DETAILED ACTION
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 are objected to because they include informalities. In the flowcharts of Figures 5-7, there are several links between steps which do not clearly show the direction of the flow (for example, see between S1 and S2 in Figure 5, between S21 and S22 in Figure 6, and between S40, S42, and S43 in Figure 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes minor grammatical and other errors. For example, in paragraph 0042, the abbreviation SW is used before it has been defined.
Appropriate correction is required. The above is not intended as an exhaustive list of errors in the specification. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of Claims 2-8, 15, and 16, it appears that a colon should be inserted after “wherein” at the end of line 1 of each claim.
In Claim 4, it appears that a colon should be inserted after “comprising” at the end of line 3. Also in Claim 4, line 10, “to not authenticate” should read “not to authenticate” to avoid a split infinitive.
In Claim 5, it appears that a colon should be inserted after “comprising” at the end of line 4.
In Claim 8, it appears that a colon should be inserted after “comprising” at the end of line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It is noted that Claim 10 depends from Claim 3 but is separated from Claim 3 by Claims 4-9 which do not depend from Claim 3. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 1-18 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 a “regular user” in line 2. However, the relative or subjective term “regular” has not been clearly defined in the claims or specification. If “regular” is intended as a term of frequency, then the frequency required for a user to be a regular user has not been defined; alternately, if “regular” is intended as a synonym for the subjective term “normal”, then the definition of what would be regular or normal use has not been set forth. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “determine whether the regular user is accompanied by a companion based on successful authentication of the regular user” in lines 6-7. However, it is not clear how authentication of the regular user would allow, cause, or otherwise lead to a determination that the regular user is accompanied by a companion; rather, it would appear that such a determination would require some sort of identification and/or authentication of the companion. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the image” in line 6. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the image of surroundings or the face image.
Claim 3 recites “sequentially acquire the surrounding information” in lines 2-3. However, it is not clear how the apparently singular “surrounding information” would be acquired “sequentially”; that is, it is not clear what sequence of information might be acquired in a sequential manner. Similarly, the claim recites “sequentially identify the companion information from the surrounding information” in lines 4-5. It is not clear what information might be identified in a sequential manner as the claim only recites a singular companion. The claim further recites “the companion information indicating the identical companion for a predetermined period” in lines 8-9. Although the claims previously recited companion information, there is not clear antecedent basis for companion information indicating an identical companion and it is not clear what is meant by the information being indicated “for a predetermined period”.
Claim 5 recites “the authentication unit is further configured to authenticate the companion to use at least one specified component” in lines 10-11. However, authentication is the verification of the identity of an entity (e.g. a user such as the companion), whereas the determination of whether an entity is permitted to do something (e.g. use a component) is authorization. It appears that this may be intended to read “configured to authorize the companion to use…”
Claim 7 recites “identical advertising signals for a predetermined period” in line 4. It is not clear what is meant by the signals being “for a predetermined period”, although it appears that this may be intended to recite that the signals were identified during a previous period or similar.
Claim 8 recites “information indicating that the vehicle moves at a speed…” in line 9. The tense of this verb is unclear with respect to when this movement is to occur in the context of the claimed authentication device.
Claim 9 recites “information indicating that the vehicle moves at the speed…” in line 5. The tense of this verb is unclear with respect to when this movement is to occur in the context of the claimed authentication device.
Claim 10 recites “a user” in line 3. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the regular user, the companion, or a distinct user.
Claim 12 recites “a user” in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the regular user, the companion, or a distinct user.
Claim 13 recites “a setting period” in line 3. This does not appear to be clearly defined in the specification, and it is not clear what is being set in this setting period.
Claim 16 recites a list of three clauses in lines 2-13; however, the clauses are not separated by a conjunction such as “and” or “or”, and therefore, it is not clear whether these limitations are alternatives or if they are all required.
Claim 17 recites a “regular user” in line 2. However, the relative or subjective term “regular” has not been clearly defined in the claims or specification. If “regular” is intended as a term of frequency, then the frequency required for a user to be a regular user has not been defined; alternately, if “regular” is intended as a synonym for the subjective term “normal”, then the definition of what would be regular or normal use has not been set forth. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “determining whether the regular user is accompanied by a companion based on successful authentication of the regular user” in lines 4-5. However, it is not clear how authentication of the regular user would allow, cause, or otherwise lead to a determination that the regular user is accompanied by a companion; rather, it would appear that such a determination would require some sort of identification and/or authentication of the companion. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “having a memory storing computer program code” in lines 2-3. It is not grammatically clear whether this is intended to modify only the processor or both the circuit and the processor of line 2. The claim further recites a “regular user” in line 5. However, the relative or subjective term “regular” has not been clearly defined in the claims or specification. If “regular” is intended as a term of frequency, then the frequency required for a user to be a regular user has not been defined; alternately, if “regular” is intended as a synonym for the subjective term “normal”, then the definition of what would be regular or normal use has not been set forth. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “determine whether the regular user is accompanied by a companion based on successful authentication of the regular user” in lines 7-8. However, it is not clear how authentication of the regular user would allow, cause, or otherwise lead to a determination that the regular user is accompanied by a companion; rather, it would appear that such a determination would require some sort of identification and/or authentication of the companion. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morosawa et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0291790 (cited by Applicant), in view of Omoto et al, US Patent 8238617.
In reference to Claim 1, Morosawa discloses an authentication device that includes an authentication unit configured to authenticate a regular user authorized to use a specified component (paragraphs 0049-0053, registered user authenticated using face image); an information acquisition unit configured to acquire surrounding information around the specified component as well as an identifying unit configured to determine whether the regular user is accompanied by an unregistered user and an information identifying unit configured to identify information of the unregistered user (paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0053, unregistered user entering vehicle with registered user; see also paragraphs 0054-0062, unregistered user being identified; compare to paragraph 0066-0067, unregistered user without registered user); and authorization and authentication units configured to authenticate and authorize the unregistered user to use the specified component based on the information (paragraphs 0063-0067, unregistered user can use certain components or functions but not all). However, Morosawa does not explicitly disclose that the unregistered user is a companion identified by companion information.
Omoto discloses that an unregistered user of a specified component can be a companion identified by companion information (see column 3, line 59-column 4, line 67, noting especially the description of passenger information acquiring unit 32, where the passenger is a non-registrant companion of the registrant). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the device of Morosawa to include an unregistered user that is a companion identified by companion information, in order to allow optimal authentication of a driver (see Omoto, column 2, lines 40-58).
In reference to Claim 2, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose that the surrounding information is an image of surroundings of the specified component captured by an imaging device and that a face image differing from a face image of the regular user is recognized (Morosawa, paragraphs 0032, cameras, and paragraphs 0053 and 0057, face images of registered and unregistered users; see also Omoto, column 3, lines 7-23, face images, and column 4, lines 16-37, face images of registered and unregistered users).
In reference to Claims 3 and 10, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose sequentially acquiring the surrounding information and identifying the companion information where the companion is authorized based on a companion detected in a previous period according to an input (Morosawa, paragraph 0062, unregistered user image recorded; Omoto, column 4, lines 7-13, recording non-registrant information).
In reference to Claims 4 and 5, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose the component installed in a vehicle having a seating area identifying unit that determines where the companion is sitting and authenticates/authorizes or does not authenticate/authorize the companion based on whether they are seated in an authorized area (see Omoto, column 2, line 61-column 3, line 6, imaging driver and passenger seats, and column 8, line 64-column 9, line 18, services allowed based on seat; see also Morosawa, paragraph 0033).
In reference to Claims 6 and 7, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose acquiring advertising signals from mobile terminals of the regular user and companion (see Morosawa, paragraphs 0044-0046, portable device for unlocking).
In reference to Claims 8 and 9, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose the component installed in a vehicle that acquires driving-related information including the vehicle moving at speeds above a threshold or making a predetermined number of turns (see Omoto, column 5, lines 1-39, measuring distance, speed, and steering; see also Morosawa, paragraph 0078, detecting speed).
In reference to Claims 11-14, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose setting a limit on a time period during which the companion is authorized and revoking authorization, for example, based on the time period passing, and extending the time period when authorized (see Morosawa, paragraphs 0058, 0073, and 0078, timing how long authentication is allowed).
In reference to Claims 15 and 16, Morosawa and Omoto further disclose acquiring advertising signals from mobile terminals of the regular user and companion (see Morosawa, paragraphs 0044-0046, portable device for unlocking) and temporarily extending the time period during which the companion is authorized based on a pairing or the advertising signals (see Morosawa, paragraphs 0058, 0073, and 0078, timing how long authentication is allowed).
Claim 17 is directed to a method corresponding substantially to the functionality of the device of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 18 is directed to a device including a circuit or processor (see Morosawa, paragraph 0036, CPU, and Omoto, column 14, lines 45-50, CPU and memory) having functionality corresponding substantially to the functionality of the device of Claim 1, and is 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.
Kim et al, US Patent 11358566, discloses a system in which other drivers are temporarily allowed to register with a vehicle.
Murayama et al, US Patent 11794752, discloses a system in which a driver is authenticated if use permission is temporarily issued.
Fish et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0087554, discloses a system in which authorized drivers can register temporary approved drivers.
Hanzaki et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0097650, discloses an apparatus that authenticates a temporary user of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 D 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492