DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 the Application
2. Pursuant to the application filed August 22, 2025, claims 1-8 are pending.
Specification
3. 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. In particular, the title is not sufficiently specific.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanovski et al. (US 2024/0181987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stefanovski discloses:
an in-vehicle device ([0051]) comprising:
a storage device ([0050], [0039]; FIG. 1: 104; FIG. 2A: 218) and processing circuitry ([0031]; FIG. 1: 106), wherein
the storage device stores information related to a digital key of a vehicle ([0039]; FIG. 2A: 200, 218), and
the processing circuitry is configured to execute deletion control ([0075]) including:
acquiring contract information from outside the vehicle, in which the contract information indicates whether there is a valid contract allowing the digital key to be used ([0038], [0045], [0046], [0096]; FIG. 7: 708), and
Stefanowski does not explicitly disclose that on condition that the acquired contract information indicates that the valid contract does not exist, deleting the information related to the digital key from the storage device, but Stefanowski does disclose that the processing circuitry executes a method that comprises deletion of one or more previous digital keys to the vehicle assigned to previous operators of the vehicle ([0067], [0075]); Stefanowski does disclose that real-time event data is streamed to the contract executing VM from a streaming service ([0037]); and Stefanovski does disclose that the contract executing VM routes the data streams to the smart contract so that the smart contract may detect that a trigger condition has occurred and/or analyze a decision condition to direct the enforcement entity to perform one or more actions ([0020]); all of which suggests that the device of Stefanowski comprises that on condition that the acquired contract information indicates that the valid contract does not exist, deleting the information related to the digital key from the storage device for the benefit of enabling the smart contract to detect that a trigger condition has occurred and analyze a decision condition to direct the enforcement entity to perform one or more actions, including deletion of one or more previous digital keys ([0020], [0037], [0075]);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the device of Stefanovski in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the device to enable a smart contract to detect that a trigger condition has occurred and analyze a decision condition to direct the enforcement entity to perform one or more actions, including deletion of one or more previous digital keys.
Regarding claim 2, Stefanovski discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to delete the information related to the digital key in the deletion control on condition that the acquired contract information indicates that the valid contract does not exist and a key of the vehicle differing from the digital key is authenticated. ([0022], [0023], [0075])
Regarding claim 5, Stefanovski does not explicitly disclose that the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the contract information when a communication state of the vehicle with an outside server shifts from a communication-disabled state to a communication-enabled state in the deletion control, but Stefanovski does disclose that the processing circuitry executes a method that comprises deletion of one or more previous digital keys to the vehicle assigned to previous operators of the vehicle ([0067], [0075]); Stefanovski does disclose real-time event data is streamed to the contract executing VM from a streaming service ([0037]); and Stefanovski does disclose that the contract executing VM routes the data streams to the smart contract so that the smart contract may detect that a trigger condition has occurred and/or analyze a decision condition to direct the enforcement entity to perform one or more actions ([0020]); all of which suggests that the device of Stefanovski comprises that the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the contract information when a communication state of the vehicle with an outside server shifts from a communication-disabled state to a communication-enabled state in the deletion control for the benefit of enabling the smart contract to detect that a trigger condition has occurred and analyze a decision condition to direct the enforcement entity to perform one or more actions, including deletion of one or more previous digital keys ([0020], [0037], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the device of Stefanovski in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the device to enable a smart contract to detect that a trigger condition has occurred and analyze a decision condition to direct the enforcement entity to perform one or more actions, including deletion of one or more previous digital keys.
Regarding claim 6, Stefanovski does not explicitly disclose that when the communication state is in the communication-enabled state, the processing circuitry is configured to delete the information related to the digital key from the storage device in response to a request, from a server located outside the vehicle, to delete the information related to the digital key, but Stefanovski does disclose .
Regarding claim 7, Stefanovski discloses a method ([0092]; FIG. 7); otherwise, claim 7 is rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Stefanovski discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executed by an in-vehicle device storing information related to a digital key of a vehicle, wherein when the program is executed by the in-vehicle device, the program causes the in-vehicle device to perform operations ([0114]). The remainder of claim 8 is rejected as claim 7.
6. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanovski in view of Suda et al. (US 2019/0291692 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Stefanovski discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to delete the information related to the digital key in the deletion control on condition that the acquired contract information indicates that the valid contract does not exist. (See the rejection of claim 2.)
Stefanovski does not disclose that occurrence of successful authentication of the key that differs from the digital key is a specified number of two or greater.
Suda, addressing the same problem of how to authenticate an electronic key, teaches an onboard authentication device, an authentication method, and a storage medium for a vehicle ([0002]), wherein the authentication device compares key information registered with key information received from an electronic key and determines whether the two pieces of key information match each other ([0035]) for the benefit that if two pieces of key information don’t match, the device does not permit predetermined operation of the vehicle ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Suda with the device of Stefanovski because that would have enabled the device not to permit predetermined operation of a vehicle if two pieces of key information don’t match.
Regarding claim 4, Stefanovski discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to delete the information related to the digital key in the deletion control on condition that the acquired contract information indicates that the valid contract does not exist. (See the rejection of claim 2.)
Stefanovski does not disclose that the occurrence of successful authentication of the key that differs from the digital key is the specified number of two or greater when the vehicle is activated.
Suda, addressing the same problem of how to authenticate an electronic key, teaches an onboard authentication device, an authentication method, and a storage medium for a vehicle ([0002]), wherein the authentication device compares key information registered with key information received from an electronic key and determines whether the two pieces of key information match each other ([0035]) for the benefit that if two pieces of key information don’t match, the device does not permit predetermined operation of the vehicle ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Suda with the device of Stefanovski because that would have enabled the device not to permit predetermined operation of a vehicle if two pieces of key information don’t match.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights