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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract recites “the connect car account” in line 6. The examiner suggests amending this portion of the abstract to be amended to instead recite “the connected car account”, for consistency with language used in the remainder of the abstract and the specification of the instant application.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification recites “a connect car service 300” in paragraph 0098. The examiner suggests amending this portion of the specification to be amended to instead recite “the connected car service 300”, for consistency with language used in the remainder of the instant application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, the claim recites “the connect car account” in lines 8-9. The examiner suggests amending this portion of claim 1 to instead recite “the connected car account”, for consistency with the rest of the claim language.
As per claim 5, the claim recites “information from the connect car service server whether the connected car account is linked” in lines 8-9. The examiner suggests amending this portion of claim 5 to instead recite “information from the connected car service server identifying whether the connected car account is linked”, for consistency with the rest of the claim language and grammatical clarity. Claim 5 further recites “information from the digital key controller whether the digital key is registered” in lines 9-10. The examiner suggests amending this portion of claim 5 to instead recite “information from the digital key controller identifying whether the digital key is registered”, for grammatical clarity. The examiner notes that the Applicant may amend the claims as deemed appropriate, and the examiner’s suggestion is merely a recommendation based on the language used in the specification of the instant application (e.g., “the connected car service server 300 may identify whether the connected car account corresponding to the user information is registered” – see at least paragraph 0067 of the specification of the instant application; and “the digital key controller 200 may identify whether the digital key corresponding to the user information is registered” – see at least paragraph 0072 of the specification of the instant application).
As per claim 7, the claim recites “information whether the connected car account is linked” in line 4, and “information whether the digital key is registered” in lines 4-5. The examiner suggests amending these portions of claim 5 to instead recite “information identifying whether the connected car account is linked”, and “information identifying whether the digital key is registered”, respectively, for grammatical clarity in a substantially similar manner as described above with regards to claim 5.
As per claim 8, the claim recites “the connect car account” in lines 10-11. The examiner suggests amending this portion of claim 8 to instead recite “the connected car account”, for consistency with the rest of the claim language in a substantially similar manner as described above with regards to claim 1.
As per claim 13, the claim recites “information whether the connected car account is linked” in line 4, and “information whether the digital key is registered” in lines 4-5. The examiner suggests amending these portions of claim 13 to instead recite “information identifying whether the connected car account is linked”, and “information identifying whether the digital key is registered”, respectively, for grammatical clarity in a substantially similar manner as described above with regards to claim 5.
As per claim 14, the claim recites “receiving, by the vehicle module, response message” in line 6. The examiner suggests amending this portion of claim 14 to instead recite “receiving, by the vehicle module, response messages” for consistency with the latter claim language of claim 14 which recites “based on the received response messages” in line 9.
As per claim 20, the claim recites “information whether the connected car account is linked” in line 4, and “information whether the digital key is registered” in line 5. The examiner suggests amending these portions of claim 20 to instead recite “information identifying whether the connected car account is linked”, and “information identifying whether the digital key is registered”, respectively, for grammatical clarity in a substantially similar manner as described above with regards to claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “first communication module” and “second communication module” as recited in claim 5, and “vehicle module” as recited in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the first communication module and second communication module are each interpreted as being performed by at least a circuit (“A first communication module 110 may include a communication circuit configured to communicate with the connected car service server 300 through a communication network… A second communication module 120 may include a communication circuit configured to communicate with the digital key controller 200, based on a preset communication protocol.” – see at least paragraphs 0080-0081 of the specification of the instant application). In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the vehicle module are interpreted as being performed by at least a vehicle terminal mounted in a vehicle (“the vehicle service provision system may include a vehicle terminal 100 and a digital key controller 200 mounted in a vehicle 1” – see at least paragraph 0047 of the specification of the instant application).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the information from the connect car service server” in lines 8-9, and further recites "the information from the digital key controller" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the aforementioned recitations of “the information” in the claim. At best, claim 1, upon which claim 5 is dependent, recites a request message to a connected car service server and a request message to the digital key controller, but claim 1 does not explicitly provide antecedent basis for either “information from the connect car service server” nor “information from the digital key controller". The examiner recommends amending claim 1 such that the claim language clearly indicates that the connected car service server and the digital key controller provide the information that is recited in claim 5. Alternatively, the aforementioned portions of claim 5 may be amended to instead recite “request ed car service server” and “request
Each of claims 7, 13, and 20 face substantially the same issues of insufficient antecedent basis as claim 5 as set forth above. Namely, claim 7 recites “request the information whether the connected car account is linked and the information whether the digital key is registered” in lines 4-5, claim 13 recites “request the information whether the connected car account is linked and the information whether the digital key is registered” in lines 4-5, and claim 20 recites “wherein the information whether the connected car account is linked and the information whether the digital key is registered is requested” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each aforementioned instance of reciting “the information”. The examiner suggests amending the claim language in substantially the same manner as suggested above with regard to claim 5 to address the instances of insufficient antecedent basis in each of claims 7, 13, and 20.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla et al. (US 2019/0287080), hereinafter referred to as Penilla, in view of Nishidai et al. (US 2017/0251335), hereinafter referred to as Nishidai. Penilla and Nishidai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems using electronic/digital keys.
Regarding claim 1, Penilla teaches:
A vehicle comprising: a digital key controller ("FIG. 35 illustrates an example where a request is sent by John via device 702 to cloud services 120. Cloud services 120 can generate the unique access code which is then encrypted in a message and sent as encrypted e-keys 720 to the recipient, Bob, who receives it via device 704." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0244) (The examiner notes that the e-keys as taught by Penilla refer to electronic keys, which correspond to the claimed digital keys. Further, the cloud services 120 for managing e-keys as taught by Penilla correspond to the claimed digital key controller);
and a vehicle terminal configured to: send a request message to a connected car service server requesting whether a connected car account is linked to a profile ("The user may also interact with the vehicle login system directly on or near the vehicle. The user supplies login credentials to a vehicle login interface which are sent to the remote distributed or centralized user login authentication system or onboard vehicle authentication system. The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099) (The examiner notes that the user-supplied login credentials as taught by Penilla are configured to allow a user to link their user profile to a set of associated user profile settings managed by a server ("Servers 350, which operate cloud services 120, and therefore managing access database 160 and 310, as well as provide logic for providing access to vehicles, unlocking vehicles, and transferring user profiles to specific vehicles." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0119). As such, the user-supplied login credentials as taught by Penilla correspond to the claimed request message);
selected from a user profile list ("In one embodiment, the profile can be managed at a user account saved to a central or cloud distributed system, to manage access. Any vehicle can be abstracted so that any user can log into any vehicle if they have an account that allows access to that vehicle. For instance, a vehicle owner with the role of “administrator” (e.g., an administrator of a user account that has a profile associated therewith or multiple/sub profiles) can create logins for his or her vehicle(s) for additional users such as his or her children, spouse, mechanic, and valet driver among other applications." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0084) (The examiner notes that the set of additional users with respective logins for a given vehicle as taught by Penilla corresponds to the claimed user profile list);
send a request message to the digital key controller requesting whether a digital key linked to the selected profile is registered ("The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0240) (The examiner notes that the step of verifying the electronic keys as taught by Penilla corresponds to the claimed step of determining whether a digital key linked to the selected profile is registered).
Penilla alone does not explicitly disclose, but Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches:
and display a linkage guidance message requesting registration of whichever of the connected car account and the digital key is not linked to the selected profile ("If the authentication is a failure, the user is presented with a failed access notification on the login interface." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099; and "In one or more embodiments of the disclosure, the vehicle control apparatus may be configured to determine whether the vehicle control apparatus succeeds or fails to bring the communication between the electronic key and the portable device into a connected state, based on a notification from the electronic key or the portable device; and output an alert signal when the vehicle control apparatus fails." – see at least Nishidai: paragraph 0013) (The examiner notes that the failed access notification as taught by Penilla corresponds to the claimed linkage guidance message based on the connected car account not being linked to the selected profile, while the alert signal as taught by Nishidai corresponds to the claimed linkage guidance message based on the digital key not being linked to the selected profile).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla with these above aforementioned teachings from Nishidai to display a linkage guidance message requesting registration of whichever of the connected car account and the digital key is not linked to the selected profile. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nishidai’s alert signal indicating a failure to connect an electronic key with a vehicle system with Penilla’s system for managing user profiles for vehicle systems in order to alert a user to an unpaired electronic key (“When the vehicle control apparatus 1 receives, by the UHF receiver 13, the UHF signal, i.e., the pairing control result, which is transmitted from the electronic key 2 (step S106), the vehicle control apparatus 1 determines whether pairing has succeeded or failed, by referring to the pairing control result, and further determines whether an alert needs to be outputted (step S107).” – see at least Nishidai: paragraph 0056). Doing so would provide the benefit of informing a user of whether an electronic key is successfully paired to a vehicle device (“For example, when it is determined at step 104 that the electronic key 2 is in the vehicle V and the pairing control result received at step S106 is “connection is OK”, the vehicle control apparatus 1 determines that an alert does not need to be outputted (step S107; NO), and thus an alert signal is not outputted. However, when, despite the fact that it is determined at step S104 that the electronic key 2 is in the vehicle V, the pairing control result received at step S106 is “connection is NG”, since the electronic key 2 and the smartphone 3 are not paired, the vehicle control apparatus 1 determines that an alert needs to be outputted (step S107; YES), and thus outputs an alert signal from the alert signal output unit 17 (step S108).” – see at least Nishidai: paragraph 0056).
The examiner notes that Penilla already provides information regarding connecting a user account for a vehicle to a cloud server (i.e., a connected car service server) and linking an electronic key (i.e., digital key) to a user profile, as set forth above and in at least paragraphs 0099 and 0244 of Penilla. As such, Nishidai merely provides additional teachings regarding outputting an alert indicating linkage failure of the electronic key in a case where pairing has failed, in a manner which may be readily integrated with Penilla based at least on the teachings and motivations set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Penilla further teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to display a digital key service linkage guidance message as the linkage guidance message based on receiving an account linkage success message from the connected car service server ("The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in. If the authentication is a success, the vehicle the user attempted to log into has vehicle settings applied to it and the user is allowed to operate the vehicle." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099).
Penilla does not explicitly disclose, but Nishidai teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to display a digital key service linkage guidance message as the linkage guidance message based on… receiving a digital key non-registration message from the digital key controller ("In one or more embodiments of the disclosure, the vehicle control apparatus may be configured to determine whether the vehicle control apparatus succeeds or fails to bring the communication between the electronic key and the portable device into a connected state, based on a notification from the electronic key or the portable device; and output an alert signal when the vehicle control apparatus fails." – see at least Nishidai: paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Penilla with these above aforementioned teachings from Nishidai such that the vehicle terminal is configured to display a digital key service linkage guidance message as the linkage guidance message based on receiving a digital key non-registration message from the digital key controller. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nishidai’s alert signal indicating a failure to connect an electronic key with a vehicle system with Penilla’s system for managing user profiles for vehicle systems in order to alert a user to an unpaired electronic key (“When the vehicle control apparatus 1 receives, by the UHF receiver 13, the UHF signal, i.e., the pairing control result, which is transmitted from the electronic key 2 (step S106), the vehicle control apparatus 1 determines whether pairing has succeeded or failed, by referring to the pairing control result, and further determines whether an alert needs to be outputted (step S107).” – see at least Nishidai: paragraph 0056). Doing so would provide the benefit of informing a user of whether an electronic key is successfully paired to a vehicle device (“For example, when it is determined at step 104 that the electronic key 2 is in the vehicle V and the pairing control result received at step S106 is “connection is OK”, the vehicle control apparatus 1 determines that an alert does not need to be outputted (step S107; NO), and thus an alert signal is not outputted. However, when, despite the fact that it is determined at step S104 that the electronic key 2 is in the vehicle V, the pairing control result received at step S106 is “connection is NG”, since the electronic key 2 and the smartphone 3 are not paired, the vehicle control apparatus 1 determines that an alert needs to be outputted (step S107; YES), and thus outputs an alert signal from the alert signal output unit 17 (step S108).” – see at least Nishidai: paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 3, Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Penilla further teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to display a connected car service linkage guidance message as the linkage guidance message based on receiving an account linkage failure message from the connected car service server ("If the authentication is a failure, the user is presented with a failed access notification on the login interface." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099)
and receiving a digital key registration message from the digital key controller ("In operation 732, as mentioned above, the vehicle private key is used to decrypt the e-keys to get access to an access code. The access code is the code that will enable the e-keys to be activated e-keys 724. In operation 734, the access code is bound to the device ID, as mentioned above. The access code is then sent as activated e-keys 724 back to Bob's device 704. Bob's device 704 can now access the vehicle in accordance with the privileges set by John, the owner of the vehicle." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0247) (The examiner notes that enabling the e-keys to be activated e-keys as taught by Penilla indicates a successful registration of an e-key for accessing a vehicle, and therefore corresponds to the claimed digital key registration message).
Regarding claim 4, Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Penilla further teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal is further configured to transmit the connected car service linkage guidance message to a user terminal ("The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in. If the authentication is a success, the vehicle the user attempted to log into has vehicle settings applied to it and the user is allowed to operate the vehicle. If the authentication is a failure, the user is presented with a failed access notification on the login interface." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099) (The examiner notes that the login interface as taught by Penilla corresponds to the claimed user terminal).
Regarding claim 5, Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Penilla further teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal comprises: a first communication module configured to communicate with the connected car service server ("In one embodiment, FIG. 10 illustrates a process utilize to communicate between vehicles, users, and cloud services. In operation 450, a vehicle with communications is provided with cloud services. The cloud services will be in account, software, or interface that allows communication with cloud services 120." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0129);
a second communication module configured to communicate with the digital key controller ("The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest. The communication by the guest to the vehicle can be performed using any number of wireless communications, such as radio communication, Wi-Fi communication, Bluetooth communication, etc." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0240);
a user interface configured to display a connected car service linkage guidance message or a digital key service linkage guidance message ("The method also includes receiving data updates, at the server, from the vehicle for the vehicle aspect, from time to time. The data updates are displayable on a user interface that is accessible to the advisor entity, the user interface being rendered by the server that provides access to the advisor account." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0013);
and a processor configured to request the information from the connected car service server whether the connected car account is linked ("The user may also interact with the vehicle login system directly on or near the vehicle. The user supplies login credentials to a vehicle login interface which are sent to the remote distributed or centralized user login authentication system or onboard vehicle authentication system. The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099),
request the information from the digital key controller whether the digital key is registered ("The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0240) (The examiner notes that the step of verifying the electronic keys as taught by Penilla corresponds to determining whether a digital key is registered as claimed),
and output the connected car service linkage guidance message or the digital key service linkage guidance message on the user interface, based on response messages received from the connected car service server and the digital key controller ("The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in. If the authentication is a success, the vehicle the user attempted to log into has vehicle settings applied to it and the user is allowed to operate the vehicle. If the authentication is a failure, the user is presented with a failed access notification on the login interface." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 6, Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Penilla further teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to automatically select the user profile from the user profile list based on detection of a smart key in the vehicle ("In one embodiment, users having other devices, such as smartphones or portable electronics can obtain data, which can be shared with other user interfaces. The sharing can be by way of a sync operation, that can be automatic when the user enters the vehicle or on demand by the user." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 7, Penilla in view of Nishidai teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Penilla further teaches:
wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to: display the user profile list when the vehicle is powered on ("For setting an advisor account, the user can set advisor account and defined the roles 540, and set the privileges 542. The diagrams on device 530, maybe part of a user interface that includes icons and buttons that allow the user to select, edit and add accounts, or management of the accounts that the previously set." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0212);
receive a selection of the user profile by a user ("By way of example, any user can log into any vehicle from any brand in so far as they have account creation access or a recognized login." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0098);
and request the information whether the connected car account is linked ("The user may also interact with the vehicle login system directly on or near the vehicle. The user supplies login credentials to a vehicle login interface which are sent to the remote distributed or centralized user login authentication system or onboard vehicle authentication system. The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0099)
and the information whether the digital key is registered in response to the user's selection of the profile ("The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0240) (The examiner notes that the step of verifying the electronic keys as taught by Penilla corresponds to determining whether a digital key is registered as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
As per the limitation of “a vehicle terminal mounted in a vehicle”, Penilla teaches that user terminals may include on-board computing systems for a vehicle as well as mobile devices remote from the vehicle (“FIG. 13A describes how vehicle on board computer with input output system 1900 useful for accepting input, processing input and displaying results in conjunction with stored computer readable programs or functions in the forms of APPs 104 may be structured.” – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0148).
Similarly, as per the limitation of "a digital key controller mounted in the vehicle", management of the e-keys (i.e., digital keys) as taught by Penilla may be performed either remotely, within the vehicle itself, or both ("The electronic keys 650 can be transferred to the vehicle and verified by the vehicle or cloud services or both, before access is given to the guest." – see at least Penilla: paragraph 0240)
Regarding claim 9, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 2 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 3 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 4 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 6 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 7 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 2 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 3 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 4 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 4 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 6 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 7 as has been set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pellichero et al. (US 2025/0136044) teaches in at least paragraphs 0021, 0023, and 0035 a management system for a vehicle, including at least one vehicle account managed by at least one remote server, and a virtual key corresponding with a specific vehicle for granting conditional access to the specific vehicle.
Endo et al. (US 2019/0122470) teaches in at least paragraphs 0015 and 0033-0035 a key information management method including a plurality of vehicles communicably connected to a center server and a plurality of mobile terminals communicably connected to the center server, wherein each mobile terminal is able to unlock, lock, and/or start an intended vehicle by acquiring authentication key information from the center server, and further registering permission for a user of the vehicle to use a predetermined service using the vehicle, the permission being permission to deliver the key information to a mobile terminal of a third party concerned with the predetermined service.
Bu et al. (US 2025/0065843) teaches in at least paragraphs 0007, 0012-0021 and 0047-0054 a digital key control system including a connected car system based on the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC), including functionality for suspending, restoring, and wiping digital keys, a vehicle OEM server from hosting user accounts, and a key tracking server for registering issued digital keys for a vehicle.
Desmaris et al. (US 2013/0086185) teaches in at least paragraphs 0090-0091 methods and systems for a social networking media system, including identifying a user as being associated with an inactive account, and prompting the user to complete registration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
