DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on October 21, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-9 represent a method and claims 10-18 represents a system directed to managing recorded images for each driver, and system for the same.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains phrases that should be avoided (i.e. “The present disclosure relates…”). The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is further objected to because in Line 5 of the Abstract, the applicant discloses the terms “secured y storing” which should be corrected to “secured by storing”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 51 – Line 10, the specification discloses the term “vidoe” which should be corrected to “video”.
¶ 47, Line 4, the specification discloses the term “extream” should be corrected to “extreme”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, discloses the limitation “A method of managing recorded images for each driver for vehicle” is grammatically incorrect, should state “for a vehicle”.
Claim 7 and 16, discloses the limitation “An image storing file naming” is grammatically incorrect. Should be corrected to state “an image identifier” or “image file name” or along those lines.
Claim 10, discloses the limitation “a camera image processing module configured to process images acquired from at least one camera observing an interior area or the vehicle” should be corrected to “a camera image processing module configured to process images acquired from at least one camera observing an interior area of the vehicle”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 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.
Claims 2 and 11 recites the limitation "assigning a unique code to each ignition key". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “each ignition key” in the claim.
Claims 5 and 14, discloses the term “public mode”. The term “public mode” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner if public mode allows for anyone of the drivers to access the images or if this relates to the vehicle being in a public environment.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 recites the limitation "ignition key". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 discloses the term “wherein the managing of the authority” however claim 1 discloses “assigning of the authority” which leads to a disconnect as the claim introduces a new action (“managing”) that was not in claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the authority". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “forcibly” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “forcibly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner how one would forcibly control other drivers’ recorded images as described in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10 – “A digital key drier authentication module configured to…”
Claim 10 – “A camera image processing module configured to…”
Claim 10 – “A recorded image storage module configured to…”
Claim 10 – “An audio video navigation (AVN) configured to…”
Claim 10 – “A management module configured to…”
Identified in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 20250086312), hereinafter referred to as Saito.
Regarding Claim 1, Saito discloses:
A method of managing recorded images for each driver for vehicle, the method comprising: distinguishing between at least two drivers (In ¶ 15, Saito discloses “When a single vehicle is shared by multiple users, confidential information for each user generated by the use of the vehicle by multiple users is stored within the same vehicle.” And further in ¶ 57 “The authentication authorization management unit 14 determines whether to authorize access by performing data communication with an information terminal 110 possessed by a vehicle user US1 and an information terminal 120 possessed by a vehicle user US2, for example.”); storing recorded images of the vehicle in a specific format (In ¶ 63, Saito discloses “The vehicle function databases 21, 22, and 23 store vehicle information collected by the vehicle function blocks 15, 16, and 17, respectively.”); and assigning an authority to the recorded images according to the distinguishing (In ¶ 22, Saito discloses “The authentication authorization management unit is configured to determine whether to authorize a confidential information acquisition request when at least one service application issues a confidential information acquisition request to acquire confidential information among the vehicle information via the vehicle function block.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Saito discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the distinguishing between at least two drivers comprises assigning a unique code to each ignition key (In ¶ 119, Saito discloses “Device authentication is an authentication method that identifies the user by performing data communication with a device possessed by the user (e.g., a smartphone or smart key).”).
Regarding Claim 3, Saito discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the ignition key is one or more of a smart key, a digital key, a card key, and a shared digital key (In ¶ 119, Saito discloses “Device authentication is an authentication method that identifies the user by performing data communication with a device possessed by the user (e.g., a smartphone or smart key).”).
Regarding Claim 6, Saito discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the specific format includes a non-transitory memory or a folder storage area in a non-transitory memory distinguished according to a unique code assigned to each ignition key held by each of the at least two drivers (In ¶ 63, Saito discloses “The vehicle function databases 21, 22, and 23 store vehicle information collected by the vehicle function blocks 15, 16, and 17, respectively.” And further discloses in ¶ 105 “each of the vehicle function blocks 15, 16, and 17, every time privacy information of the person using the vehicle is stored, associates the driver at the timing of storage in the vehicle function databases 21, 22, and 23 as the owner, and stores this owner and the privacy information linked together in the vehicle function databases 21, 22, and 23.” ).
Regarding Claim 7, Saito discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the specific format includes an image storage file naming, an index, or both, distinguished according to a unique code assigned to each ignition key held by each of the at least two drivers (In ¶ 124, Saito discloses “The first pattern is a pattern in which the belonging can be uniquely determined by referring to the privacy information management table 31. For example, if the data targeted is vehicle identification information, the belonging is determined to be the vehicle owner by referring to the privacy information management table 31.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Saito discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the authority is related to one or more of playback, deletion, copying, and external transmission of the recorded images (In ¶ 148, Saito discloses “This allows the vehicle control system 1 to determine whether to authorize the data usage request based on the judgment of the approver.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Saito discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the managing of the authority includes assigning a master authority (In ¶ 90, Saito discloses “When the vehicle owner's spouse or guest uses an application other than the data update service and this application attempts to use vehicle identification information, an approval request is sent to the vehicle owner's information terminal. If the vehicle owner's approval is obtained, this application can use the vehicle identification information.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Saito discloses:
A system of managing recorded images for each driver for a vehicle (In ¶ 4, Saito discloses “The authentication authorization management unit determines the authorization process based on the confidential information management table and the authorization process management table, and determines whether to authorize the confidential information acquisition request.”), the system comprising: two or more digital keys (In ¶ 119, Saito discloses “Device authentication is an authentication method that identifies the user by performing data communication with a device possessed by the user (e.g., a smartphone or smart key).”); a digital key driver authentication module configured to distinguish and authenticate a driver based on the two or more digital keys (In ¶ 57, Saito discloses “The authentication authorization management unit 14 determines whether to authorize access by performing data communication with an information terminal 110 possessed by a vehicle user US1 and an information terminal 120 possessed by a vehicle user US2, for example.”); a camera image processing module configured to process images acquired from at least one camera observing an interior area or the vehicle, an exterior area of the vehicle, or both (In ¶ 60, Saito discloses “The vehicle information may also include an image captured by an in-vehicle camera and an image captured by an exterior camera. This vehicle information is stored by the ECU 4 that controls the camera.”); a recorded image storage module configured to store recorded images acquired through the camera image processing module under preset conditions or upon request (In ¶ 63, Saito discloses “The vehicle function databases 21, 22, and 23 store vehicle information collected by the vehicle function blocks 15, 16, and 17, respectively.”); an audio video navigation (AVN) configured to perform a function according to a request for file management for the recorded images stored in the recorded image storage module (In ¶ 107, Saito discloses “the navigation device 200 mounted on the vehicle transmits an execution request to the service application 11. When the service application 11 receives the execution request, it transmits a data usage request for vehicle identification information to the access control unit 18”); and a management module configured to distinguish between at least two drivers through the digital key driver authentication module, store the recorded images in the recorded image storage module in a specific format for each driver (In ¶ 22, Saito discloses “The authentication authorization management unit is configured to determine whether to authorize a confidential information acquisition request when at least one service application issues a confidential information acquisition request to acquire confidential information among the vehicle information via the vehicle function block.” And further discloses in ¶ 63 “The vehicle function databases 21, 22, and 23 store vehicle information collected by the vehicle function blocks 15, 16, and 17, respectively.”).
Claims 11-12 and 15-18 are directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the method of Claims 2-3 and 6-9 respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 20250086312), hereinafter referred to as Saito, in view of Chen, Yuqing (US 20180154908), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding Claim 4, Saito discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
However, Saito does not disclose continuous recording.
Chen discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the storing of recorded images of the vehicle in a specific format comprises storing indoor images of the vehicle in a parked state, outdoor images of the vehicle in a parked state, or both, according to a specific format assigned to a driver when the vehicle is turned off and the driver does not leave the vehicle (In ¶ 22, Chen discloses “The present application has the advantages that after a vehicle is switched off to turn off a power supplement, the multi-purpose vehicle smart monitoring system with a built-in independent high-capacity rechargeable battery 16 works by only using its power supply in a standby manner under a power-saving sleep mode… transmit timely recorded information such as abnormal audios and videos inside, outside and around the vehicle to the smart phone or the PC mobile terminal 2 of the vehicle owner through the multi-purpose vehicle smart monitoring system 1”).
One of ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito’s approach by utilizing Chen’s approach of utilizing continuous recording of a vehicle’s cameras when the vehicle is turned off as the motivation would be to ensure images are captured of important events when a driver is inside or outside the vehicle in a parked and off state (See Chen, ¶ 3)
Regarding Claim 5, Saito discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
However, Saito does not disclose continuous recording.
Chen discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the storing of recorded images of the vehicle in a specific format comprises storing indoor images of the vehicle in a parked state, outdoor images of the vehicle in a parked state, or both, in a public mode when the vehicle is turned off and a driver leaves the vehicle (In ¶ 31, Chen discloses “The static state of the vehicle is called a “static” unattended state, after the vehicle is switched off and a power supplement is turned off…the multi-purpose vehicle smart monitoring system 1 would start the automatic monitoring equipment 12 in it to record information such as AVs (Audio Videos) (in addition, a period of AV before and after the event is automatically stored and locked into the memory 15) of the instantaneous abnormalities inside, outside and around the vehicle, and transmit the real-time information such as the AV recorded via monitoring to the smart phone or the PC mobile terminal 2 of a vehicle owner through the mobile communication device 13”).
One of ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito’s approach by utilizing Chen’s approach of utilizing continuous recording of a vehicle’s cameras when the vehicle is turned off as the motivation would be to ensure images are captured of important events when a driver is inside or outside the vehicle in a parked and off state (See Chen, ¶ 3)
Claims 13 and 14 are directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the method of Claims 4 and 5 respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al. (US 20240161513) discloses a method for using artificial intelligence to determine a predetermined condition when using a camera unit installed in a vehicle.
Ricci; Christopher P (US 20210232642) discloses adapting a control function in a vehicle based on a user profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADI H KOBROSLI whose telephone number is (571)272-1952. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at 571-272-3880. 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.
/SHADI H KOBROSLI/Examiner, Art Unit 2492 /RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492