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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, “the second slot ID matches a slot ID liked” with –the second slot ID matching a slot ID linked--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino et al. (US Pub 2025/0296528) in view of Chan et al. (US Pub 2023/0106867).
As of claims 1, 6, 13 and 18, Fujino discloses a vehicle 12 for which a digital key service is provided through a management server (via cloud system 11) that issues and manages digital keys and shared keys based on a request for issuance of the digital keys and the shared keys being transmitted through a user interface of the vehicle or a user terminal (via mobile terminal 13 requesting issuance of digital keys and shared keys to cloud system 11 and the cloud system 11 issuing the digital keys to the mobile terminal and the vehicle; see paragraph [0043]-[0044]), wherein the vehicle is configured to execute instructions to perform operations comprising:
storing a first digital key received from the management server (via storing a pair key received from the cloud system 11; see paragraph [0044];
receiving, from the management server, a shared key (receiving, from the cloud system 11, a shared (pair) key; see paragraphs [0239]-[0241]).
Fujino discloses the system of receiving digital keys and storing them however it does not explicitly disclose registering a first profile, linking a first slot ID to the first profile and determining whether to select the first profile based on the first or second slot ID.
Chan discloses a system for managing user profiles wherein a vehicle registers user profiles (see paragraphs [0036] and [0052]). Chan further discloses the step of linking a slot ID (User ID, such John User ID or Jane User ID; see fig. 5) with user profiles (see paragraphs [0052]- [0054]). Chan discloses that if a second key (key 2B) is used by user Jane, the system selects the profile associated with Jane allowing Jane to link a profile to multiple devices (see fig. 5; also see paragraphs [0056]- [0057]).
From the teaching of Chan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the function storing data by linking a profile to a slot ID as taught by Chan in order to allow a user to link a user’s profile to multiple devices rather than just one.
As of claims 2 and 14, Chan discloses that selecting a profile includes selecting the first profile for the shared key based on the second slot ID being identical to the first slot ID (In the system of Chan the vehicle will select Janes profile for the Key 2B based on the User ID Jane; see fig. 5; also see paragraph [0056]).
As of claims 3 and 15, Chan discloses the step of selecting a profile further includes selecting a corresponding profile for the shared key based on the second slot ID matches a slot ID liked to the corresponding profile (via selecting corresponding profile based on user ID (John) or user ID (jane); see fig. 5; also see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
As of claims 4 and 16, Chan discloses the operations further comprise: receiving a request for access by a third digital key through a user terminal; performing an authentication by comparing the third digital key with the first digital key and the shared key; and switching a current profile of the vehicle to a profile selected based on a third slot ID included in the third digital key (if access is requested by user device 102 of a user (joey) switching the profile; see paragraph [0058]).
As of claims 5 and 17, Chan discloses switching to the profile selected based on the third slot ID in the third digital key includes switching to the first profile based on the third slot ID being identical to the first slot ID (When access is requested, user ID is Jane, Key 2A or 2B, switching to Janes profile; see paragraphs [0056]-[0057]. Further when access is requested, user ID is Jon, key is Key 1, switching to John’s profile; see paragraph [0055]).
As of claims 7 and 19, Chan discloses issuing and transmitting the first digital key includes (i) registering a first account based on the information regarding the first user and (ii) linking the first slot ID to the first account (via associating User ID to user account and linking the User ID to user profile; see figs. 3 and 5; also see paragraph [0048]).
As of claims 8 and 20, Fujino discloses issuing and transmitting the shared key includes determining a second account based on the information regarding the second user (via determining guest account and issuing digital keys; see fig. 7, also see paragraph [0158]).
As of claim 9, Chan discloses the step of issuing and transmitting the shared key further includes issuing the shared key with the first slot ID included based on the second account being identical to the first account (if user account if Jane, Key2a and key 2B are associated with User ID (jane); see paragraph [0056]).
As of claim 10, Chan discloses the step of issuing and transmitting the shared key further includes issuing the shared key including a slot ID other than the first slot ID based on the second account being different from the first account (if user account is Joey, key 3 is associated with User ID (joey); see paragraph [0058]).
As of claim 11, Chan discloses the step of issuing the shared key including a slot ID other than the first slot ID includes (i) issuing the shared key with a same slot ID as a slot ID of a shared key that has been already issued based on the second account being identical to a third account of the shared key that has been already issued and (ii) issuing the shared key with a new slot ID based on the second account does being different from the third account (if user ID is jane, key 2B is associated with the user account and profile of Jane even though Jane already have been issued Key 2A; see fig. 5; also see paragraph [0055]-[0059]).
As of claim 12, Fujino discloses that the first digital key and the shared key include information regarding a type of user terminal in which the first digital key and the shared key are to be stored (via cloud system 11 transmitting, to the mobile device 13, the digital key, and information representing the usage rule (hereinafter, referred to as usage rule information). The cloud system 11 transmits the pair key and the usage rule information to the vehicle 12; see paragraph [0044]).
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 1-20 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 1 and 6 are apparatus claims and claim 13 is method claim. For analysis, attention will be directed to claim 1.
Claim 1. A vehicle for which a digital key service is provided through a management server that issues and manages digital keys and shared keys based on a request for issuance of the digital keys and the shared keys being transmitted through a user interface of the vehicle or a user terminal, wherein the vehicle is configured to execute instructions to perform operations comprising: registering a first profile based on a request; storing a first digital key including a first slot ID received from the management server; linking the first slot ID to the first profile; receiving, from the management server, a shared key; and selecting a profile based on a comparison between a second slot ID in the received shared key and the first slot ID.
The abstract idea is directed to the “registering”, “storing”, “linking”, “receiving” and the “selecting” steps.
The remainder steps are then analyzed in Prong 2 of step 2a.
Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim 1 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 registering”, “storing”, “linking”, “receiving” and the “selecting”, 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 claims 1, 6 and 13 , claims include additional elements “vehicle”, “a management server” and “a user terminal” 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
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