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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jefferies et al., (US Publication No. 2017/0316621), hereinafter “Jefferies”.
Regarding claims 1, 4, Jefferies discloses
A vehicle that is communicatively connected to a server via a network [Jefferies, figures, 1, 11], the vehicle comprising:
a processor [Jefferies, figures, 1, 11]; and
a non-transitory memory that stores a program [Jefferies, figures, 1, 11],
wherein the processor executes the program to cause the vehicle to operate as:
a first acquirer that acquires user information for identifying a user [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 99-101, remote servers may then test to determine whether that customer is in its database based on the identifier provided];
a storage that stores vehicle information for identifying the vehicle [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 99-102, database];
a transmitter that transmits the user information acquired and the vehicle information stored in the storage to the server [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 99-105];
a second acquirer that acquires, from the server, function information indicating one or more functions that: are identified based on the user information and the vehicle information [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 99-105, access code];
are performable by the vehicle [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 99-105, access code]; and
are permitted to be utilized by the user [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 99-105, access code]; and
a controller that enables the one or more functions indicated by the function information [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105].
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) 2-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jefferies as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grimm et al., (US Publication No. 2014/0142783), hereinafter “Grimm”.
Jefferies does not specifically disclose, however Grimm teaches
wherein the first acquirer repeatedly acquires the user information from a circuit that holds the user information by wirelessly communicating with the circuit [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection], and
when the first acquirer acquires information different from the user information acquired at a previous timing, the controller disables the one or more functions [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include validating the user periodically in order to ensure the authorized user is still within proximity and access is still required. It would have been obvious to combine repeatedly acquiring user information with users of temporary vehicles (i.e., rental vehicles) to ensure the user is still authorized as both arts relate to the authentication of users to vehicles.
Regarding claim 3, Jefferies-Grimm further discloses
wherein when the first acquirer acquires same information as the user information acquired at the previous timing, the controller keeps the one or more functions enabled [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection].
Regarding claim 5, Jefferies-Grimm further discloses
acquiring, by the server, the user information and the vehicle information from the vehicle [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105];
identifying, by the server, the one or more functions based on the user information, the vehicle information, and permission information that is previously stored [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection]; and
transmitting, by the server, to the vehicle, the function information indicating the one or more functions identified [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105].
Regarding claim 6, Jefferies-Grimm further discloses
wherein the permission information includes:
one or more permission functions that are permitted to be utilized by the user identified by the user information [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105]; and
one or more performable functions that are performable by the vehicle identified by the vehicle information, and in the identifying, the server identifies, as the one or more functions, one or more common functions that are common to the one or more permission functions and the one or more performable functions [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105].
Regarding claim 7, Jefferies-Grimm further discloses
transitioning to a state where an operation of the vehicle is performable, by receiving, by the vehicle, operation permission information for permitting the operation [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105];
transmitting, by the server, to an information terminal possessed by the user, inquiry information for inquiring whether to permit the user identified by the user information to utilize the vehicle identified by the vehicle information when the user information and the vehicle information are acquired from the vehicle [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection];
acquiring, by the server, from the information terminal, response information indicating a response to the inquiry information [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection]; and
preventing, by the server, transmission of the operation permission information when the response information indicates that the vehicle is not permitted to be utilized [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection].
Regarding claim 8, Jefferies-Grimm further discloses
transitioning to a state where an operation of the vehicle is performable, by receiving, by the vehicle, operation permission information for permitting the vehicle to perform the operation [Jefferies, figures, 1, 9, 11, paragraphs 41, 99-105];
transmitting, by the server, to an other server, inquiry information for inquiring whether the user identified by the user information is previously permitted to utilize the vehicle identified by the vehicle information when the user information and the vehicle information are acquired from the vehicle [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection];
receiving, by the server, from the other server, response information indicating a response to the inquiry information [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection]; and
preventing, by the server, transmission of the operation permission information to the vehicle when the response information indicates that the vehicle is not permitted to be utilized [Grimm, figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24, 30-33, validate connection].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights