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 Objections
Claims 16-19 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16, 18 and 28 should depend on claim 14, since terms “message” and “communication unit” where introduced in claim 14 for the first time.
Claims 17 and 19 should depend on claim 15 for the same reason as discussed above.
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 22-23 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.
Claims 22 and 23 recite the limitation "the user input" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 12-13, 20-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US Pub 2020/0254974) in view of Dhillon et al. (US Pub 2019/0066416).
As of claims 12 and 29, Gordon discloses a vehicle (via vehicle 104) comprising a control unit (via vehicle controller 122) configured to biometrically secure the vehicle against theft, wherein the control unit is configured to detect a first biometric feature by a sensor of the vehicle and to compare the first biometric feature with a stored biometric feature that is stored for a vehicle user (via obtaining one or more images of a user and analyzes the current images in view of the baseline biometric data in order to determine if a match exist; see paragraphs [0027]-[0028]) and, if the first biometric feature does not correspond with the stored biometric feature, to prompt the vehicle user to provide a second biometric feature (see paragraph [0031], a second type of biometric matching can be used to attempt to identify the user 108, as a failback mechanism. For example, if the first biometric input used includes photographs, a backup biometric input could include an iris scan. Thus, vehicle controller 122 could activate an iris scanner on vehicle 104 (if present) to provide a secondary means of verifying the identity of the user 108).
In the system of Gordon, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that before capturing the second biometric input, the system will prompt/request the user to perform second biometric input, so the user is informed about the failure of the first biometric. To further support the Examiner’s assertion, Dhillon discloses a multi-tier biometric authentication system, wherien once a first biometric authentication fails, the user is prompted/requested to input second different biometric (see fig. 6; also see paragraph [0057]- [0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prompt the user for alternative biometric authentication to inform the user that the first type of biometric authentication failed and providing instruction for the alternative biometric feature.
As of claim 13, Gordon discloses that the type of the second biometric feature differs from the type of the first biometric feature (via disclosing that the first biometric input used includes photographs, a backup biometric input could include an iris scan; see paragraph [0031]).
As of claims 20 and 21, Gordon discloses that the control unit is configured to evaluate the second biometric feature and, if the second biometric feature does not correspond with the stored biometric feature, to prevent operation of the vehicle (via preventing operation of the vehicle if the biometrics do not match; see paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
As of claims 22-23, Gordon discloses that the user input is directed to an operating function of the vehicle and relates to an incorrectly recognized input (terms “user input” and “incorrectly recognized input” are not properly defined in the claim, so based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, user inputting second biometric features is interpreted as “user input”).
As of claim 24-25, Gordon discloses that the control unit is configured to use the sensor to detect the first biometric feature when the control unit is not in a detection mode (via using biometric sensors 134-134N to detect the first biometric feature; see paragraph [0024]).
As of claims 26-27, Dhillon discloses that the control unit is configured to store biometric features detected by the sensor when the vehicle is in a detection mode (via reading and storing biometric record of the user; see paragraph [0056]).
Claims 14-19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US Pub 2020/0254974) in view of Dhillon et al. (US Pub 2019/0066416) and further in view of Sato et al. (US Pub 2022/0048470).
As of claims 14-15 and 28, combination of Gordon and Dhillon discloses all the limitations of the claimed inventio as mentioned in claim 12 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to assign a vehicle user profile to the vehicle user based on a sensor signal and, if the second biometric feature does not correspond with the stored biometric feature, to send a message using data from the vehicle user profile via a communication unit, wherein the sensor signal is a signal of a door sensor, a signal of a seat occupancy sensor, a radio signal, and/or a signal from a camera of the vehicle.
Sato discloses the control unit (via controller 40) is configured to assign a vehicle user profile to the vehicle user based on a sensor signal (via sensor 33) and, if the biometric feature does not correspond with the stored biometric feature, to send a message using data from the vehicle user profile via a communication unit (via communication interface 31), wherein the sensor signal is a signal of a door sensor, a signal of a seat occupancy sensor, a radio signal, and/or a signal from a camera of the vehicle (see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0078], “When the second authentication fails, the controller 40 can use the communication interface 31 to transmit, to the second terminal apparatus 20 via the network 2, the data of the facial image of the user sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle 30 along with a notification to confirm the authorization to be granted to the user. The controller 40 may acquire the data of the facial image of the user sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle 30 from the camera 34”).
From the teaching of Sato, 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 Gordon and Dhillon to include the function of sending a message if biometric authentication fails as taught by Sato in order to receiver confirmation from an authorized user to grant access (see paragraph [0079]).
As of claims 16-17, Sato discloses that the control unit is configured to release the operation of the vehicle if a release is received after the message is sent by the communication unit (see paragraph [0080], “The controller 40 can use the communication interface 31 to receive the information on the authorization to be granted to the user from the second terminal apparatus 20 via the network 2. The controller 40 may generate or update at least a portion of the authorization information based on the received information on the authorization to be granted to the user”).
As of claims 18-19, Sato discloses that information about an interior of the vehicle is transmitted with the message (via the data of the facial image of the user sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle 30 along with a notification to confirm the authorization to be granted to the user; see paragraph [0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wale et al. (US 11,180,113) discloses a vehicle access control system wherien once a biometric identification fails, the vehicle transmit a security notification to an owner of the vehicle (e.g., a mobile device of the owner, an account of the owner) such that the owner may take appropriate steps in response to receiving the security notification. Such a notification may include the biometric information of the person, other information collected from the sensing component, a set of options for the owner to select from, among others (see abstract).
Robert Jose et al. (US Pub 2025/0252178) discloses an adaptive biometric authentication. According to one example method, a failure of the first type of biometric authentication is detected. In response to detecting the failure of the first type of biometric authentication, an alternative type of authentication is completed. In response to completing the alternative type of authentication, a biometric characteristic of a biometric signature is selectively modified in a stored user profile for processing a subsequent attempt of the first type of biometric authentication.
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