DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/30/2025 having claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-30 pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-30 are examined and being considered on the merits.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-11, 13, 15, 19-24 and 28-30 have been amended, and all other claims are previously presented.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-30 are submitted for examination.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-30 are pending.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 30, 2025 has claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-11, 13, 15, 19-24 and 28-30 have been amended, and all other claims are previously presented.
Applicant’s remark, filed on December 30, 2025 at page 10, indicates, “The Office noted that the "means for" language in claims 19-26 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Applicant reserves the right to provide further comment on the corresponding structures and does not concede the accuracy or completeness of the structures, if any, identified in the Office Action. Applicant also notes that the interpretation of claims 19-26 should not be limited only to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in Applicant's specification, but should also include "equivalents thereof." See 35US.C. § 112(f) (or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph); In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applicant’s argument has been considered; however, the amendment to the pending independent claim 19 still recites the “means for” limitations and meets the 3-prong test. Therefore, the pending independent claim 19 (and respective dependent claims) are still interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s remark, filed on December 30, 2025 at pages 10-14, indicates, “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the above rejections, and submits that the pending claims, without amendments, are allowable over any combination of the cited references. Nevertheless, for purposes of expediting prosecution, and without conceding the propriety of the Office's rejections, independent claims 1, 10, 19 and 28 and various dependent claims are amended … As noted above, the Office rejected claim 1 as allegedly being obvious in view of the combination of Zhao, Katz, and Zhu. Applicant has amended claim 1 and respectfully requests reconsideration of the claim in its new form. For example, it is submitted that the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu fails to disclose or make obvious all features of amended claim 1. Zhao describes that, "in order to prevent the ordinary vehicle from maliciously using the priority passing function of the invention under the condition of no necessity, the invention is also provided with a subsequent checking step, namely, whether the ordinary vehicle appears in any one of the determined specific places within a predetermined time period of the smooth route is judged, if not, the ordinary vehicle is judged to maliciously use the priority passing function of the invention, and a responsive control measure is started." Zhao, page 10, para. 10. Katz describes a "control unit 706 receives a preemption request from a connected road user" and that "the connected road user may send an SRM message with its calculated ETA to a location (e.g., location 613 at intersection 600) and indicate it wants priority in a specific part of the road network at a predetermined time." Katz, col. 13, In. 31-38. The "[c]ontrol unit 706 may provide preemption for the connected user if the user is listed in the 'whitelist' 774." Id. Zhu describes "determining of geographical position spoofing, and comparing a position different between a position in a position filed in a CAM of the sender and a position of a receiver with the geographical position spoofing threshold." Zhu, para. [0015]. Zhu further describes that "[i]f the position difference is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold, it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal position behavior feature." Id. Zhu describes that "[t]he V2X sending terminal first reports the historical position and the corresponding time stamp, and then reports the current position and the corresponding time stamp." Id. at para. [0188]. Zhu explains that "[i]t may be determined, based on received periodic report messages and the preset third speed threshold, whether the abnormal speed behavior feature is met. The third speed threshold may be set based on a specific scenario." Id. Zhu describes that "the periodic report message parameter check policy includes the speed validity check method." Id. Zhu explains that "[i]f the position difference divided by the time difference is greater than MaxSpeed, it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal speed behavior feature." Id. … However, Applicant submits that the combination of Zhao, Katz, and Zhu fails to describe "determining, in response to determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on the same cryptographic certificate, a required speed of the vehicle to travel from the first location to the second location during an interval between the first time and the second time; determining that the required speed exceeds a speed threshold allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location; determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time based on the required speed exceeding the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location," as recited in amended claim 1. Zhu further explains that if a position difference divided by a time difference exceeds "MaxSpeed," it is determined that there is an "abnormal speed behavior feature." Id. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Zhu's disclosure of a speed threshold, despite the use of the label "MaxSpeed," does not describe or suggest a speed threshold that is "allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location," as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Zhu's speed threshold is a configurable, scenario-based parameter used to flag abnormal behavior in periodic V2X report messages, and is not derived from or constrained by roadway route-specific feasibility factors. Indeed, a determination that behavior is "abnormal" does not necessarily mean that the underlying travel was physically infeasible. A speed may be characterized as abnormal under a policy-defined or scenario-based threshold, yet still be physically feasible along a roadway route given applicable road conditions. For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Zhao, Katz, and Zhu fails to disclose or make obvious all features of claim 1. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is in condition for allowance.”
Applicant’s argument has been considered and is not found persuasive. Arguments are not persuasive, as follows:
Specifically, Zhu discloses a method for detecting abnormal behavior of a vehicle in a V2X network (See Abstract). Specifically, Parag. [0180-0188] of Zhu discloses that a vehicle reports its location with an associated timestamp, and the system compares the distance and the elapsed time to calculate a speed for the vehicle. The system further determines whether the vehicle exhibits any abnormal movement when the calculated speed (i.e., required speed) exceeds a speed threshold. In addition, Zhu discloses a method that verifies if the location or position is valid through the verification of a certificate signature included in the message sent by the vehicle (See Parag. [0183] and [0273]). Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that Zhu’s calculated speed represents the speed required for the vehicle to travel between a first location and a second location within a given time period. Finally, Applicant indicates that Zhu's disclosure of a speed threshold, despite the use of the label "MaxSpeed", does not describe or suggest a speed threshold that is "allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location," as recited in amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant as Zhu clearly discloses a comparison of the calculated speed to a speed threshold tied to roadway conditions. As stated above, the calculated speed described in Zhu, according to parag. [0188], represents the speed required for the vehicle to travel between a first location and a second location within a given time period and is determined whether it is greater than the MaxSpeed. Furthermore, Zhu discloses, in parag. [0304], a speed field in a CAM sent by any vehicle on the congested road (i.e., road condition) section is checked to determine if the speed is higher than a threshold T_TrafficUpSpeed”.
Accordingly, Examiner submits the teaching from parags. [0188] and [0304] of Zhu renders the feature of determining of whether a vehicle speed is exceeding a speed threshold set for a particular road condition obvious since Zhu’s MaxSpeed is to be set as T_TrafficUpSpeed, when driving on the congested road. That is, the check is made on whether vehicle is moving at a calculated speed that is higher than a threshold T_TrafficUpSpeed when the traffic congestion is indicated (i.e., the vehicle’ speed is exceeding the allowable speed accordingly to the road conditions of a roadway route).
Finally, Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu still renders the claimed limitations of the amended independent claim 1 obvious. Specifically, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu discloses the amended feature limitations, “determining, in response to determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on the same cryptographic certificate, a required speed of the vehicle to travel from the first location to the second location during an interval between the first time and the second time; determining that the required speed exceeds a speed threshold allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location; determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time based on the required speed exceeding the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location”. Please refer to the detailed rejection below).
Regarding amended independent claims 10, 19 and 28, has been considered and is addressed based on the same rationale presented for the amended independent claim 1.
Regarding argument for the dependent claims, please refer to the aforementioned response, which addresses how the combination of the applied prior-art references by Zhao, Katz, and Zhu would be applicable to the pending independent claims. In addition, newly identified prior-art reference by Wei, which describes detecting and selecting a route from a plurality or roadway routes available from a first location to a second location and prior-art reference by Pilluti, which describes determining a speed limit based on the geometry of the road, when in combination with the previously applied prior-art references by Zhao, Katz, and Zhu, would render the newly amended dependent claims 2, 4, 11, 13 20, 22, 29 and 30 obvious. Please refer to the detailed rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”. Such claim limitations are: means for receiving, means for determining, means for comparing and means for performing in claim 19; means for determining in claims 20-24; means for performing in claims 25-26; and means for disapproving, means for notifying, means for issuing in claim 26. 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. In the specification paragraph [0007], is cited “a computing device having various means for performing functions corresponding to any of the methods summarized above”. Accordingly, the description in paragraphs [0056]-[0058] and [0065] as well as paragraphs [0066] and [0096]-[0097] of the Specification provides the structural support for the various means recited in the abovementioned claims.
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
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12, 15-19, 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 114627663A) in view of Katz et al. (US 11,967,230) hereinafter Katz and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2021/0281986) hereinafter Zhu.
As per Claim 1, Zhao teaches a method of managing privileged operation request misbehavior, comprising:
receiving, by a network computing device, a first privileged operation request purportedly from a vehicle at a first location at a first time (Zhao, page 3, lines 25-32; “In the embodiment of the invention, the requests for giving priority to pass by vehicles of different vehicle types are different for common vehicles, for example, small vehicles are usually required to pass by priority in emergency, for example, a taxi sends a heart disease sender to go to a hospital; the medium and large-sized vehicles are more in need of preferential passing due to the reason of out-of-control vehicles and the like. In view of the above, the present invention determines different priority passing schemes according to the vehicle type information of the identified common vehicle sending the priority passing request (i.e. first request), that is, plans an unobstructed route to a specific place for the small-sized vehicle, plans a safe route for the medium-sized vehicle and the large-sized vehicle, and determines the signal regulation and control scheme of the corresponding intersection according to the route, so as to satisfy different priority request reasons of different vehicle types.” … page 6, lines 17-21; “Preferably, the method further comprises: acquiring a current date attribute; then the determining a number of specific locations corresponding to the current location of the general vehicle includes: determining a plurality of specific places where the common vehicle is located currently according to the date attribute; and planning a corresponding unimpeded route based on time and/or distance according to the current position of the common vehicle and the positions of the specific places.”) and [a second privileged operation request purportedly from the vehicle at a second location at a second time]; and
[determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on a same cryptographic certificate];
[determining, in response to determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on the same cryptographic certificate, a required speed of the vehicle to travel from the first location to the second location during an interval between the first time and the second time];
[determining that the required speed exceeds a speed threshold allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location];
[determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time based on the required speed exceeding the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location]; and
performing a security action in response to determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time (Zhao, page 10, parag. 10; “In the embodiment of the invention, in order to prevent the ordinary vehicle from maliciously using the priority passing function of the invention under the condition of no necessity, the invention is also provided with a subsequent checking step, namely, whether the ordinary vehicle appears in any one of the determined specific places within a predetermined time period of the smooth route is judged, if not, the ordinary vehicle is judged to maliciously use the priority passing function of the invention, and a responsive control measure is started.”).
Zhao does not expressly teach:
a second privileged operation request purportedly from the vehicle at a second location at a second time;
determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on a same cryptographic certificate;
determining, in response to determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on the same cryptographic certificate, a required speed of the vehicle to travel from the first location to the second location during an interval between the first time and the second time;
determining that the required speed exceeds a speed threshold allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location;
determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time based on the required speed exceeding the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location.
However, Katz teaches:
a second privileged operation request purportedly from the vehicle at a second location at a second time (Katz, Col. 13, lines 31-55 “In one embodiment, control unit 706 receives a preemption request from a connected road user. For example, the connected road user may send an SRM message with its calculated ETA to a location (e.g., location 613 at intersection 600) and indicate it wants priority in a specific part of the road network at a predetermined time (Examiner submits the request is interpreted as the second privileged operation because is requesting priority for a second location at a predetermined time). Control unit 706 may provide preemption for the connected user if the user is listed in the “whitelist” 774. Once it is determined that the connected road user should be within the sensor FOV (e.g., based on the parameters transmitted by the connected user and/or based on its calculated ETA), the connected road user is matched to road users in locations within the sensor FOV, using a virtual map. If no match is found for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 5 seconds), an identifier of the connected road user (e.g. his V2X digital certificate, license plate number, etc.) is added to the “greylist” 773. Information is then sent (e.g. using an email, SMS, NTCIP or any suitable API) by the control unit 706 to the city's traffic management center (TMC) 781 and to the Original Equipment Manufacturer—OEM 782 (e.g. the vehicle manufacturer or operator) regarding a possible malfunction or hacking attempt by the connected road user. The connected road user's identifier may then be moved (at the TMC 781 and/or OEM 782 discretion) to the “blacklist” 772 or to the “whitelist” 774.”).
Zhao and Katz are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for providing a method, to provide security procedures to countermeasure attacks to a V2X network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Katz system into Zhao system, with a motivation to provide a security measure against the identified vehicle if confirmed that is not authorized to performed the privileged request (Katz, Col. 13, lines 31-55).
The combination of Zhao and Katz does not expressly teach:
determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on a same cryptographic certificate;
determining, in response to determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on the same cryptographic certificate, a required speed of the vehicle to travel from the first location to the second location during an interval between the first time and the second time;
determining that the required speed exceeds a speed threshold allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location;
determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time based on the required speed exceeding the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location;
However, Zhu teaches:
determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on a same cryptographic certificate (Zhu, Parag. [0111]; “For example, the certificate information security check policy may include a V2X certificate information security check type, for example, a message checking per mission, to check whether an AID and an SSP that are carried in a V2X message are in a list of an authorization certificate. The periodic report message parameter check policy may include a CAM parameter check type, for example, geographical position spoofing . The difference between referencePosition field in the CAM of the sender and the position of the receiver is compared. If the difference is greater than T_MaxDis, the behavior is determined as geographical position spoofing.” … Parag. [0073]; “A message signature check: A public key of an authorization certificate is used to check whether a message signature is successful.”)
determining, in response to determining the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request are each signed based on the same cryptographic certificate, a required speed of the vehicle to travel from the first location to the second location during an interval between the first time and the second time (Zhu, Parag. [0015]; “For example, the abnormal position behavior feature includes determining of geographical position spoofing, and comparing a position difference between a position in a position field in a CAM of the sender and a position of a receiver with the geographical position spoofing threshold. If the position difference is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold, it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal position behavior feature. In addition, the abnormal position behavior feature may further include a feature of first message position validity check (i.e. verifying certificate signature).” … Parag. [0182]; “The V2X sending terminal and the V2X receiving terminal each may send a periodic report message, where the periodic report message may be a CAM. The periodic report message includes the position of the V2X communications terminal. Therefore, it may be determined whether the position difference between the current position of the V2X sending terminal and the current position of the V2X receiving terminal is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold. For example, the abnormal position behavior feature includes determining of the geographical position spoofing, and comparing the position difference between the position in reference Position field in the CAM of the sender and the position of the receiver with the geographical position spoofing threshold. If the position difference is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold (T_MaxDis), it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal position behavior feature.” … Parag. [0188]; “The V2X sending terminal first reports the historical position and the corresponding time stamp, and then reports the current position and the corresponding time stamp. In this way, the V2X receiving terminal may receive a plurality of positions and corresponding time stamps (i.e., first and second positions at a time interval) reported by the V2X sending terminal. It may be determined, based on received periodic report messages and the preset third speed threshold, whether the abnormal speed behavior feature is met. The third speed threshold may be set based on a specific scenario. The V2X sending terminal reports the first historical position and the corresponding time stamp. For example, the first historical position is the last reported vehicle position (i.e., first position) before the V2X sending terminal reports the current vehicle position (i.e., second position). For example, the periodic report message parameter check policy includes the speed validity check method. The position difference between the historical path in pathHistory field of the sender and the position in the current referencePosition field of the sender is compared. If the position difference divided by the time difference is greater than MaxSpeed (i.e., allowed speed), it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal speed behavior feature.” … Parag. [0273]; “A message signature check: A public key of an authorization certificate is used to check whether a message signature is successful.” … Parag. [0278]; “A speed validity check method: A historical path of a pathHistory field of the sender is compared with a current position in the referencePosition field of the sender to obtain a difference. If the position difference divided by a time difference (i.e., required speed) is greater than MaxSpeed, the behavior is determined as speed spoofing.” Examiner submits that the calculated speed (relation of position and time) has been interpreted as the required speed and the speed threshold as the maximum allowed by roadway.);
determining that the required speed exceeds a speed threshold allowable by road conditions of a roadway route from the first location to the second location (Zhu, Parag. [0188]; “The V2X sending terminal first reports the historical position and the corresponding time stamp, and then reports the current position and the corresponding time stamp. In this way, the V2X receiving terminal may receive a plurality of positions and corresponding time stamps (i.e., first and second positions at a time interval) reported by the V2X sending terminal. It may be determined, based on received periodic report messages and the preset third speed threshold, whether the abnormal speed behavior feature is met. The third speed threshold may be set based on a specific scenario. The V2X sending terminal reports the first historical position and the corresponding time stamp. For example, the first historical position is the last reported vehicle position (i.e., first position) before the V2X sending terminal reports the current vehicle position (i.e., second position). For example, the periodic report message parameter check policy includes the speed validity check method. The position difference between the historical path in pathHistory field of the sender and the position in the current referencePosition field of the sender is compared. If the position difference divided by the time difference is greater than MaxSpeed (i.e., allowed speed), it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal speed behavior feature.” … Parag. [0278]; “A speed validity check method: A historical path of a pathHistory field of the sender is compared with a current position in the referencePosition field of the sender to obtain a difference. If the position difference divided by a time difference (i.e., required speed) is greater than MaxSpeed, the behavior is determined as speed spoofing.” … Parag. [0304]; “For example, the vehicle M reports a DENM indicating that traffic congestion (i.e., road condition) increases on a road section. A speed field in a CAM sent by any vehicle on the congested road section is checked. If a speed (i.e., required speed) is higher than a threshold T_TrafficUpSpeed (i.e., speed threshold based on a traffic condition), traffic congestion information reported by the vehicle M is considered to be abnormal.” … Parag. [0313]; “The vehicle M reports that a road section is a dangerous road section. For example, the road section cannot be passed through in a short period of time because of a subsidence. A CAM of any vehicle on the road section is checked. If a driving direction does not change or a speed field does not decrease, a message that is about the dangerous road section and that is reported by the vehicle M is considered as an abnormal message.”)
determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time based on the required speed exceeding the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location (Zhu, Parag. [0278]; “A speed validity check method: A historical path of a pathHistory field of the sender is compared with a current position in the referencePosition field of the sender to obtain a difference. If the position difference divided by a time difference is greater than MaxSpeed, the behavior is determined as speed spoofing.” … Parag. [0304]; “For example, the vehicle M reports a DENM indicating that traffic congestion (i.e., road condition) increases on a road section. A speed field in a CAM sent by any vehicle on the congested road section is checked. If a speed is higher than a threshold T_TrafficUpSpeed, traffic congestion information reported by the vehicle M is considered to be abnormal.” … Parag. [0312-0313]; “Hazardous location surface condition (dangerous areas: stone slippage, earthquake damage, sewer collapse, road subsidence, snow heap, storm damage, blasting pipe, volcanic eruption, and ice falling ). The vehicle M reports that a road section is a dangerous road section. For example, the road section cannot be passed through in a short period of time because of a subsidence. A CAM of any vehicle on the road section is checked. If a driving direction does not change or a speed field does not decrease, a message that is about the dangerous road section and that is reported by the vehicle M is considered as an abnormal message.”).
Zhao, Katz and Zhu are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for providing a method, to provide security procedures to countermeasure attacks to a V2X network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu system into Zhao-Katz system, with a motivation to provide a method for determining if vehicle could traveled over a path in a period of time (Zhu, Parag. [0312-0313]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1. Zhao teaches wherein determining that the vehicle cannot have traveled from the first location to the second location between the first time and the second time (Zhao, page 10, lines 21-24; “In the embodiment of the invention, in order to prevent the ordinary vehicle from maliciously using the priority passing function of the invention under the condition of no necessity, the invention is also provided with a subsequent checking step, namely, whether the ordinary vehicle appears in any one of the determined specific places within a predetermined time period of the smooth route is judged, if not, the ordinary vehicle is judged to maliciously use the priority passing function of the invention, and a responsive control measure is started.”) comprises
In addition, Zhu teaches:
determining that a duration of the interval between the first time to the second time is below a time threshold (Zhu, Parag. [0104]; “The V2X sending terminal first reports a historical position and a corresponding time stamp, and then reports the current position and the corresponding time stamp. In this way, the V2X receiving terminal may receive a plurality of positions and corresponding time stamps reported by the V2X sending terminal. It may be determined, based on received periodic report messages and a preset third speed threshold, whether the abnormal speed behavior feature is met. The third speed threshold may be set based on a specific scenario. The V2X sending terminal reports the first historical position and the corresponding time stamp. For example, the first historical position is a last reported vehicle position before the V2X sending terminal reports the current vehicle position. For example, a periodic report message parameter check policy includes a speed validity check method. A position difference between a historical path in a historical path (pathHistory) field of the sender and a position in a current referencePosition field of the sender is compared. If the position difference divided by the time difference is greater than a maximum speed (MaxSpeed), it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal speed behavior feature.” Examiner submits that if an object move faster (above a speed threshold) for the same distance, the time will be below if compared to a time threshold.)
As per claim 6, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 4. Zhu teaches wherein the speed threshold allowable by road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location is determined based on vehicle-to-everything (V2X) information received from one or more other vehicles (Zhu, Parag. [0017]; “In this embodiment of this application, if the speed difference between the vehicle speed corresponding to the event content included in the first V2X message and the vehicle speed reported by the V2X sending terminal is greater than the first speed threshold, it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal speed behavior feature. The first speed threshold may be set based on a specific scenario. For example, the V2X sending terminal may send a periodic report message, where the periodic report message may be a CAM. The V2X sending terminal may send a trigger report message, where the trigger report message may be a decentralized environmental notification message (DENM). It may be determined, based on the periodic report message and the trigger report message, whether the abnormal speed behavior feature is met. If the speed differences between the vehicle speed included in the first V2X message and the vehicle speeds reported by the plurality of V2X sending terminals in the same position area are greater than the second speed threshold, it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal speed behavior feature.”).
As per claim 7, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1. Zhao teaches further comprising performing the security action (Zhao, page 10, lines 21-24; “In the embodiment of the invention, in order to prevent the ordinary vehicle from maliciously using the priority passing function of the invention under the condition of no necessity, the invention is also provided with a subsequent checking step, namely, whether the ordinary vehicle appears in any one of the determined specific places within a predetermined time period of the smooth route is judged, if not, the ordinary vehicle is judged to maliciously use the priority passing function of the invention, and a responsive control measure is started.”)
In addition, Katz teaches:
in response to determining that the second location is outside of a permitted operation area (Katz, Col. 13, lines 39-55; “Once it is determined that the connected road user should be within the sensor FOV (e.g., based on the parameters transmitted by the connected user and/or based on its calculated ETA), the connected road user is matched to road users in locations within the sensor FOV, using a virtual map. If no match is found for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 5 seconds), an identifier of the connected road user (e.g. his V2X digital certificate, license plate number, etc.) is added to the “greylist” 773. Information is then sent (e.g. using an email, SMS, NTCIP or any suitable API) by the control unit 706 to the city's traffic management center (TMC) 781 and to the Original Equipment Manufacturer—OEM 782 (e.g. the vehicle manufacturer or operator) regarding a possible malfunction or hacking attempt by the connected road user. The connected road user's identifier may then be moved (at the TMC 781 and/or OEM 782 discretion) to the “blacklist” 772 or to the “whitelist” 774.”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1. Zhao teaches wherein performing the security action (Zhao, page 10, lines 21-24; “In the embodiment of the invention, in order to prevent the ordinary vehicle from maliciously using the priority passing function of the invention under the condition of no necessity, the invention is also provided with a subsequent checking step, namely, whether the ordinary vehicle appears in any one of the determined specific places within a predetermined time period of the smooth route is judged, if not, the ordinary vehicle is judged to maliciously use the priority passing function of the invention, and a responsive control measure is started.”) comprises
In addition, Zhu teaches:
one or more of disapproving the second privileged operation request, notifying other V2X devices to ignore any privileged operation request from the vehicle, or issuing a revocation of a cryptographic certificate associated with the first privileged operation request or the second privileged operation request (Zhu, Parag. [0198]; “In some embodiments of this application, the vehicle communications system further includes a plurality of certificate authorities and a certificate revocation server. After the V2X server determines a V2X communications terminal having an abnormal behavior, the V2X server may further request the certificate authority to revoke a certificate.”).
As per claim 9, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1. Zhao teaches wherein the first privileged operation request and the second privileged operation request (Zhao, page 10, lines 21-24; “In the embodiment of the invention, in order to prevent the ordinary vehicle from maliciously using the priority passing function of the invention under the condition of no necessity, the invention is also provided with a subsequent checking step, namely, whether the ordinary vehicle appears in any one of the determined specific places within a predetermined time period of the smooth route is judged, if not, the ordinary vehicle is judged to maliciously use the priority passing function of the invention, and a responsive control measure is started.”)
In addition, Zhu teaches:
each include a cryptographic signature based on the same cryptographic certificate that was issued to a single vehicle (Zhu, Parag. [0015]; “For example, the abnormal position behavior feature includes determining of geographical position spoofing, and comparing a position difference between a position in a position field in a CAM of the sender and a position of a receiver with the geographical position spoofing threshold. If the position difference is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold, it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal position behavior feature. In addition, the abnormal position behavior feature may further include a feature of first message position validity check (i.e. verifying certificate signature).” … Parag. [0182]; “The V2X sending terminal and the V2X receiving terminal each may send a periodic report message, where the periodic report message may be a CAM. The periodic report message includes the position of the V2X communications terminal. Therefore, it may be determined whether the position difference between the current position of the V2X sending terminal and the current position of the V2X receiving terminal is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold. For example, the abnormal position behavior feature includes determining of the geographical position spoofing, and comparing the position difference between the position in reference Position field in the CAM of the sender and the position of the receiver with the geographical position spoofing threshold. If the position difference is greater than the geographical position spoofing threshold (T_MaxDis), it is determined, based on the first V2X message, that there is an abnormal position behavior feature.” … Parag. [0273]; “A message signature check: A public key of an authorization certificate is used to check whether a message signature is successful.”).
As per Claim 10, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is rejected based on same rationale applied to claim 1.
In addition, Zhao teaches:
a processor configured with processor-executable instructions (Zhao, page 2, lines 16-17; “A fourth aspect of the invention provides a computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed by a processor, performs a method as set forth in any one of the preceding claims.”).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 3, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 3.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 6, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 6.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 7, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 7.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 8, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 8.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 9, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 9.
As per Claim 19, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is rejected based on same rationale applied to claim 1.
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 19 it is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 3, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 3.
As per claim 23, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the network computing device of claim 19. Zhu teaches wherein means for determining that the required speed exceeds the speed threshold allowable by the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location comprises means for using road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location (Zhu, Parag. [0111]; “For example, a traffic condition includes a case in which a quantity of vehicles increases, the quantity of vehicles slowly increases, the quantity of vehicles decreases, or the like. For example, a vehicle M reports a DENM indicating that traffic congestion increases on a road section. A speed field in a CAM sent by any vehicle on the congested road section is checked. If a speed is higher than a threshold T_TrafficUpSpeed, traffic congestion information reported by the vehicle M is considered to be abnormal.”).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 6, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 6.
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 7, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 7.
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 8, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 8.
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 9, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 9.
As per Claim 28, it is a non-transitory readable medium claim that recites similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 28 is rejected based on same rationale applied to claim 1.
In addition, Zhao teaches:
a non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processing device in a network computing device to perform operations (Zhao, page 2, lines 16-17; “A fourth aspect of the invention provides a computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed by a processor, performs a method as set forth in any one of the preceding claims.” … pages 11-12, last paragraph; “The computer readable medium may be a readable signal medium or a readable storage medium. The readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the readable storage medium include: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable disk, a hard disk, a Random Access Memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. The computer program, when executed by one or more data processing devices, enables the computer-readable medium to implement the above-described method of the invention.”).
Claims 2, 11, 20, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 114627663A) in view of Katz et al. (US 11,967,230) hereinafter Katz and Zhu et al. (US 2021/0281986) hereinafter Zhu, as applied to claim 1 and 10, and further in view of Wei, et al. (US 2017/0292843) hereinafter Wei.
As per claim 2, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location comprises a speed limit specified for the roadway route.
The combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu does not expressly teach:
wherein the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location comprises a speed limit specified for the roadway route.
However, Wei teaches:
wherein the road conditions of the roadway route from the first location to the second location comprises a speed limit specified for the roadway route (Wei, Parag. [0009]; “The system 10 includes a memory 20 used to store map-data 22 indicative of a plurality of possible-routes 24 to a destination 26, wherein each possible-route is characterized by a difficulty-score 28.” … Parag. [0010]; “The difficulty-score 28 may be based on one or more roadway-characteristics 72 such as, but not limited to, road-width 32, road-curviness 34, speed-limit 36, landmark-presence 38, traffic-history 40, lane-change-count 42, roadway-marking-quality 44, traffic-signal-count 46, stop-sign-count 48, and route-ingress-count 50.” … Parag. [0013]; “The controller 30 is in communication with the memory 20. The controller 30 is operable (i.e. programmed) to select from the memory 20 a preferred-route 52 from the plurality of possible-routes 24. The preferred-route 52 is generally selected based on the difficulty-score 28 of each of the possible-routes 24.” … Parag. [0016]; “FIG. 2 illustrates a non-limiting example of a plurality of possible-routes 24 from a present-location (i.e., first location) 74 to a destination (i.e., second location) 26.”).
Zhao, Katz, Zhu and Wei are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for providing a method, to provide security procedures to countermeasure attacks to a V2X network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei system into Zhao-Katz-Zhu system, with a motivation to provide a route from a plurality of roadways indicating an speed limit (Wei, Parag. [0009-0010]).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 2, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 2.
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 2, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 2.
As per claim 29, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the roadway route is one of a plurality of possible roadway routes from the first location to the second location.
The combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu does not expressly teach:
wherein the roadway route is one of a plurality of possible roadway routes from the first location to the second location.
However, Wei teaches:
wherein the roadway route is one of a plurality of possible roadway routes from the first location to the second location (Wei, Parag. [0009]; “The system 10 includes a memory 20 used to store map-data 22 indicative of a plurality of possible-routes 24 to a destination 26, wherein each possible-route is characterized by a difficulty-score 28.” … Parag. [0013]; “The controller 30 is in communication with the memory 20. The controller 30 is operable (i.e. programmed) to select from the memory 20 a preferred-route 52 from the plurality of possible-routes 24. The preferred-route 52 is generally selected based on the difficulty-score 28 of each of the possible-routes 24.” … Parag. [0016]; “FIG. 2 illustrates a non-limiting example of a plurality of possible-routes 24 from a present-location (i.e., first location) 74 to a destination (i.e., second location) 26.”).
Zhao, Katz, Zhu and Wei are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for providing a method, to provide security procedures to countermeasure attacks to a V2X network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wei system into Zhao-Katz-Zhu system, with a motivation to provide a route from a plurality of roadways based on road conditions (Wei, Parag. [0013]).
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 29, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 29.
Claims 4, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 114627663A) in view of Katz et al. (US 11,967,230) hereinafter Katz and Zhu et al. (US 2021/0281986) hereinafter Zhu, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pilluti, et al. (US 2013/0274956) hereinafter Pilluti.
As per claim 4, the combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the required speed is based on at least a geometry of the roadway route from the first location to the second location.
The combination of Zhao, Katz and Zhu does not expressly teach:
wherein determining the required speed is based on at least a geometry of the roadway route from the first location to the second location.
However, Pilluti teaches:
wherein determining the required speed is based on at least a geometry of the roadway route from the first location to the second location (Pilluti, Parag. [0004]; “It is further known to calculate a maximum safe or recommended speed to be driven around an approaching curve and issue a warning if the vehicle exceeds (or is predicted to exceed) that speed. Such methods generally consider the road geometry, primarily the radius of curvature, to determine the recommended speed.”).
Zhao, Katz, Zhu and Pilluti are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for providing a method, to provide security procedures to countermeasure attacks to a V2X network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pilluti system into Zhao-Katz-Zhu system, with a motivation to provide a method to determine the roadway speed according to road geometry (Pilluti, Parag. [0004]).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 4, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 4.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. In addition, it is a network device claim that recites similar limitations to those of claim 4, and therefore it is rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aldereguia, et al. (US 2015/0292897) relates to a method including identifying a starting location and a destination for traveling in a vehicle and identifying multiple available routes. Each route includes roadway segments that have a roadway type selected from multiple roadway types reflecting a set of roadway conditions.
Van Laethem (US 2020/0049524) relates to a driving assistance device intended to be on board a vehicle and configured for detecting the presence of the device in a predefined vigilance zone; identifying a speed profile associated with the vigilance zone, said speed profile relating to a recommended speed at a given position in the vigilance zone; determining the position of the device in the vigilance zone; determining a moving speed of the device substantially at the determined position; determining from the speed profile a recommended speed relating to the determined position; calculating a difference between the determined moving speed and the determined recommended speed; triggering an alert at least when the calculated difference is greater than a predefined threshold alert value.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX D CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/YIN CHEN SHAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights