Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,104,245

Introduction

This analysis examines the obviousness of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,104,245, titled "Vehicles and cloud systems for sharing e-keys to access and use vehicles," under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The '245 patent describes a system and method for a vehicle owner to generate and share a temporary electronic key (e-key) with another user, granting them access to and use of the vehicle with specific, remotely-defined privileges.

A claimed invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). This analysis will demonstrate that the key elements of the '245 patent's claims were present in the prior art and that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine these elements to arrive at the claimed invention.

Summary of Key Claim Elements

The independent claims of the '245 patent generally recite a method and system comprising:

• A server that receives a request from a primary user to grant a guest user access to a vehicle.
• The server generates a unique access code (e-key) and associates it with specific privileges or conditions of use (e.g., time limits, geographic restrictions, speed limits).
• The e-key is transmitted to the guest user's mobile device.
• The guest user's device communicates with the vehicle to unlock and operate it, subject to the defined privileges.
• The system monitors the vehicle's usage and can send notifications or take action if the conditions of use are violated.

Prior Art and Motivation to Combine

The following prior art references, individually and in combination, render the claims of the '245 patent obvious.

1. "VEHICLES AND CLOUD SYSTEMS FOR ASSIGNING TEMPORARY E-KEYS TO ACCESS USE OF A VEHICLE" (Continuation Application)

The '245 patent itself is a continuation of a series of applications, including one with a similar title. This earlier work by the same inventors lays the groundwork for the claimed invention, describing the core concept of sharing digital car keys (e-keys) between mobile devices to allow access and control of a vehicle. It discloses the use of a server to register and authenticate e-keys, and the ability of a primary user to send an invitation to another user to create an e-key.

2. US Patent Application Publication No. US20210168602A1 ("Vehicle digital key sharing service method and system")

This application, published before the '245 patent's issue date, discloses a comprehensive system for sharing digital vehicle keys. It explicitly details a "master terminal" (primary user) sharing a digital key with a "shared terminal" (guest user) via a management server. Crucially, this reference teaches the ability of the master terminal to "restrict the use of the digital key by setting a restriction value," such as a "usable period, the number of usable times, a usable area, re-sharable information, and the like." This directly anticipates the concept of associating "privileges" or "conditions of use" with the e-key, a central tenet of the '245 patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the specific types of restrictions mentioned in this prior art to the general e-key sharing framework.

3. Technical Disclosure Commons Publication: "DIGITAL VEHICLE KEY ACCESS FOR PROVIDING RESTRICTED VEHICLE USAGE"

This publication further solidifies the public availability of the core inventive concepts. It describes a system where a vehicle owner can use a computing device to provide ownership information to a remote cloud server. This server then generates an "anonymous digital key" for a third party, which can be configured with "various geographic restrictions, performance restrictions, time restrictions, etc." This directly mirrors the functionality claimed in the '245 patent. The motivation to implement such a system is inherent in the problem it solves: providing temporary and controlled access to a vehicle for services like valet parking without handing over a physical key.

4. "Key FOB Security Copy to a Mobile Phone" (Prior Art cited in PTAB proceeding)

This prior art, cited in an inter partes review against a related patent by the same assignee, discloses a vehicle computing system with an integrated vehicle rental micro-business. This suggests the use of technology to manage and control vehicle access for rental or sharing purposes, which would inherently require features like temporary access and user-specific permissions. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found claims of a related patent unpatentable as obvious over this and other prior art. This indicates a high likelihood that the concepts were known in the art.

Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art, such as an automotive engineer or a software developer in the connected vehicle space, would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references. The art was clearly moving towards digital key solutions to enhance convenience and security. Combining a cloud-based key generation and management system with the ability to impose user-specific restrictions is a logical and predictable step.

The problem to be solved—providing temporary and controlled access to a vehicle—was well-known. The prior art already presented the necessary components: cloud-based key management, mobile device integration, and the concept of setting restrictions on vehicle use. Combining these known elements to create the system described in the '245 patent would have been a matter of applying known techniques to a known problem to achieve a predictable result. The Federal Circuit has affirmed that a motivation to combine can arise from the nature of the problem to be solved and the knowledge of those skilled in the art.

Conclusion

The claims of US Patent 11,104,245 are rendered obvious by a combination of prior art references. The core concepts of generating, sharing, and managing electronic vehicle keys with user-specific restrictions were all present in the art prior to the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these existing technologies to create the system claimed in the '245 patent. Therefore, the claims of US Patent 11,104,245 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.