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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOLSCH et al (US 2024/0308468) in view of SCHOLL et al (US 2015/0057838).
Per claim 12, GOLSCH et al teach a vehicle control method, comprising:
receiving, by a gateway from a back-end server, a geofencing certificate for verifying whether a vehicle is within a predetermined geofence (paras 0007, 0015, 0022, 0024, 0119, 0121, 0135—gateway receives geofencing certificate for verifying vehicle’s location and geofencing restrictions);
obtaining, by the gateway, geofencing information from the geofencing certificate, based on performing a verification of the geofencing certificate based on a digital signature (para 0205—checking for signature to verify and authenticate); and
determining, by the gateway, whether to activate a security function of the vehicle based on a comparison between location information of the vehicle and the geofencing information (paras 0129, 0135, 0203-205—analyzing the position of the wireless device with respect to predefined conditional statement and activating an alert; using secure encryption, GPS location comparison, vehicle access and vehicle start subsystems within the vehicle cause either a door to become locked/unlocked or vehicle ignition state to change based on the well-established conventions of locations).
GOLSCH et al teach the limitations as applied above with respect to using geofencing information and cryptographic hash techniques for signature verification (paras 0170-172, 0203). SCHOLL et al more specifically teaches verifying the digital signature of the data (paras 0029, 0039, 0057) and the certificate authority including a geofence for comparing and verifying location data (paras 0036-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al for the obtaining geofencing information in order to determine security functions of the vehicle based on the vehicle’s location with respect to the geofencing information, which is well known in the art for validating vehicle location and access.
Claims 1 and 8 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 12 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 13, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 12, GOLSCH et al further teach wherein performing the verification of the geofence certificate includes performing the verification of the geofence certificate based on a hash code of the geofencing certificate (paras 0090, 0098, 0171-172—hash using cryptographic hash algorithm for verification).
Claim 9 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 13 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 14, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 12, GOLSCH et al further teach the method further comprising: transmitting, by the gateway, a message requesting to generate the geofencing certificate to the back-end server; determining, by the gateway, ignition activation of the vehicle based on receiving the geofencing certificate from the back-end server; and performing, by the gateway, the verification of the geofencing certificate based on determining that an ignition of the vehicle is activated (paras 0007, 0015, 0022, 0154, 0158, 0165, 0167, 0198—determining and configuring a passive entry/passive start based on the location, transmitting ignition state change, approving/accepting future ignition commands when the collected evidence determines the zone and location, triggering for activating the IR UWB system when the ignition-on has been pressed; SCHOLL et al: paras 0036-38—verification of certificate including geofencing).
Claim 2 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 14 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 16, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 12, GOLSCH et al further teach wherein determining whether to activate the security function of the vehicle includes: obtaining, by the gateway, permitted location information indicating a target area where a trusted factory is located, based on the geofencing information; and determining, by the gateway, whether a location the vehicle is in the target area, based on performing a comparison between the location information of the vehicle and the permitted location information (paras 0007, 0015, 0058, 0134-135, 0144, 0147-151, 0204-205—performing, with the passive entry/passive start PEPS system, a vehicle function including at least one of unlocking a door of the vehicle, unlocking a trunk of the vehicle, allowing the vehicle to be started, and activating a wireless charging station in the vehicle based on the location; PEPS system provides secure access to vehicle features for the authorized user of the vehicle by locating a wireless device relative to the vehicle and comparing the location of the wireless device to decision criteria; para 0169—communication gateway or central controller can be configured to communicate the vehicle's location in latitude, longitude, and error of location measurement to the portable or nomadic device that can estimate the distance or range to the vehicle or the vehicle's PEPS system using location based services available to the portable or nomadic device, such as a smartphone, and can compare this to the location reported by the vehicle; SCHOLL et al: paras 0016-21, 0024-25, 0027-30—data authority may send data to the intermediary who may authenticate and provide the data to the trusted authority, providing GPS information to the trusted authority about the vehicle, provisioning the trusted authority is a stationary authority where the user gives permission to send data to the trusted authority, the data may be decrypted with the private key, and then re-encrypted with a different key, such as the trusted authority's public key, for over the air transfer).
Claim 4 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 16 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 17, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 16, GOLSCH et al further teach wherein determining whether to activate the security function of the vehicle includes: determining, by the gateway, the security function of the vehicle as deactivation, based on determining that the location of the vehicle is in the target area; and determining, by the gateway, the security function of the vehicle as activation, based on determining that the location of the vehicle is in an area different from the target area and the security function of the vehicle is deactivated (paras 0131-132, 0135, 0144, 0147-151, 0165, 0168, 0198—when the vehicle is in a specific location/zone of uncertainty, temporarily disabling the keys so that they are safe to leave inside the vehicle until after the user returns, disabling certain vehicle features when the vehicle is not at its destination based on vehicle’s movement and GPS data).
Claim 5 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 17 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 18, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 16, SCHOLL et al further teach wherein obtaining the permitted location information includes obtaining, by the gateway, the permitted location information from the geofencing certificate (para 0037—certificate authority includes geofence identifying location information; GOLSCH et al: para 0119—certificate containing geofencing information).
Claims 6-7 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 18 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 19, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 12, SCHOLL et al further teach the method further comprising: generating, by a back-end server, the geofencing certificate, based on a message requesting to generate the geofencing certificate from the gateway; and transmitting, by the back-end server, the geofencing certificate to the gateway, based on the verification of the geofencing certificate (para 0037—certificate authority includes geofence identifying location information for comparing and verifying location data; GOLSCH et al: paras 0007, 0015, 0022, 0024, 0119, 0121, 0135—gateway receives geofencing certificate for verifying vehicle’s location and geofencing restrictions).
Per claim 20, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 19, SCHOLL et al further teach the method generating the geofencing certificate includes: obtaining, by the back-end server from a factory database, permitted location information indicating a target area where a trusted factory is located; including, by the back-end server, the permitted location information in the geofencing certificate; performing, by the back-end server, the verification of the geofencing certificate, based on at least one of a date when the geofencing certificate is generated, an entity which generates the geofencing certificate, the permitted location information, or any combination thereof; and including, by the back-end server, a digital signature into the geofencing certificate, based on verifying the verification (paras 0029, 0036-39, 0057—verifying the digital signature of the data, certificate authority including a geofence for comparing and verifying location data; paras 0016-21, 0024-25, 0027-30, 0047—data authority storage may send data to the intermediary who may authenticate and provide the data to the trusted authority, providing GPS information to the trusted authority about the vehicle, provisioning the trusted authority is a stationary authority where the user gives permission to send data to the trusted authority, the data may be decrypted with the private key, and then re-encrypted with a different key, such as the trusted authority's public key, for over the air transfer; GOLSCH et al: paras 0007, 0015, 0022, 0024, 0119, 0121, 0135, 0205—gateway receives geofencing certificate for verifying vehicle’s location and geofencing restrictions, checking for signature to verify and authenticate).
Claims 10-11 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 20 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
III. Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOLSCH et al (US 2024/0308468) in view of SCHOLL et al (US 2015/0057838) and SHEARER et al (US 2021/0083880).
Per claim 15, GOLSCH et al with SCHOLL et al teach the vehicle control method of claim 12, as applied above and further GOLSCH et al further teach wherein performing the verification of the geofence certificate includes: performing, by the gateway, first verification of the geofencing certificate, based on at least one of a validity period of the geofencing certificate, identification information of a user who issues the geofencing certificate, an algorithm for generation of the geofencing certificate, or any combination thereof; performing, by the gateway, second verification of the geofencing certificate, based on at least one of a state of the geofencing certificate (paras 0090, 0098, 0171-172—hash using cryptographic hash algorithm for verification; paras 0007, 0015, 0022, 0024, 0119, 0121, 0135—gateway receives geofencing certificate for verifying vehicle’s location and geofencing restrictions; SCHOLL et al: paras 0036-37—certificate authority including a geofence for comparing and verifying location data).
However, GOLSCH et al and SCHOLL et al fail to explicitly teach the limitations wherein “a certificate revocation list (CTL) of the geofencing certificate, an online certificate state protocol (OCSP) of the geofencing certificate, or any combination thereof; performing, by the gateway, third verification of the geofencing certificate, based on at least one of a digital signature included in the geofencing certificate, a digital signature determined from a manufacturer of the vehicle, or any combination thereof; and performing, by the gateway, the verification of the geofencing certificate, based on at least one of the first verification, the second verification, the third verification, or any combination thereof”. SHEARER et al teach digital certificates including geofencing and enabling Online Certificate Status Protocol, OCSP, and utilizing certificate revocation lists, CRL, for determining certificate validity to approve or deny certificates (paras 0062, 0093-95, 0104, 0136) using digital signature and key algorithms for verification (paras 0007, 0074, 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of GOLSCH et al and SCHOLL et al with SHEARER et al for the purpose of provisioning OCSP and CRL for validating certificates by utilizing signature and key algorithms, which is well-known in the art for certificate verification.
Conclusion
IV. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: USPN 9654922; USPN 9680827.
V. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights