48 and claim 11; authentication method for each user).
Chun discloses a personalization service that includes personal privacy information (Chun, column 10, lines 37-38) but does not explicitly teach determining, for access to privacy information of the user, which user associated with each seat is required to make agreement based on the management data.
HOFFEN teaches determining, for access to privacy information of the user, which user associated with each seat is required to make agreement based on the management data (HOFFEN, page 3, paragraphs 0030-0032 and page 2, paragraphs 0026-0027; which automotive data requires user consent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chun with the teachings of HOFFEN to require user consent to provide the advantage of effectively managing data (HOFFEN, page 1, paragraph 0011).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Scully (US Pub No. 2009/0105910).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAQUEAL D WADE whose telephone number is (571)270-0357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/SHAQUEAL D WADE-WRIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407