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 .
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on 07/29/2025.
2. Claims 1-14 are pending.
3. Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 and 02/09/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-125149 from Japan, filed on 07/31/2024.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a management server configured to manage multiple digital keys …”
in claim 1,
“a management server configured to manage multiple digital keys …”
in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Specification of instant application, Paragraph 0213).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam Bar-Niv et al (WO 2025014497 A1), hereinafter “Bar-Niv” in view of Arjun Singh et al (US 20220417228 A1), hereinafter “Singh”.
Regarding Claim 1, Bar-Niv discloses a management server configured to manage multiple digital keys available for a vehicle (Bar-Niv, Abstract, computing device authenticating a user with a digital key of a vehicle. Paragraph 0024, remote server communicates with computing device and eligible device. Paragraphs 0028-0029, remote server communicates with devices in order to provide them with a digital key),
wherein the multiple digital keys include a target digital key and one or more registration-involved digital keys that have been involved in registration of the target digital key (Bar-Niv, Paragraph 0029, server provides devices with a digital key. Paragraph 0046, multiple users sharing digital keys without interfering with each other’s privacy and/or ownership),
the multiple digital keys are respectively registered in multiple devices, the multiple devices include an involved device to which a predetermined one of the registration-involved digital keys is registered (Bar-Niv, Paragraph 0029, after server determines that the devices are trusted devices, then the server provides the digital key to the trusted devices).
However, Bar-Niv fails to explicitly disclose the management server comprises processing circuitry, and the processing circuitry is configured to perform: determining whether to apply a prescribed condition to deletion of the target digital key based on a user attribute of the involved device; and setting the target digital key to an unusable state in accordance with a result of the determination.
Singh, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses the management server comprises processing circuitry, and the processing circuitry is configured to perform:
determining whether to apply a prescribed condition to deletion of the target digital key based on a user attribute of the involved device (Singh, Paragraphs 0013, 0019, key-sharing request includes an access duration that is indicative of a time-period for which the asset is to remain accessible to the second user. Paragraph 0020, server communicates and access credentials deletion request to the second user device based on multiple different factors. Paragraph 0033, examples of assets include a vehicle and a facility);
and setting the target digital key to an unusable state in accordance with a result of the determination (Singh, Paragraph 0020, based on the access credentials deletion request, the digital key is deleted from the second user device, thereby revoking the access of the second user to the asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bar-Niv in view of Singh in order to further modify the method of provisioning digital vehicle keys from the teachings of Bar-Niv with the method of cloud-based sharing of digital keys from the teachings of Singh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because by implementing a timed access to an asset (e.g., vehicle) the user will be able to have control and security of the asset (Singh – Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0013-0014).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Bar-Niv further discloses wherein the multiple digital keys include:
a first digital key registered in a first specific device (Bar-Niv, Paragraph 0020, computing device (e.g., smartphone) stores digital key framework);
and a second digital key registered in a second specific device based on a request for registration from the first specific device, the target digital key is the second digital key, and the registration-involved digital key is the first digital key (Bar-Niv, Paragraph 0025, firs user of a vehicle wants to share a digital key for operating a vehicle with a second user. Paragraph 0026, computing device provisions eligible device with a digital key for operating a vehicle so that the eligible device is used for sharing access to the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the multiple devices include a target device to which the target digital key is registered, and the processing circuitry is configured to cause the target device to delete information related to the target digital key stored in the target device, thereby setting the target digital key to an unusable state (Singh, Paragraph 0013, first user device of the first user grants access to a second user, that is different from the first user, the access to the asset. Paragraph 0020, based on the access credentials deletion request, the digital key is deleted from the second user device, thereby revoking the access of the second user to the asset. Paragraph 0033, examples of assets include a vehicle and a facility).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 3, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the target device to delete the information related to the target digital key by transmitting, to the target device, a request to delete the information related to the target digital key (Singh, Paragraph 0020, based on the access credentials deletion request, the digital key is deleted from the second user device, thereby revoking the access of the second user to the asset).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine not to apply the prescribed condition to deletion of the target digital key when the user attribute of the involved device indicates a specific business operator lending the vehicle (Singh, Paragraph 0013, key-sharing requests includes an access duration that is indicative of a time-period for which the asset is to remain accessible to the second user. Paragraph 0018, key-sharing request includes an access code associated with the first user. Server validates the key-sharing request based on the access code).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to apply the prescribed condition to deletion of the target digital key when the user attribute of the involved device does not indicate a specific business operator lending the vehicle (Singh, Paragraph 0013, key-sharing requests includes an access duration that is indicative of a time-period for which the asset is to remain accessible to the second user. Paragraph 0020, revoking access granted to the second user based on access credentials deletion request).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine not to apply the prescribed condition to deletion of the target digital key when the user attribute of the involved device indicates a legal person (Singh, Paragraph 0013, key-sharing requests includes an access duration that is indicative of a time-period for which the asset is to remain accessible to the second user. Paragraph 0018, key-sharing request includes an access code associated with the first user. Server validates the key-sharing request based on the access code).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine to apply the prescribed condition to deletion of the target digital key when the user attribute of the involved device does not indicate a legal person (Singh, Paragraph 0013, key-sharing requests includes an access duration that is indicative of a time-period for which the asset is to remain accessible to the second user. Paragraph 0020, revoking access granted to the second user based on access credentials deletion request).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to apply the prescribed condition when obtaining a request to delete the target digital key (Singh, Paragraph 0020, revoking access granted to the second user based on access credentials deletion request.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1, where Singh further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to apply the prescribed condition when registering the target digital key, and the processing circuitry is configured to set the target digital key to an unusable state when obtaining a request to delete the target digital key (Singh, Paragraph 0013, receive from a first user a key-sharing request to grant a second user the access to the asset. Paragraph 0020, revoking access granted to the second user based on access credentials deletion request).
Claim 13 carries similar limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1 above and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 14 carries similar limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1 and Claim 13 above and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar-Niv in view of Singh and in further view of Masatoshi Fujino et al (WO 2023219001 A1) hereinafter “Fujino”.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh disclose the management server according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Bar-Niv and Singh fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a vehicle management device of the vehicle to delete information related to the target digital key stored in the vehicle management device, thereby setting the target digital key to an unusable state.
Fujino, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a vehicle management device of the vehicle to delete information related to the target digital key stored in the vehicle management device, thereby setting the target digital key to an unusable state (Fujino, Paragraph 0267, owner-like user requests the cloud system to delete or disable the shared key. Paragraph 0268, in accordance with the request by the owner-like user, the usage rule managing section of the cloud system requests the vehicle to delete or disable the pair key and the usage rule via the communication section. Paragraph 0269, in response to this, the key managing section of the vehicle deletes or disables the pair key and the usage rule information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bar-Niv in view of Singh and in further view of Fujino in order to further modify the method of provisioning digital vehicle keys from the teachings of Bar-Niv and the method of cloud-based sharing of digital keys from the teachings of Singh with the method of controlling vehicle access from the teachings of Fujino.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because by deleting the digital key information from the vehicle the user will be able to have a better control of the security and management of the vehicle (Fujino – Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0270-0271).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Bar-Niv, Singh, and Fujino disclose the management server according to claim 5, where Fujino further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the vehicle management device to delete the information related to the target digital key by transmitting, to the vehicle, a request to delete the information related to the target digital key (Fujino, Paragraph 0267, owner-like user requests the cloud system to delete or disable the shared key. Paragraph 0268, in accordance with the request by the owner-like user, the usage rule managing section of the cloud system requests the vehicle to delete or disable the pair key and the usage rule via the communication section. Paragraph 0269, in response to this, the key managing section of the vehicle deletes or disables the pair key and the usage rule information).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All the references listed on 892 are related to the subject matter of granting access to a vehicle using digital keys.
Some of the prior art include:
US 20210112407 A1, which discloses a method of digital key provisioning of electronic device.
US 20230061183 A1, which discloses a method of maintaining access control of a vehicle using digital keys.
US 20230322185 A1, which discloses a method of group sharing of a secure digital car key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER O GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571)272-7624. 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.
/JAVIER O GUZMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights