Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
The instant application having Application No. 17/908,648 has claims 21-26, 28-36, and 38-40 pending filed on 09/01/2022; there are 2 independent claims and 16 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on April 28, 2026 in response to PTO Office Action dated January 30, 2026. The Applicant’s remarks were considered with the results that follow.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
After considering the applicant’s argument for the claims 31-36 and 38-40 (dated 04/28/2026), the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained as the claim limitations meets the three-prong test (MPEP § 2181). The claims limitation(s) for the independent claim 31 “A cloud storage system, implemented by at least one server on a network, for …” do not modify the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Refer MPEP § 2181 II (B) “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35 USC § 103 Rejection of claims 21-26, 28-36, and 38-40
Independent Claims 21 and 31
CLAIM 21
Applicant argues on page 9 in regards to the independent claim 21, “Ravi employs a sequential hashing process in which outputs of prior hashing steps are reused as inputs for subsequent hashing, whereas the claimed invention requires the use of a salt as an independent input to a hash function, which is fundamentally different in structure and purpose. The claimed "salt" is an input parameter to a hash function. In contrast, Ravi's second identification number is a result of a hash function. These elements are fundamentally different in both functionality and meaning. Moreover, Ravi's third identification number is used as an external identifier for communication with a third-party provider. In contrast, the claimed link data is used internally to associate data stored in separate databases. Thus, Ravi, whether alone or in combination with Ricci, neither discloses nor suggests generating link data from vehicle identification information and a salt as claimed.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 9 in regards to the independent claim 21. The combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A) teaches all the limitations of the independent claim 21. Ravi (Paragraph [0029] and Paragraph [0030]) teaches “the VIN and timestamp may be combined by concatenating the VIN and the timestamp, the manufacturer system may then hash the first identification using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number (a randomly generated value or salt), the customer ID may be associated with the VIN received from the vehicle and the manufacturer system may also hash the second identification number (a randomly generated value or salt) with the customer ID (associated with the VIN) using a cryptographic hashing function (one way hash function) to generate a third identification number (generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt). The applicant’s argument that ‘The claimed "salt" is an input parameter to a hash function’ is incorrect as the claim limitation language only indicates “generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt” which is taught by Ravi. Thus, the applicant’s argument against Ravi is incorrect.
Applicant argues on page 9 in regards to the independent claim 21, “Independent claim 21 also requires a specific storage architecture in which vehicle identification information and salt are stored in a first database, event data and link data are stored in a second database, and interaction data and link data are stored in a third database. The Action maps Ravi's signal transmissions and system components (e.g., first signal 510, manufacturer system 230, and third-party provider 220 described in paragraphs [0040]-[0042]) to the claimed databases. However, these paragraphs merely describe communication flows between systems and do not disclose any database structures or data separation mechanisms. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that Ravi, whether alone or in combination with Ricci, again fails to disclose the above-referenced claim features“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 9 in regards to the independent claim 21. The combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A) teaches all the limitations of the independent claim 21. Ravi (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040] and Fig. 5 teaches “storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases and the vehicle 102 may transmit a first signal 510 (first database) to the manufacturer system 230 where the first signal may include the VIN and may optionally include location information of the vehicle 102). Similarly Ravi (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040], Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 5) teaches “storing the event data and the link data in a second database storing to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases, upon receipt of the VIN, the manufacturer system 230 may combine the VIN with a timestamp to create the first identification number, then perform a first hashing function by hashing the first identification using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number, may retrieve a customer ID stored on the manufacturer system 230 (second database) and perform a second hashing function on the second identification number and the customer ID to generate a third identification number)” and Ravi (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040], Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 5) teaches “storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification inform (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases, after generating the third identification number, the manufacturer system 230 may transmit a second signal 520 to the third party provider 220 containing a request for a resource allocation for the vehicle 102, by using the third identification rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed from the third party provider and In response to the request for the resource allocation, the third party provider 220 (third database) may transmit a third signal 530 back to the manufacturing system 230 having a charging schedule for the vehicle 102 along with the third identification)”. Moreover Ricci [Paragraph 0192] clearly indicates “The data storage can include any module for storing, retrieving, and/or managing data in one or more data stores and/or databases. With the combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440) and Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “a specific storage architecture could be used in which vehicle identification information and salt are stored in a first database, event data and link data are stored in a second database, and interaction data and link data are stored in a third database”. Thus, the applicant’s argument against Ravi are incorrect.
Applicant argues on page 10 in regards to the independent claim 21, “Huang merely discloses a general data expiration mechanism (see, e.g., page 6 lines 27-28 and page 9 lines 4-6) and, like Ricci and Ravi, does not disclose storing vehicle identification information separately from other data, or deleting only the identification information to eliminate linkage between separated datasets. “
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 10 in regards to the independent claim 21. The combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A) teaches all the limitations of the independent claim 21. As specified supra, the combination of Ravi and Ricci teach the “storing vehicle identification information separately from other data”. Huang (Page 6 Lines 27-28, Page 9 Lines 4-6 and Page 17 Lines 22-26]) teaches “automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection (the information processing unit through the service processing module comprises the matching sub-module to each vehicle information in the to-be-processed data storing submodule or each person information stored is valid or not, the matching sub-module by the expiration date in the preset valid period information to compare with the current date, if the expiration date is before the current date, it is indicated that the preset valid period information has expired; corresponding vehicle information or the information is invalid and the vehicle information or the same information of the identity information of the vehicle information or personal information are deleted). With the combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection”. Thus, the applicant’s argument against Huang are incorrect.
Applicant argues on page 10 in regards to the independent claim 21, “The cited references are directed to fundamentally different purposes and do not provide any motivation for such a combination. Ravi is directed to generating a unique identification number for communication with a third-party provider, as described in paragraphs [0029] and [0030], in order to maintain customer privacy in external service transactions. Ricci, on the other hand, is directed to collecting and managing vehicle-related data within a vehicle system and associated infrastructure, without any teaching regarding privacy-preserving data separation at a database level. Meanwhile, Huang discloses a general data management system in which stored data may be deleted based on a preset validity period, without addressing any specific privacy architecture or linkage mechanism between datasets.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 10 in regards to the independent claim 21. The combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A) teaches all the limitations of the independent claim 21. Ricki (Paragraph [0007]) teaches “the method comprising: receiving vehicle state data from a plurality of vehicles, the vehicle state data comprising a plurality of parameters; receiving geolocation data associated with the vehicle state data of the plurality of vehicles; receiving customer enterprise data from a customer, the customer enterprise data associated with the plurality of vehicles; aggregating the vehicle state data, the geolocation data, and the customer enterprise data associated with the plurality of vehicles to produce aggregate data; analyzing the aggregate data to provide a customer telematics analysis service to the customer”. Ravi (Paragraph [0004] teaches “it relates to a system that includes a memory that stores instructions for executing processes for creating a unique identification number to maintain customer privacy, and a processor configured to execute the instructions. In some aspects, the instructions may cause the processor to generate a first identification number based on vehicle information and a timestamp and to perform a first hashing function on the first identification number to create a second identification number (salt or a random value). The instructions may also cause the processor to perform a second hashing function on the second identification number (salt or a random value) and a customer identification number to create a third identification number (to maintain customer privacy) and to transmit an allocation resource request to a third party provider”. Huang (Page 20 Lines 14-17)) teaches “The vehicle of the invention and the traffic management system and method can be applied to intelligent park, has become an important technical means for providing community information security control, providing security service capability to the people and vehicle”. All the three prior arts teach about collecting data from vehicles, managing the privacy of the data by generating an identification number using Hash function and also a salt or random value, and the same information of the identity information of the vehicle information or personal information are deleted upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner. The motivation was clearly given in the office action to combine the three prior arts. Thus, the applicant’s argument “the cited references are directed to fundamentally different purposes and do not provide any motivation for such a combination” is incorrect.
Applicant argues on page 12 in regards to the independent claim 21, “in attempting to combine the disparate references pieced together in the Action, the rejection requires somehow reinterpreting Ravi's identifier generation scheme as a link data generation mechanism using a salt for internal data association, somehow restructuring Ricci's data management system into a multi-database architecture in which different types of data are stored separately and linked only via link data, and somehow modifying Huang's general data deletion mechanism into a selective deletion of vehicle identification information to break linkage between datasets. These modifications would fundamentally change the purposes and operations of the cited references and are not supported by any teaching or suggestion in the prior art..“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 12 in regards to the independent claim 21. For the reasons specified supra, the combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A) teaches all the limitations of the independent claim 21. Thus, the applicant’s argument “These modifications would fundamentally change the purposes and operations of the cited references and are not supported by any teaching or suggestion in the prior art” is incorrect.
Applicant argues on page 12 in regards to the independent claim 21, “For at least the reasons discussed above, Ricci, Ravi, and Huang, whether alone or in combination with each other or any other reference cited in the Action, fail to disclose, at least, the above-recited features of amended independent claim 21, and therefore cannot render amended independent claim 21 obvious. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that independent claim 21 is allowable.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 12 in regards to the independent claim 21. For the reasons specified supra, the combination of Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440), Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960) and Huang et al (CN106485636A) teaches all the limitations of the independent claim 21. Thus, the independent claim 21 is not allowable.
CLAIM 31
Applicant argues on page 12 in regards to the independent claim 31, “Applicant further respectfully asserts that amended independent claim 31 is allowable for at least the same reasons as those discussed above with regards to claim 21.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments on page 12 in regards to the independent claim 31. For the reasons specified supra for the independent Claim 21, the independent claim 31 is not allowable.
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.
The 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component in claims 31-36 and 38-40.
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.
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.
Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci Christopher (US PGPUB 20190279440) in view of Ravi et al (US PGPUB 20190074960).in further view of Huang et al (CN106485636A).
As per claim 21:
Ricci teaches:
“A method, performed by at least one server on a network, for collecting and managing vehicle-generated data from a vehicle while ensuring personal privacy protection, the method comprising” (Paragraph [0007] and Paragraph [0593] (a method is disclosed, the method comprising: receiving vehicle state data from a plurality of vehicles, the vehicle state data comprising a plurality of parameters and can provide for a number of communication participation node rules and controls for the privacy and security of information associated with the user's vehicle))
“receiving, via a secure channel, an event report message and an interaction report message from the vehicle” (Paragraph [0012] and Paragraph [0599] (include a vehicle control system, comprising, a vehicle, a vehicle control system coupled to the vehicle, and a communications unit using secured transmission channels coupled to the vehicle control system wherein the vehicle control system synchronizes with the vehicle control system and generates a notice for a first user based on an event and a supplemental factor))
“the event report message comprising vehicle identification information and event data stored by an event data recorder of the vehicle” (Paragraph [0172] and Paragraph [0571] (in any event, the data may be stored as device data and/or profile data in a storage system and the event report notification may consist of the external SSID used by vehicles may be associated with a unique name followed by the vehicle's identification number))
“and the interaction report message comprising the vehicle identification information and interaction data indicative of an interaction between an autonomous driving system of the vehicle and a driver” (Paragraph [0307] and Paragraph [0038] (a user/device interaction subsystem in a vehicle system may include, but are not limited to, providing information to the user, receiving input from the user (driver), and controlling the functions or operation of the vehicle, the device interaction module may communicate with the various devices, the device interaction module can provide content, information, data, and/or media associated with the various subsystems of the vehicle system to one or more devices)).
Ricci does not EXPLICITLY teaches: generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt; wherein the link data ensures de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information; storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection; storing the event data and the link data in a second database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information; storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information; automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection.
However, in an analogous art, Ravi teaches:
“generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt” (Paragraph [0029] and Paragraph [0030] (the VIN and timestamp may be combined by concatenating the VIN and the timestamp, the manufacturer system may then hash the first identification using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number (a randomly generated value or salt), the customer ID may be associated with the VIN received from the vehicle and the manufacturer system may also hash the second identification number (a randomly generated value or salt) with the customer ID (associated with the VIN) using a cryptographic hashing function (one way hash function) to generate a third identification number (generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt)))
“wherein the link data ensures de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information” (Paragraph [0031] (by using the third identification (link data) rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed (de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information) from the third party provider))
“storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection” (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040] and Fig. 5 (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases and the vehicle 102 may transmit a first signal 510 (first database) to the manufacturer system 230 where the first signal may include the VIN and may optionally include location information of the vehicle 102))
“storing the event data and the link data in a second database storing to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information” (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040], Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 5 (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases, upon receipt of the VIN, the manufacturer system 230 may combine the VIN with a timestamp to create the first identification number, then perform a first hashing function by hashing the first identification using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number, may retrieve a customer ID stored on the manufacturer system 230 (second database) and perform a second hashing function on the second identification number and the customer ID to generate a third identification number)).
“storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information” (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0041], Paragraph [0042] and Fig. 5 (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases, after generating the third identification number, the manufacturer system 230 may transmit a second signal 520 to the third party provider 220 containing a request for a resource allocation for the vehicle 102, by using the third identification rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed from the third party provider and In response to the request for the resource allocation, the third party provider 220 (third database) may transmit a third signal 530 back to the manufacturing system 230 having a charging schedule for the vehicle 102 along with the third identification)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Ravi and apply them on teachings of Ricci for the method “generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt; wherein the link data ensures de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information; storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection; storing the event data and the link data in a second database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information; storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information”. One would be motivated as by using the third identification (link data) rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such that the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed from the third party provider (Ravi, Paragraph [0041]).
Ricci and Ravi do not EXPLICITLY teach: automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection.
However, in an analogous art, Huang teaches:
“automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection” (Page 6 Lines 27-28, Page 9 Lines 4-6 and Page 17 Lines 22-26 (the information processing unit through the service processing module comprises the matching sub-module to each vehicle information in the to-be-processed data storing submodule or each person information stored is valid or not, the matching sub-module by the expiration date in the preset valid period information to compare with the current date, if the expiration date is before the current date, it is indicated that the preset valid period information has expired; corresponding vehicle information or the information is invalid and the vehicle information or the same information of the identity information of the vehicle information or personal information are deleted)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Huang and apply them on teachings of Ricci and Ravi for the method “automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection”. One would be motivated as ; The vehicle of the invention and the traffic management system and method can be applied to intelligent park system, has become an important technical means for providing community information security control, providing security service capability to the people and vehicle (Huang, Page 20 Lines 14-17).
As per claim 22:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 21 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“wherein deleting the vehicle identification information or the salt from the first database s performed when it is desired to remove an association between the vehicle identification information and the event data or an association between the vehicle identification information and the interaction data” (Paragraph [0674] (in the case of an updated displayed element, the switch may be activated and once the switch is made, the pre-updated version of the application may be deleted from memory)).
As per claim 23:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 21 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“maintaining the event data and the interaction data in the second database and the third database” (Paragraph [0703] (online database is maintained for each vehicle and driver which may include download data on the state of the vehicle, and may receive warnings and potentially video when a trigger occurs))
“deleting the vehicle identification information of the vehicle or the salt from the first database in response to expiration of the validity period set by the vehicle owner of the vehicle” (Paragraph [0674] and Paragraph [0675] (the time period may be associated with a type of update, a state of the vehicle, and/or a communication ability of the vehicle and in the case of an updated displayed element, the switch may be activated and once the switch is made, the pre-updated version of the application may be deleted from memory)).
As per claim 24:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 21 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“receiving a request message requesting deletion of the vehicle identification information, the event data, or the interaction data” (Paragraph [0171] (the user may interact with the vehicle control system through the interface or device and the device may include or have access (delete) to device data and/or profile data))
“deleting the vehicle identification information, the link data, the event data, or the interaction data from a related database in response to receiving the request message” (Paragraph [0674] (in the case of an updated displayed element, the switch may be activated and once the switch is made, the pre-updated version of the application may be deleted from memory)).
As per claim 25:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 24 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“mitigating a security level of a right to use related event data and interaction data stored in the second database and the third database in an event of deleting the vehicle identification information or the salt from the first database” (Paragraph [0299] ( the profile identification module may request profile information from a user and/or a device to access a profile stored in a profile database (first database) and the profile identification module may include rules for profile identification, profile information retrieval, creation, modification, and/or control of components in the system)).
As per claim 26:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 25 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“the event data or the interaction data for which the security level is not mitigated is retrieved from the second database or the third database based on the link data reconstructed from the salt and related vehicle identification information stored in the first database” (Paragraph [0171] (the user may thus interact with the vehicle control system through the interface or device where the device may include or have access to device data and/or profile data))
“the event data or the interaction data for which the security level is mitigated is allowed to be retrieved directly from the second database or the third database without the reconstructed link data” (Paragraph [0228] (the host device 908 may include one more routing profiles, permission modules, and rules (security level is mitigated) that control how communications within the vehicle are to occur and one or more of the other devices can communicate directly with the host device which then provides Internet access to those devices via the device))).
As per claim 28:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 21 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“wherein the vehicle identification information is a vehicle identification number (VIN)” (Paragraph [0571] and Paragraph [0612] (the vehicle identifier can be a numeric, alpha numeric, globally unique identifier (GUID), or any other type of identifier, may be associated with a unique name, followed by the vehicle's identification number or VIN)).
As per claim 29:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 21 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“wherein the link data is a de-identified version of a vehicle identification number (VIN) generated by” (Paragraph [0571] (the external SSID used by vehicles may be associated with a unique name followed by the vehicle's identification number (e.g., Vehicle Identification Number, or VIN))
“and replacing the subset of digits of the VIN with the hash value” (Paragraph [0616] (the communication authorization field may include information that can be used by another entity in establishing an authorized use. and at least one key, hash, code, and/or other security data (replacing the subset of digits of the VIN with the hash value) configured to selectively allow access to a communication ability of the vehicle)).
Also, Ravi further teaches:
“generating a hash value by applying the one-way hash function to a concatenation of the salt and a subset of digits of the Vehicle Identification Number or VIN of the vehicle” (Paragraph [0029] (the manufacturer system may receive the VIN from the vehicle and combine the VIN with a timestamp to create a first identification number and the manufacturer system may then hash the first identification number using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number)).
As per claim 30:
Ricci, Ravi and Huang teach the method of claim 29 above.
Ricci further teaches:
“wherein the subset of digits comprises a production serial number” (Paragraph [0571] (it utilizes unique identification numbers (production serial number) and/or SSIDs, passwords may be encoded and only used by vehicles and not for general purpose connections)).
As per claim 31:
Ricci teaches:
“A cloud storage system, implemented by at least one server ona network, for collecting and managing vehicle-generated data from a vehicle while ensuring personal privacy protection, the system comprising” (Paragraph [0008], Paragraph [0177] and Paragraph [0593] (a system is disclosed, the system may communicate through the communication network to a server where the server may represent a cloud computing system and comprising: receiving vehicle state data from a plurality of vehicles, the vehicle state data comprising a plurality of parameters and controls for the privacy and security of information associated with the user's vehicle))
“means for receiving, via a secure channel, an event report message and an interaction report message from the vehicle” (Paragraph [0012] and Paragraph [0599] (include a vehicle control system, comprising, a vehicle, a vehicle control system coupled to the vehicle, and a communications unit using secured transmission channels coupled to the vehicle control system wherein the vehicle control system synchronizes with the vehicle control system and generates a notice for a first user based on an event and a supplemental factor))
“the event report message comprising vehicle identification information and event data stored by an event data recorder of the vehicle” (Paragraph [0172] and Paragraph [0571] (in any event, the data may be stored as device data and/or profile data in a storage system and the event report notification may consist of the external SSID used by vehicles may be associated with a unique name followed by the vehicle's identification number))
“and the interaction report message comprising the vehicle identification information and interaction data indicative of an interaction between an autonomous driving system of the vehicle and a driver” (Paragraph [0307] and Paragraph [0038] (a user/device interaction subsystem in a vehicle system may include, but are not limited to, providing information to the user, receiving input from the user (driver), and controlling the functions or operation of the vehicle, the device interaction module may communicate with the various devices, the device interaction module can provide content, information, data, and/or media associated with the various subsystems of the vehicle system to one or more devices)).
Ricci does not EXPLICITLY teaches: means for generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt; wherein the link data ensures de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information; means for storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection; means for storing the event data and the link data in a second database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information; means for storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information; means for automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection.
However, in an analogous art, Ravi teaches:
“means for generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt” (Paragraph [0029] and Paragraph [0030] (the VIN and timestamp may be combined by concatenating the VIN and the timestamp, the manufacturer system may then hash the first identification using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number (a randomly generated value or salt), the customer ID may be associated with the VIN received from the vehicle and the manufacturer system may also hash the second identification number (a randomly generated value or salt) with the customer ID (associated with the VIN) using a cryptographic hashing function (one way hash function) to generate a third identification number (means for generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt)))
““wherein the link data ensures de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information” (Paragraph [0031] (by using the third identification (link data) rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed (de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information) from the third party provider))
“means for storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection” (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040] and Fig. 5 (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases and the vehicle 102 may transmit a first signal 510 (first database) to the manufacturer system 230 where the first signal may include the VIN and may optionally include location information of the vehicle 102))
“means for storing the event data and the link data in a second database storing to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information” (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0040], Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 5 (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases, upon receipt of the VIN, the manufacturer system 230 may combine the VIN with a timestamp to create the first identification number, then perform a first hashing function by hashing the first identification using a cryptographic hashing function to generate a second identification number, may retrieve a customer ID stored on the manufacturer system 230 (second database) and perform a second hashing function on the second identification number and the customer ID to generate a third identification number)).
“means for storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information” (Paragraph [0041], Paragraph [0042] and Fig. 5 (Paragraph [0029], Paragraph [0041], Paragraph [0042] and Fig. 5 (the manufacturer system 230 may include one or more databases, after generating the third identification number, the manufacturer system 230 may transmit a second signal 520 to the third party provider 220 containing a request for a resource allocation for the vehicle 102, by using the third identification rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed from the third party provider and In response to the request for the resource allocation, the third party provider 220 (third database) may transmit a third signal 530 back to the manufacturing system 230 having a charging schedule for the vehicle 102 along with the third identification)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Ravi and apply them on teachings of Ricci for the method “means for generating link data by applying a one-way hash function to the vehicle identification information and a salt; wherein the link data ensures de-identification or pseudonymization of the vehicle identification information; means for storing the vehicle identification information and the salt in a first database separated from the event data and the interaction data to enhance privacy protection; means for storing the event data and the link data in a second database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information; means for storing the interaction data and the link data in a third database to prevent direct association with the vehicle identification information”. One would be motivated as by using the third identification (link data) rather than the VIN or the customer ID, such that the identity of the vehicle and the customer are both concealed from the third party provider (Ravi, Paragraph [0041]).
Ricci and Ravi do not EXPLICITLY teach: means for automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection.
However, in an analogous art, Huang teaches:
“means for automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection” (Page 6 Lines 27-28, Page 9 Lines 4-6 and Page 17 Lines 22-26 (the information processing unit through the service processing module comprises the matching sub-module to each vehicle information in the to-be-processed data storing submodule or each person information stored is valid or not, the matching sub-module by the expiration date in the preset valid period information to compare with the current date, if the expiration date is before the current date, it is indicated that the preset valid period information has expired; corresponding vehicle information or the information is invalid and the vehicle information or the same information of the identity information of the vehicle information or personal information are deleted)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Huang and apply them on teachings of Ricci and Ravi for the method “means for automatically deleting the vehicle identification information from the first database upon expiration of a validity period set by a vehicle owner or in response to a request for deletion from the vehicle owner, thereby ensuring privacy protection”. One would be motivated as the vehicle of the invention and the traffic management system and method can be applied to intelligent park system, has become an important technical means for providing community information security control, providing security service capability to the people and vehicle (Huang, Page 20 Lines 14-17).
As per claim 32, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 31 and the claim 22 above.
As per claim 33, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 31 and the claim 23 above.
As per claim 34, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 31 and the claim 24 above.
As per claim 35, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 34 and the claim 25 above.
As per claim 36, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 35 and the claim 26 above.
As per claim 38, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 31 and the claim 28 above.
As per claim 39, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 31 and the claim 29 above.
As per claim 40, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 39 and the claim 30 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang et al, (US PGPUB 20230298403), A vehicle that includes a policy manager circuit, an endpoint, and a vehicle data interface. The policy manager circuit interprets a data collection policy including a trigger condition and a trigger evaluation data identifier. The endpoint captures a trigger evaluation data stream in response to the trigger evaluation data identifier and the trigger condition. The vehicle data interface receives the trigger evaluation data stream
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONY MAHMOUDI can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/Kamal K Dewan/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
