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
This is a reply to the application filed on 7/9/2025, in which, claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 7 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/9/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 7/9/2025 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 but does not further limit any of the limitations of claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170104589 A1 (hereinafter ‘Lambert’).
As regards claim 1, Lambert (US 20170104589 A1) discloses: A management server configured to manage multiple digital keys employed in a vehicle, wherein the digital keys include: an owner key registered to an owner device that is a device belonging to an owner of the vehicle; and (Lambert: Fig. 1, 5, ¶11, i.e., the key server for sharing digital vehicle key)
multiple shareable keys respectively registered to multiple shareable devices, each of the shareable devices is a device different from the owner device, and the management server is configured to execute: (Lambert: Fig. 3, ¶38-¶41, i.e., users registering with the server with their devices)
a deletion process in response to receiving a deletion request specifying one of the shareable keys that is registered to a target shareable device that is one of the shareable devices, the deletion process deleting: (Lambert: Figs. 5-7, ¶46-¶50, i.e., the owner sharing the device key with other registered users, and ¶52-¶55, i.e., the owner can revoke the digital key from other users via the server)
the shareable key specified in the received deletion request; and (Lambert: Figs. 7, ¶52-¶55, i.e., the owner can revoke the digital key from other users via the server)
one of the shareable keys that has been registered to a different shareable device based on a request from the target shareable device. (Lambert: Figs. 7, ¶52-¶55, i.e., the owner can revoke the digital key from other users via the server)
Claims 6-8 recite substantially the same features as recited in claim 1 above and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of US 20100183150 A1 (hereinafter ‘Lee’).
As regards claim 2, Lambert discloses the management server according to claim 1. However, Lambert does not but in analogous art, Lee (US 20100183150 A1) teaches: wherein the one of the shareable keys that has been registered to the different shareable device based on the request from the target shareable device belongs to a first generation (Lee: Figs. 2-4, ¶51-¶53, i.e., the shared master group key is the first level key), a shareable key that has been registered based on a request from the different shareable device belongs to a second generation (Lee: Figs. 2-4, ¶51-¶53, i.e., the shared sub class group key is the second level key), and the deletion process includes deleting the shareable keys of the first and subsequent generations downstream in a direct lineage from the shareable key registered to the target shareable device. (Lee: Figs. 2-4, ¶57, i.e., when the master group key is deleted all the underlying hierarchical keys are also deleted)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lamber to include generating shared hierarchical keys and deleting hierarchical keys in a chain when the highest level key is deleted as taught by Lee with the motivation to provide an improved key management system (Lee: ¶10)
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected. Claim recites allowable subject matter: “wherein the management server is configured to designate one of the shareable keys as a shareable key to be protected, and the management server is configured not to execute the deletion process on the shareable key designated as the key to be protected” not taught by prior art taken alone or in combination. Claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights