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 Status
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected in the official action dated 01-22-2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 15-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883).
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19,
AHMED teaches a system for securing a vehicle comprising:
a controller (1024 as disclosed in [0102]) comprising:
a processor ([0102] teaches that 1024 may include one or more processors); and
a memory ([0102] teaches 1218) for storing instructions for controlling the processor to perform the steps of:
registering a first transmitter (1032 in fig. 10) with the controller for the vehicle, wherein the first transmitter is a radio frequency transmitter([0004] teaches providing a user access to various vehicle functions if the user possesses a key fob that has been paired with an in-vehicle PEPS electronic control unit);
registering a contact-based receiver (1034 in fig. 10) with the controller of the vehicle ([0006] teaches a phone as a key (PAK) vehicle access system wherein a mobile phone can communicate with a PAK module or a telematics control unit (TCU) in the vehicle to begin an access pairing process. The mobile phone and either the PAK module or the TCU perform the access pairing process to establish a trust relationship. The pairing process can include Bluetooth® pairing whereby: security information is exchanged between the mobile phone and the vehicle directly - said phone is interpreted as corresponding to a "contact based receiver" as a user’s typically hold the mobile phone device (make contact with) during use; [0099] teaches that the mobile access devices may be, “… a Bluetooth®-enabled and UWB-enabled communication device, such as a smart phone, smart watch, wearable electronic device, key fob, tablet device, or other device associated with a user of the vehicle 1030.” And is therefore not limited to a phone configuration as shown in the figure, but may instead be any one of a watch, key fob etc.,); and
receiving by the controller a radio signal sent from the first transmitter to allow the vehicle to be unlocked ([0096] teaches that a key fob may send an advertisement message to (i) ensure that the key fob is connected prior to entering an unlock zone; and (ii) when the key fob is connected and authenticated and within the unlock zone, cause the vehicle to unlock the doors).
Ahmed fails to expressly teach that the system comprises: a contact-based transmitter; and the processor steps comprise: sending, in response to receiving the radio signal sent from the first transmitter, a contact-based signal from the controller to the receiver configured to perform contact-based communication through physical contact of a human being between the vehicle and the contact-based receiver configured to perform contact-based communication; and receiving by the controller a reply signal sent from a second transmitter in response to the contact-based signal having been received.
MEIJER teaches a system for securing a vehicle comprising:
a contact-based transmitter and contact-based receiver ([0033] teaches an access control system 100 including a portable device 110 and an access controller 150 each having a body area network (BAN) transceiver...the access controller 150 and the access actuator 170 may be included in a door lock controller; also see [0036] for specific disclosure of the body area network (BAN));
and a processor to perform the steps of:
sending, in response to receiving the radio signal sent from the first transmitter, a contact-based signal from the controller to the receiver configured to perform contact-based communication through physical contact of a human being between the vehicle and the contact-based receiver configured to perform contact-based communication (Meijer teaches that an access controller transmits a signal to a portable device through a body area network communication path established by physical contact of a user. In [0009] teaches that the processing unit is configured to transmit a request signal to a portable device via the BAN transceiver in response to a user contact being detected, the user contact forming a body area network BAN between the portable device and the access control device; [0036] teaches that examples of body area network (BAN) transceivers 116, 152 include a near field electromagnetic induction (NFEMI) transceiver, transceivers forming a body area network which uses the human body to form a communication path; [0044] teaches that a body communication channel 140 may be formed when the user 202 makes contact with a touch zone 156; [0045] teaches that “…in response to the user touching the touchpad a body area network link may be activated and the vehicle access control may send a request signal to a wearable device worn by the user.”); and
receiving by the controller a reply signal sent from a second transmitter in response to the contact-based signal having been received ([0042] teaches that the controller unit 114 may transmit the biometric signature determined from the biometric sensor and the digital tag or key to the access controller 150 via the BAN transceiver 116; [0045] teaches that in step 308 the wearable device may packetize a tag and biometric signature which is then transmitted to the vehicle access system via the BAN link and further, in step 310 the vehicle access controller may check the received tag or key and biometric signature.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Ahmed per the teachings of Meijer and utilize a contact-based transmitter and receiver within the system because contact-based signals are largely limited to the surface of the user's body and are recognized in the art as being immune to remote eavesdropping and "snooping" by malicious actors in the nearby environment.
Regarding claim 2,
Ahmed and Meijer each teach that the vehicle is an automobile (figure 10, and Figure 2, respectively).
Regarding claim 3,
Meijer teaches that the contact-based signal is a low-power electrical signal ([0006], [0036] teaches that the BAN network comprises a near field electromagnetic induction transceiver which would necessarily operate at relatively low power and low field strengths around the body, as is understood in the art).
Regarding claim 5,
Ahmed teaches that the contact-based receiver is a watch (Ahmed teaches in [0099] that a mobile access devices may be configured as a key fob, or alternatively as a smart watch or other wearable electronic device) in contact with the human being and the first transmitter is a key fob (Ahmed, key fob 1032 in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6,
Meijer teaches that the contact-based receiver is a key fob in contact with the human being and wherein the first transmitter is contained within a housing of the key fob ([0033] teaches that the portable device may be a key fob).
Regarding claim 15,
Ahmed teaches that the contact-based signal includes a challenge value ([0115] teaches that the authentication module 1300 executes challenge-response authentication); and wherein the reply signal comprises a cryptographic result of applying a cryptographic process to the challenge value ([0113] teaches implementing cryptographic verification algorithms in order to authenticate the portable access devices).
Regarding claim 16,
Ahmed teaches that the cryptographic process is a message signing process ([0006] teaches the pairing process can include Bluetooth® pairing whereby: security information is exchanged between the mobile phone and the vehicle directly; a mobile phone address, a mobile phone identity resolving key, a reservation identifier and/or an encryption key are exchanged via a cloud-based network; and/or the mobile phone presents a certificate to the vehicle, where the certificate is signed by (i) the mobile phone, (ii) a trusted security signing authority) .
Claim(s) 4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883) and further in view of MARTINEZ SANCHEZ (US Pub. 2022/0189225).
Regarding claim 4,
The combined disclosures of Ahmed and Meijer are relied upon for teaching the method of claim but fails to expressly teach that the contact-based signal is a low-power electrical signal having a registered frequency.
Martinez Sanchez teaches that the contact-based signal is a low- power electrical signal having a registered frequency ([0009] teaches that the first signal comprises a very low frequency wireless transceiver (VLF/LF). The VLF (3–30 kHz) and LF (30–300 kHz) bands are officially allocated and "registered" by international and national authorities for specific high-priority services.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Ahmed per the teachings of Martinez Sanchez and utilize a low- power electrical signal having a registered frequency because doing so would reduce the likelihood of interference from other nearby wireless devices.
Regarding claim 7,
Martinez Sanchez teaches that the reply signal comprises a radio frequency communication reply signal ([0019] expressly teaches that a RF communication interface module is provided on the portable device side).
Regarding claim 8,
Martinez Sanchez teaches that the radio frequency communication reply signal is a radio frequency communication according to a Bluetooth standard ([0031] teaches A2 is a BLE module).
Regarding claim 9,
Ahmed teaches that the radio frequency communication reply signal is a radio frequency communication according to a WiFi standard ([0118] teaches vehicular the access module 1036, which may include or be connected to one or more antenna modules 1038; fig. 10 shows antenna modules 1038 in communication with portable devices 1032, 1034; [0101] teaches the antenna modules 1038 may communicate according to other wireless communication protocols, such as wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) using the stated antennas and antenna structures, thereby teaching that any reply signal from 1032, 1034 would utilize Wi-Fi protocol).
Regarding claim 10,
Ahmed teaches that the radio frequency communication reply signal is a radio frequency communication according to a standard used to send the radio signal from the first transmitter ([0101] teaches that the antenna modules 1038 of the vehicle may communicate to the mobile devices via BLE signals according to BLE communication protocols; while [0096] teaches that the key fob may communicate with the vehicle via BLE protocol).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of STIRTZ (US Pub. 2017/0337759).
Regarding claim 11,
The combined teachings of Ahmed and Meijer teach the method as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches that the fob device generates a reply signal. The combined references fail to expressly teach that the reply signal is an optical signal.
STIRTZ teaches a vehicle system comprising a fob, wherein the fob is configured to communicate using an optical signal ([0002] teaches that the use of key fobs for remotely locking and unlocking vehicle doors is universal. And further teaches that located within the key fob's case are the electronics and power source required to transmit a signal via a modulated radio frequency or via infrared to a receiver communicating with the lock/unlock mechanism of a door or doors of a vehicle upon depression of the “lock” or “unlock” button.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the combined teaching of Ahmed and Meijer so as to configure the fob to reply using an optical signal, because optical signals require a line-of-sight or very specific directional path, and they therefore cannot be easily boosted through walls or over long distances by standard radio equipment.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of FERNANDEZ (US PATENT 10,255,738).
Regarding claim 12,
The combined teachings of Ahmed and Meijer teach the method as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches sending a contact-based signal to and from the controller (See Meijer as discussed in the rejection of independent claims 1, 18 and 19 above). The combined references fail to expressly teach that contact-based signals includes a value.
FERNANDEZ teaches a system which performs authentication using through-body signals (i.e., contact-based) and teaches that the contact-based signal may be configured to carry a value (col. 1:38-46 teaches the determining of a body signature i.e., value, for an individual based on the propagation of a signal through an individual's body, and employing said body signature to authenticate the individual for secure access to a device, stored data, an application, and/or an access-controlled physical space; col. 10:43-50 teaches to ensure that the appliance or vehicle is operable only in response to a successful authentication of the individual 102 based on their body signature 118 i.e., value).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the combined teaching of Ahmed and Meijer per the teachings of Fernandez and configure the contact-based signal to carry a signature value for the purpose of ensuring that the vehicle is made accessible only in response to a successful authentication of the individual based upon biometric-signature (i.e., contact-based value) data.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of FONTANA (US Pub. 2017/0257759).
Regarding claim 13,
The combined teachings of Ahmed and Meijer teach the method as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches using a contact-based signal. The combined teachings fail to teach that the contact-based signal is an ultrasonic signal.
FONTANA teaches a method for authenticating a user with respect to a vehicle using a signal having an item of information relating to the user and wherein the signal is injected into skin of the user by a transmitting device ([0033] teaches a contact-based signal 11 which is injected into the skin and which may be an ultrasonic signal.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the combined teaching of Ahmed and Meijer per the teachings of Fontana, using an ultrasonic contact-based signal because ultrasonic signals travel efficiently through body tissues (due the body’s high water content) with lower absorption compared to radio frequency waves. Ultrasonic signals also offer enhanced security because they are contained within the body, making interception by external sources nearly impossible.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of SMADI (US Pub. 2018/0074547).
Regarding claim 14,
The combined teachings of Ahmed and Meijer teach the method as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches using a contact-based signal. The combined teachings fail to teach that the contact-based signal is a vibrational signal.
SMADI, though not expressly concerned with contact-based communication between a vehicle and receiver/transceiver, does teach that vibration signals bay be used to transmit information signals to a receiver ([0041] teaches, that an encoded beacon signal may be transmitted via vibrations to notify a receiver to start decoding the received vibration signal).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the combined teaching of Ahmed and Meijer per the teachings of Smadi, using a vibrational contact-based signal because vibration-based data transmission requiring direct physical contact will prevents remote relay attacks which are common in radio frequency systems due to the human body behaving as a secure "closed-circuit" medium - identification data shall stay within the user, making it nearly impossible for external attackers to intercept.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMED (US Pub. 2022/0192008) in view MEIJER (US Pub. 2023/0010883) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of PASCHOU (US Pub. 2023/0373436).
Regarding claim 17,
The combined teachings of Ahmed and Meijer teach the method as claimed in claim 15 wherein the reply comprises a cryptographic process. The combined disclosures fails to teach that the cryptographic process is a hashing process.
PASCHOU teaches a keyless entry system wherein the reply comprises a cryptographic process and further wherein the cryptographic process is a hashing process ([0134] teaches that hashing occurs in step 505, after these signals have been received. The prover component takes the received nonce and the channel observation (derived from the helper signal) and combines them with a cryptographic key to generate a reply hash).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the combined teaching of Ahmed and Meijer per the teachings of Paschou, generating a reply signal using a hashing cryptographic process because it creates a unique, one-way "digital fingerprint" that verifies the owner's identity without ever exposing the actual secret key.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights