Office Action 2: Final Rejection (2024-03-25)
Rejection types: 101 - Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

1\. (Currently amended) A system for providing a connected service, comprising:a portable device and a vehicle terminal, wherein user information is input into the portable device and the vehicle terminal; and
a server configured to:
receive the user information from one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal and determine whether the received user information is recognizable; and
determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable;
wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values;
wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions; and
wherein the server informs the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when the user information is stored as the new data set.

2-3. (Canceled)

4\. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to determine whether the number of times unrecognizable user information is received exceeds a predetermined number of times in response to determining that the received user information is unrecognizable.
5\. (Original) The system of claim 4, wherein the server is configured to determine to store the user information as the new data set in response to determining that the number of times the unrecognizable user information is received exceeds the predetermined number of times.

6\. (Canceled)
7\. (Currently amended) The system of claim 61,wherein the portable device and the vehicle terminal are configured to transmit the user information to the server after being informed that the new data set is stored in the server.
8\. (Original) The system of claim 7, wherein the server is configured to recognize the user information received from the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal based on the information stored in the server.
9\. (Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to receive vehicle setting values recognized from the server, and set a vehicle with the received vehicle setting values.

10\. (Currently amended) A method for providing a connected service, comprising:receiving, by a controller, user information from one or more of a portable device and a vehicle terminal;
receiving, by a server, the user information from the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal, and determining whether the received user information is recognizable;
determining, by the controller, whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable;
wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values;
wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions; and
informing, by the server, the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when the user information is stored as the new data set.

11-12. (Canceled)

13\. (Original) The method of claim 10, further comprising:determining whether the number of times unrecognizable user information is received exceeds a predetermined number of times in response to determining that the received user information is unrecognizable.

14\. (Original) The method of claim 13, further comprising:determining to store the user information as the new data set in response to determining that the number of times the unrecognizable user information is received exceeds the predetermined number of times.

15\. (Canceled)

16\. (Currently amended) The method of claim --510, further comprising:transmitting the user information to the server after being informed that the new data set is stored in the server.

17\. (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising:recognizing the user information received from the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal based on the information stored in the server.

18\. (Original) The method of claim 17, further comprising:
receiving, by the vehicle terminal, vehicle setting values recognized from the server, and setting a vehicle with the received vehicle setting values.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments on pages 5 – 7 regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.  The claims still have no link to structure.  Examiner suggests linking the claims to a physical medium, such as allowing the user to enter the vehicle without any additional input as in paragraph [0003] of the specification.
Applicants arguments on pages 7 – 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.  The applicant argues Tokuyama does not teach “and determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.”  The examiner disagrees.  Tokuyama teaches a pass condition in which if the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to unreliable.  The pass condition is based on a number of times the data is processed.  Paragraph [0119] of Rhee describes information that is unrecognizable.  The combination of these references teach the above claim.
Applicants arguments on pages 7 – 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.  The applicant argues Corradino does not teach the rolled up disclosures from claims 2 and 3.  The examiner disagrees.  Corradino teaches attributes that are linked to the account holder, which includes various settings.  Paragraph [0037] describes the attributes are linked to each other, implying that there is no direction in terms of mapping values to a vehicle function or vice versa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,4-5,7-10,13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject is not integrated into a practical application.  With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims recite the limitations of inputting user data into a device, determining if the data is recognizable and determining whether to store the information based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.  These limitations are not integrated into a practical application because one could easily input data into a device, determine if the data is recognizable and store data.  Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being practically performed in the mind, and no physical structure is claimed.  The claims merely recite a computer performing the actions.  In the end no control process is performed, only a rain event warning confidence is calculated.
For step 2A, prong 2, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.  The computer systems are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity.  It does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.  The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a computer.  The computing functions, at least with respect to claims 1-18’s are merely recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the updating of control logic functions.
For step 2B, as discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.  Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.  Here, inputting user data into a device, determining if the data is recognizable and determining whether to store the information based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.  These units, apparatuses, and software are abstract as there is no physical embodiment of the invention.  The steps are just planning based off a route.  MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).  Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.  Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.  The claims are ineligible.  There is no output step.  Storing data is not a tangible function.  Include something like allowing the user to enter the vehicle without any additional input as in paragraph [0003] of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-5,7-10,13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0133261 A1, hereinafter Tao) in view of Rhee et al. (US Pub No: 2014/0025746 A1, hereinafter Rhee), Tokuyama (US Pub No: 2022/0417359 A1, hereinafter Tokuyama) and Corradino et al. (US Pub No: 2011/0215900 A1, hereinafter Corradino).
Regarding Claim 1:
Tao discloses:
A system for providing a connected service, comprising: a portable device and a vehicle terminal, wherein user information is input into the portable device and the vehicle terminal.  Paragraph [0037] describes authentication information of the vehicle 110 that can be inputted by the user to the portable electronic device 210 or may be extracted by the portable electronic device 210.  The terminal of the vehicle also has one or more input interfaces.
Tao does not disclose a determining whether the received user information is recognizable and to determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.
Rhee teaches:
and a server configured to: receive the user information from one or more of the portable device and the terminal and determine whether the received user information is recognizable.  Paragraph [0062] describes a terminal that can recognize a phone number assigned to the second terminal 220 among the second user information.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tao to incorporate the teachings of Rhee to show whether the received user information is recognizable.  One would have been motivated to do so to effectively manage transmission and reception of information between users registered to a specific service ([0002] of Rhee).
Tao and Rhee do not teach determining whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.
Tokuyama teaches:
and determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.  Paragraph [0198] describes an authentication determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, the number of times, and the pass condition associated with the communication connection among the types of user habits stored.  If the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to as unreliable.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tao and Rhee to incorporate the teachings of Tokuyama to show determining whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.  One would have been motivated to do so to provide a remote control device, an information processing method and a program that are highly secure and easy to operate ([0006] of Tokuyama).
Corradino teaches:
wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values.  Paragraph [0037] describes a configuration file 130 describes linking attributes.  For example, the fingerprint scan in memory may be used as a key to point to corresponding attributes that identify the user as well as various settings adopted by the account holder.
wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions.  Paragraph [0037] describes a configuration file 130 describes linking attributes.  For example, the fingerprint scan in memory may be used as a key to point to corresponding attributes that identify the user as well as various settings adopted by the account holder.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tao, Rhee and Tokuyama to incorporate the teachings of Corradino to show the user information including vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values and wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs matched to the vehicle setting functions.  One would have been motivated to do so to retrieve an account record for the user and implementing an action specified in the account record (Abstract of Corradino).
Tao and Tokuyama teach:
and wherein the server informs the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when the user information is stored as the new data set.  Paragraph [0038] of Tao describes performing authentication on a vehicle 110 and informing the portable electronic device 210.  Paragraph [0119] of Tokuyama teaches a personal authenticator 181of the terminal controller 18 updates the feature amount of the user habit data registered in the mobile terminal 1.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 4:
Tokuyama teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to determine whether the number of times unrecognizable user information is received exceeds a predetermined number of times in response to determining that the received user information is unrecognizable.  Paragraph [0198] describes an authentication determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, the number of times, and the pass condition associated with the communication connection among the types of user habits stored.  If the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to as unreliable.  For example, the number of connections was 157 times and exceeds the pass condition of 100 times.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 5:
Tokuyama teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the server is configured to determine to store the user information as the new data set in response to determining that the number of times the unrecognizable user information is received exceeds the predetermined number of times.  Paragraph [0198] describes an authentication determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, the number of times, and the pass condition associated with the communication connection among the types of user habits stored.  If the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to as unreliable.  For example, the number of connections was 157 times and exceeds the pass condition of 100 times.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 7:
Rhee teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein the portable device and the vehicle terminal are configured to transmit the user information to the server after being informed that the new data set is stored in the server.  Paragraph [0088] describes a first storage unit 213 being updated into new second user information.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 8:
Rhee teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein the server is configured to recognize the user information received from the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal based on the information stored in the server.  Paragraph [0062] describes a terminal that can recognize a phone number assigned to the second terminal 220 among the second user information.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 9:
Corradino teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to receive vehicle setting values recognized from the server, and set a vehicle with the received vehicle setting values.  Paragraph [0037] describes a configuration file 130 describes linking attributes.  For example, the fingerprint scan in memory may be used as a key to point to corresponding attributes that identify the user as well as various settings adopted by the account holder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy (2020/0275241 A1): A method, system and product for mapping objects on movable platforms, including, obtaining sensor information from sensors of user devices, wherein the sensor information indicates that the user devices are in proximity to anchor stations; defining a timeframe for analysis based on an indication extracted from the sensor information that the movable platform is stationary throughout the timeframe; determining a relative location of the anchor stations within the movable platform, whereby automatically determining a mapping of the anchor stations within the movable platform; obtaining a reading from a user device when the user device is located in proximity to at least one of the anchor stations; and determining a relative location of the user device within the movable platform based on the mapping of the anchor stations within the movable platform and based on the reading from the user device.
Alpert (2019/0130718 A1): An autonomous facility monitoring apparatus and method in a facility can remain on at all times and functions to determine whether an unauthorized person has entered or is attempting to enter the facility and/or whether an environmental danger exists or is predicted. Continuously monitoring physical characteristics of a person and/or location of a person in the facility provides information for automatically detecting and signaling a detrimental health condition, for automatically controlling operation of apparatus of the facility, for operating gaming features, and so on.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Status of the Claims
The Office Action addresses and rejects claims 1-18. Reconsideration is respectfully requested.
Amendments to the Claims
Claims 2-3, 6, 11-12, and 15 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 are amended as indicated above. Support for these amendments can be found throughout the specification and drawings, for example, at least in original claims 2-3, 6, 11-12, and 15 and in FIGS. 7 and paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0011]-[0012], [0029], [0032]-[0033], [0038], [0040], [0051], [0056]-[0057] of the published application. No new matter is added.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Office Action rejects claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Office Action, pp. 2-4.
Applicants respectfully disagree. However, solely in order to advance prosecution, claim 1 is amended to recite, in part,
a server configured to:
receive the user information from one or more of the portable device and
the vehicle terminal and determine whether the received user information is
recognizable; and
determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on
the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that
the user information is unrecognizable;
wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute
information linked to the vehicle setting values;
wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key
IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions; and
wherein the server informs the one or more of the portable device and the
vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when the user information is stored
as the new data set."
Aa discussed in detail below, submit that the claim 1 recites patent eligible subject matter.
Pursuant to M.P.E.P. § 2106(d)(1), a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. For example, the claimed subject matter may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology.
As discussed in paragraph [0003] of the published application, a connected service can provide a more comfortable and smart environment to a vehicle user by operating a connected vehicle using a portable device. For example, a connected service can transmit, for each user, setting input information input to the portable device to a server. The server can backup the setting information and download the backed up setting information to a vehicle. This allows the user to use a setting function input on the portable device (e.g., a vehicle window opening/closing control, screen brightness control, etc.) merely by boarding the vehicle.
As further discussed in paragraph [0004] of the published application, in a connected vehicle of a newer vehicle model, attributes of a setting function compared to a setting function previously stored in the server can be changed. As a result, a version of the server must be updated with a data set that includes attributes of the setting function of an existing vehicle model and the new model. It is an inconvenience to require update of the server to use the connected service each time a new vehicle model is released. Furthermore, it can be difficult to use the connected service when an error occurs in an update process.
The pending claims recite limitations that solve this problem. For example, claim 1 recites a server configuered to determine that user information is unrecognizable, determine whether to store user information that is determined to be unrecognizable as a new data set based upon a number of times the unrecognizable user information is received, and inform one or more of a portable device or a vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when storing the unrecognized user information as a new data set. As discussed in paragraph [0065] of the instant application, these features reduce
the above-referenced inconvenience in a connected vehicle because the data set including the attributes of the new setting functions is not updated every time for a new vehicle model. Instead, these features allow the user ot conveniently use the connected service when necessary because of an occurence of an error during an update is fundametally prevented. This represents an improvement to the technical area of a connected service which controls a connected vehicle through a portable device.
As claim 1 recites limitations that result in improvement of the relevant technological area, it integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 is not directed to the alleged judicial exception. Claim 10, while different from claim 1, also integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 10 is also not directed to the alleged judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 recites patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 4-5, 7-9, 13-14, and 16-18 variously depend from claims 1 and 10 and also recite patent eligible subject matter at least due to their dependency from a patent-eligible claim. Claims 2-3, 6, 11-12, and 15 are canceled herewith and, therefore, the rejection of these claims is moot.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama
The Office Action rejects claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0133261 to Tao et al. ("Tao") in view of U.S. 2014/0025746 to Rhee et al. ("Rhee") and U.S. 2022/0417359 to Tokuyama ("Tokuyama"). Office Action, pp. 4-8.
Applicants respectfully disagree. However, solely in order to advance prosecution, claim 1 is amended to incorporate the subject matter of examined claims 2-3 and 6 and claim 10 is amended to incorporate the subject matter of examined claims 11-12 and 15. The Office Action acknowledges that Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of claims 2-3 and 11-12. Office Action, pp. 9-10. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 distinguish over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama, alone or in combination. Claims 4-5, 7-8, 13-14, and 16-17 variously depend from claims 1 and 10 and also distinguish over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama, alone or in combination, at
least due to this dependency. Claims 6 and 15 are canceled herewith and, therefore, the rejection of these claims is moot.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 further distinguish over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama on independent grounds, discussed in detail below.
Claims 1 and 5
Claim 1 recites, in part, "determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable;"
Claim 5 recites, "wherein the server is configured to determine to store the user information as the new data set in response to determining that the number of times the unrecognizable user information is received exceeds the predetermined number of times."
The Office Action acknowledges that these features are not taught or suggested by Tao and Rhee but further alleges that this deficiency is remedied by Tokuyama. Office Action, pp. 5-7. Applicants respectfully disagree with this characterization of the teachings of Tokuyama.
Tokuyama presents an authentication process with reference to FIG. 22A.
" In the process, a face image of a user is used as biometric information.
"  In steps S601-S604, an authentication information acquirer 185 causes an imager 11 to
take a photograph of the face of the user operating a mobile terminal 1 and acquires the photograph. If the photograph is blurred, or the user's face cannot be identified from the photograph, the acquirer 185 causes the imager 11 to retake the photograph. When the photograph is not blurred and the users face can be identified from the photograph, the
process moves to step S605. Tokuyama, [0194]-[0195].
"  In step S605, an authentication determiner 186 calculates a face authentication value by
comparing feature amount of a face image registered in a biometric information database with a feature amount of the face image acquired by the acquirer 185. When the calculated
face authentication value is equal to or greater than an authentication threshold, the process
moves to step 5606. Tokuyama, [0196].
"  In step 5606, determiner 186 further determines whether the calculated face authentication
value is equal to or less than an authentication permission value. If so, the determiner 186 performs an auxiliary authentication that authenticates the user according to the user's habit.  For example, the determiner 186 causes the acquirer 185 to acquire a communication connection destination currently connected via a near field communicator 10 and receives the acquired current communication connection destination from the
acquirer 185. Tokuyama, [0197].
"  Subsequently, the determiner 186 acquires a user habit database for authentication 182
from a terminal storage 17A. The user habit database for authentication 182 stores information  on user-specific habits when   operating  the mobile terminal and authentication results. User specific habits can include actions when the user operates the mobile terminal 1, a distance between a screen of a display 19 and the user's face, a keystroke, a way of holding the mobile terminal 1, a place where the mobile terminal 1 is used, and a communication environment. A latest state of each user's habit can be a total number of times that a communication connection destination indicated in the acquired information has been connected to so far if the user's habit type is communication
connection. Tokuyama, [0072], [0189], [0198].
"  The determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, a number of times, and a pass
condition associated with a communication connection amongst types of user habits stored in the table of user habit database 182. A case in which the pass condition is satisfied is referred to as reliable and a case where the pass condition is not satisfied is referred to as
unreliable. Tokuyama, [0198].
From the forgoing, it can be appreciated that the determination of reliability or unreliability made by Tokuyama is made on the basis of a number of times the communication connection destination indicated in the acquired information has been connected. The communication connection destination has no relation to unrecognizable user information. Similarly, a determination regarding reliability or unreliability in the context of a pass condition also has no relation to unrecognizable user information. Furthermore, the determination of reliability or unreliability in view of a number of times the communication connection destination indicated in
the acquired information has been connected does not result in a further decision whether to store particular data, such as received unrecognizable user data.
Accordingly, one skilled in the are would fail to arrive at "determine whether to store the
user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable," as recited in examined claim 1 or "wherein the server is configured to determine to store the user information as the new data set in response to determining that the number of times the unrecognizable user information is received exceeds the predetermined number of times," as recited in claim 5.
For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 5 further distinguish over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama, alone or in any combination. Claims 10 and 15, while different from claims 1 and 5 also distinguish over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama, alone or in any combination, for at least the same reasons as claims
1 and 5.
Tao, Rhee, Tokuyama, and Corradino
The Office Action rejects claims 2-3, 9, 11-12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama in view of U.S. 2011/0215900 to Corradino et al. ("Corradino"). Office Action, pp. 9-11.
Applicants respectfully disagree. However, solely in order to advance prosecution, claim 1 is further amended to incorporate the subject matter of examined claims 2-3 and 6 and recites, in part,
"wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute
information linked to the vehicle setting values;
wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key
IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions; and
wherein the server informs the one or more of the portable device and the
vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when the user information is stored
as the new data set."
As discussed in detail below, Tao, Rhee, Tokuyama, and Corradino fails to teach or suggest at least these features of claim 1.
Corradino presents systems and methods for management of mobile device communications with reference to FIG. 2, reproduced below. It is assumed that a user of a mobile communication device 110 is within or approaching a vehicle for which the mobile communications management services are configured.
"   In step  202, a mobile communications device 110 detects the presence of a fixed
communications device 126 (e.g., the user of the mobile communications device 110 vehicle
enters the vehicle 120).
" In step 204, an input command is received at the mobile communications device 110 via an
I/O 112 in response to user selections. A logic 115 intercepts this command before execution
and receives biometric data (e.g., fingerprint scan) from a biometric scanner 116.
"   At step 206, the logic 115 identifies the user of the mobile communications device , as well
as the user's authorizations (permissions) level. The identification can be implemented by comparing the scanned biometric data with biometric data stored in a memory 108 (e.g., a configuration file 130). The authorization level can be further determined as that listed in the configuration file 130. For example, the configuration file 130 can link attributes such as user name or ID, mobile device number, permissions level, fingerprint scan of the user, vehicle ID,
etc.
The Office Action likens the recited "user information include[ing] vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values" and the recited "attribute information include[ing] vehicle setting functions and key IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions" of examined claims 2-3, now incorporated into claim 1, to the configuration file 130 describing linking attributes. Office Action, pp. 9-10. However, the attribute information of Corradino (user name or ID, mobile device number, permissions level, fingerprint scan of the user, vehicle ID) is very different from vehicle setting functions and key IDs matched to such vehicle setting functions. Thus, Corradino's linking of attribute information is very different from user information linking vehicle setting values, vehicle setting functions, and key IDs. Accordingly, Corradino fails to teach or suggest "wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values" and "wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions" as recited in claim 1. Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama are relied upon for other independent claim features and fail to remedy these deficiencies.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 distinguishes over Tao, Rhee, Tokuyama, and Corradino, alone or in any combination. Claim 10, while different from claim 1, also distinguishes over Tao, Rhee, Tokuyama, and Corradino, alone or in any combination for at least the same reasons as claim
1. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 represent allowable subject matter. Claims 9 and 18 variously depend from claims 1 and 10 and also distinguish over Tao, Rhee, and Tokuyama, alone or in
combination, at least due to this dependency. Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are canceled herewith and, therefore, the rejection of these claims is moot.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6 and 7 regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive.  The amendments to the claims overcome the previous 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 have been fully considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection, Wingfield.  Wingfield describes driver-specific settings that can be transferred from one vehicle to another vehicle, or type of vehicle, automatically.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-5,7-10,13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibotoye (US Pub No: 2020/0130609 A1, hereinafter Ibotoye) in view of Tokuyama (US Pub No: 2022/0417359 A1, hereinafter Tokuyama), Corradino et al. (US Pub No: 2011/0215900 A1, hereinafter Corradino) and Wingfield et al. (US Pub No: 2016/0046300 A1, hereinafter Wingfield).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ibitoye discloses:
A system for providing a connected service, comprising: a portable device and a vehicle terminal, each including a processor, wherein user information is input into the portable device and the vehicle terminal.  Paragraph [0043] describes a server that can support verification or authentication of a user and a mobile device.  Paragraph [0034] describes authentication can be accomplished via user input.  Paragraph [0042] describes a processor.
and a server including a processor and configured to: receive the user information from one or more of the portable device and the terminal and determine whether the received user information is recognizable.  Paragraph [0043] describes a server and a mobile device application function.  In authenticating a user, the server can recognize the user device at a particular system component housing a unique short-range communication tag and then authenticating the user.  Paragraph [0042] describes a processor.
Ibotoye does not disclose determining whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable, vehicle setting values and attribute information being linked to the vehicle setting values, wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs matched to the vehicle setting functions and a vehicle terminal is configured to automatically set a vehicle based on the new data set stored in the server when it is received from the server and is used to automatically set the vehicle.
Tokuyama teaches:
and determine whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.  Paragraph [0198] describes an authentication determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, the number of times, and the pass condition associated with the communication connection among the types of user habits stored.  If the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to as unreliable.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ibotoye to incorporate the teachings of Tokuyama to show determining whether to store the user information as a new data set based on the number of times the user information is received in response to determining that the user information is unrecognizable.  One would have been motivated to do so to provide a remote control device, an information processing method and a program that are highly secure and easy to operate ([0006] of Tokuyama).
Ibotoye and Tokuyama do not teach vehicle setting values and attribute information being linked to the vehicle setting values, wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs matched to the vehicle setting functions and a vehicle terminal is configured to automatically set a vehicle based on the new data set stored in the server when it is received from the server and is used to automatically set the vehicle.
Corradino teaches:
wherein the user information includes vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values.  Paragraph [0037] describes a configuration file 130 describes linking attributes.  For example, the fingerprint scan in memory may be used as a key to point to corresponding attributes that identify the user as well as various settings adopted by the account holder.
wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs respectively matched to the vehicle setting functions.  Paragraph [0037] describes a configuration file 130 describes linking attributes.  For example, the fingerprint scan in memory may be used as a key to point to corresponding attributes that identify the user as well as various settings adopted by the account holder.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ibotoye and Tokuyama to incorporate the teachings of Corradino to show the user information including vehicle setting values and attribute information linked to the vehicle setting values and wherein the attribute information includes vehicle setting functions and key IDs matched to the vehicle setting functions.  One would have been motivated to do so to retrieve an account record for the user and implementing an action specified in the account record (Abstract of Corradino).
Ibotoye and Tokuyama teach:
and wherein the server informs the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal that the new data set is stored when the user information is stored as the new data set.  Paragraph [0043] of Ibotoye describes a server and a mobile device application function.  In authenticating a user, the server can recognize the user device at a particular system component housing a unique short-range communication tag and then authenticating the user.  Paragraph [0119] of Tokuyama teaches a personal authenticator 181of the terminal controller 18 updates the feature amount of the user habit data registered in the mobile terminal 1.
Ibotoye, Tokuyama and Corradino do not teach a vehicle terminal is configured to automatically set a vehicle based on the new data set stored in the server when it is received from the server and is used to automatically set the vehicle.
Wingfield teaches:
wherein the vehicle setting functions include a function of controlling an electronic device in a vehicle within predetermined range; wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to automatically set the vehicle based on the new data set stored in the server when it is received from the server that the new data set is stored, and allow an user to use information automatically set on the vehicle without any additional input.  Paragraph [0028] describes driver-specific settings that can be learned by each vehicle used by a user.  During each new vehicle rental, a user’s driver-specific setting can be retrieved automatically and used to adjust the vehicle’s settings.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ibotoye, Tokuyama and Corradino to incorporate the teachings of Wingfield to show a vehicle terminal being configured to automatically set a vehicle based on the new data set stored in the server when it is received from the server and is used to automatically set the vehicle.  One would have been motivated to do so to provide a good mix of flexibility, cost, ease of use and environmental impact as a form of transportation ([0002] of Wingfield).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 4:
Tokuyama teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to determine whether the number of times unrecognizable user information is received exceeds a predetermined number of times in response to determining that the received user information is unrecognizable.  Paragraph [0198] describes an authentication determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, the number of times, and the pass condition associated with the communication connection among the types of user habits stored.  If the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to as unreliable.  For example, the number of connections was 157 times and exceeds the pass condition of 100 times.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 5:
Tokuyama teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the server is configured to determine to store the user information as the new data set in response to determining that the number of times the unrecognizable user information is received exceeds the predetermined number of times.  Paragraph [0198] describes an authentication determiner 186 acquires the acquired information, the number of times, and the pass condition associated with the communication connection among the types of user habits stored.  If the pass condition is not satisfied the data is referred to as unreliable.  For example, the number of connections was 157 times and exceeds the pass condition of 100 times.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 7:
Ibitoye discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein the portable device and the vehicle terminal are configured to transmit the user information to the server after being informed that the new data set is stored in the server.  Paragraph [0041] describes an automated bumper protection that can update a dashboard on any user device when new data is stored.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 8:
Ibitoye discloses:
The system of claim 7, wherein the server is configured to recognize the user information received from the one or more of the portable device and the vehicle terminal based on the information stored in the server.  Paragraph [0043] describes a server and a mobile device application function.  In authenticating a user, the server can recognize the user device at a particular system component housing a unique short-range communication tag and then authenticating the user.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 9:
Corradino teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to receive vehicle setting values recognized from the server, and set a vehicle with the received vehicle setting values.  Paragraph [0037] describes a configuration file 130 describes linking attributes.  For example, the fingerprint scan in memory may be used as a key to point to corresponding attributes that identify the user as well as various settings adopted by the account holder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy (2020/0275241 A1): A method, system and product for mapping objects on movable platforms, including, obtaining sensor information from sensors of user devices, wherein the sensor information indicates that the user devices are in proximity to anchor stations; defining a timeframe for analysis based on an indication extracted from the sensor information that the movable platform is stationary throughout the timeframe; determining a relative location of the anchor stations within the movable platform, whereby automatically determining a mapping of the anchor stations within the movable platform; obtaining a reading from a user device when the user device is located in proximity to at least one of the anchor stations; and determining a relative location of the user device within the movable platform based on the mapping of the anchor stations within the movable platform and based on the reading from the user device.
Alpert (2019/0130718 A1): An autonomous facility monitoring apparatus and method in a facility can remain on at all times and functions to determine whether an unauthorized person has entered or is attempting to enter the facility and/or whether an environmental danger exists or is predicted. Continuously monitoring physical characteristics of a person and/or location of a person in the facility provides information for automatically detecting and signaling a detrimental health condition, for automatically controlling operation of apparatus of the facility, for operating gaming features, and so on.