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 Interpretation
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: integrated control unit in claims 1-20 and authentication control unit in claim 1.
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 § 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 7-9, 17-19 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 7 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-9 depend on claim 7 and inherent the same deficiency.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-19 depend on claim 17 and inherent the same deficiency.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gehin et al. (US Pub 2016/0225211).
As of claims 1 and 11, Gehin discloses a system for performing pre-authentication, the system comprising:
an integrated control unit configured to perform pre-authentication with a mobile device in which a digital key is provided, in response that the mobile device enters a predetermined authentication area (via vehicle V performing pre-authentication with a mobile device A in response to the mobile device entering a predetermined range; see paragraph [0057] and [0062]); and
an authentication control unit configured to perform pre-authentication with the integrated control unit in response that the pre-authentication with the mobile device is successful and store a result of performing the pre-authentication (see paragraph [0066], “If the authentication response sent by the mobile device A is coherent, and hence validated, then, in a seventh step 107, the vehicle V stores the identity data for the mobile device A in a memory M controlled by the electronic control unit ECU1 of the vehicle V; see paragraph [0066]).
As of claims 2 and 12, Gehin discloses that the integrated control unit is further configured to check whether the mobile device is approaching a vehicle in response that the mobile device enters the authentication area, and is configured to perform the pre- authentication in response that the mobile device approaches the vehicle (via determining distance between the vehicle and the mobile device and performing pre-authentication if the mobile device is situated at a threshold distance from the vehicle; see paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
As of claims 10 and 20, Gehin discloses that the authentication control unit is configured to transmit the result of performing the pre-authentication to the integrated control unit in response that a button operation is requested from the integrated control unit during a period in which the pre-authentication is successful (via disclosing that when the handle of the vehicle is actuated The electronic control unit of the vehicle ECU1 carries out a comparison between the identity information received and the identity data previously stored in the memory M during the seventh step 107. if the two elements—the identity information received and the identity data stored—correspond, the electronic control unit transmits an unlocking command to the lock of the access opening O of the vehicle V which then unlocks; see paragraph [0068]).
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 3, 7-9, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehin et al. (US Pub 2016/0225211) in view of Dumas et al. (US Pub 2014/0292481).
As of claims 3 and 13, Gehin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 2 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the use of RSSI to determine if the mobile device is approaching the vehicle.
Dumas discloses an access control system, wherien a lock 10 uses received signal strength indicator (RSSI) to determine if a remote device 15 is approaching the lock (see paragraph [0058]).
From the teaching of Dumas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Gehin to include the function of using the RSSI as taught by Dumas in order to determine the position of the mobile device relative to the lock device.
As of claims 7 and 17, Dumas discloses that the integrated control unit is further configured to: check whether there is another mobile device that has been successfully authenticated in response that the performing of the pre-authentication is determined; and perform the pre-authentication with a mobile device having a shortest distance from the vehicle among all mobile devices in response that there is the another mobile device that has been successfully authenticated (via disclosing that the checking the authentication credentials of multiple devices is accomplished by successively connecting to each of the in-range remote access devices one at a time. In a preferred embodiment, the order upon which the lock 11 connects to each remote access device 15 is a function of the distance between each remote access device and the lock 11, in the order of shortest to longest distance from lock 11; however, the invention is not limited to this order of connection. In other non-limiting embodiments, the order upon which the lock 11 connects to each remote access device 15 may instead be a function of the received signal strengths of the signals sent from each remote access device 15 or a function of the type of remote access device; see figs. 25 and 26; also see paragraphs [0166]-[0167]).
As of claims 8 and 18, Dumas discloses that the integrated control unit is further configured to: determine distance values of a mobile device that has been successfully authenticated first and mobile devices that have been successfully authenticated later in response that there is the another mobile device that has been successfully authenticated; and determine a difference value between the distance values and perform connection to the mobile device that has been successfully authenticated first in response that the determined difference value is greater than a predetermined threshold value (via disclosing that the checking the authentication credentials of multiple devices is accomplished by successively connecting to each of the in-range remote access devices one at a time. In a preferred embodiment, the order upon which the lock 11 connects to each remote access device 15 is a function of the distance between each remote access device and the lock 11, in the order of shortest to longest distance from lock 11; however, the invention is not limited to this order of connection. In other non-limiting embodiments, the order upon which the lock 11 connects to each remote access device 15 may instead be a function of the received signal strengths of the signals sent from each remote access device 15 or a function of the type of remote access device; see figs. 25 and 26; also see paragraphs [0166]-[0167]). .
As of claims 9 and 19, Dumas discloses that the integrated control unit is further configured to perform connection to a mobile device including a minimum distance value from the vehicle among all mobile devices in response that the determined difference value is equal to or lower than the predetermined threshold value (via disclosing that the checking the authentication credentials of multiple devices is accomplished by successively connecting to each of the in-range remote access devices one at a time. In a preferred embodiment, the order upon which the lock 11 connects to each remote access device 15 is a function of the distance between each remote access device and the lock 11, in the order of shortest to longest distance from lock 11; however, the invention is not limited to this order of connection. In other non-limiting embodiments, the order upon which the lock 11 connects to each remote access device 15 may instead be a function of the received signal strengths of the signals sent from each remote access device 15 or a function of the type of remote access device; see figs. 25 and 26; also see paragraphs [0166]-[0167]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehin et al. (US Pub 2016/0225211) in view of Soleimani (US 9,483,887).
As of claims 4 and 14, Gehin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 2 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the function of performing pre-authentication a predetermined number of times.
Soleimani discloses an access control system wherein an access control device 214 performs communication with a mobile device and determines that the received signal strength 260 is equal to or greater than a threshold 250 (pre-authentication) a predetermined number of times before moving to the next step of authentication (see fig. 3; also see col. 10, lines 22-37).
From the teaching of Soleimani it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Gehin to include the function of performing pre-authentication a predetermined number of times as taught by Soleimani in order to confirm that the mobile device is in proximity of the access location.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehin et al. (US Pub 2016/0225211) in view of Soleimani (US 9,483,887) and further in view of Kato et al. (US Pub 2022/0242367).
As of claims 5 and 15, combination of Gehin and Soleimani discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 4 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the function of checking a pre-authentication failure.
Kato discloses a vehicle control system wherein an entry ECU (integrated control unit) performs a pre-authentication (first authentication processing). Kato further discloses the function of checking number of times of a result of the first authentication processing being consecutive failure exceeds a predetermined number of times (see fig. 7; also see paragraphs [0013] and [0135]).
From the teaching of Kato, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Gehin and Soleimani to include the function of checking pre-authentication failure a predetermined number of times as taught by Kato in order to confirm the pre-authentication failure.
As of claims 6 and 16, Soleimani discloses that the integrated control unit is further configured to: start a timer to count a time when the pre-authentication is successful as the result of performing the pre-authentication; and perform the pre-authentication again based on the counted time (Soleimani discloses an access control system wherein an access control device 214 performs communication with a mobile device and determines that the received signal strength 260 is equal to or greater than a threshold 250 (pre-authentication) a predetermined number of times, for example, RSSI 260 may need to be equal to or greater than first signal strength threshold 250 three times in a row, before moving to the next step of authentication, hence it will have a timer to count up to three (see fig. 3; also see col. 10, lines 22-37).
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 is a system claim and claim 11 is a method claim. For analysis, attention will be directed to claim 11.
Claim 11. A method of performing pre-authentication, the method comprising: performing, by an integrated control unit including a processor, pre-authentication with a mobile device in which a digital key is provided in response that the mobile device enters a predetermined authentication area; and performing pre-authentication with the integrated control unit in response that the pre-authentication with the mobile device is successful and storing a result of performing the pre-authentication.
The abstract idea is directed to the “performing” and “storing” steps.
The remainder steps are then analyzed in Prong 2 of step 2a.
Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim 11 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 performing and storing, 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 and 11, claims include additional elements “integrated control unit”, “a processor, “an authentication control unit” and “a mobile device” 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.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further recite human activity and hence do not add any particular machine, particular transformation or meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more and therefore they are rejected as well.
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, Davetta W 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights