DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of PRO 63/307,454 on 2/7/2022 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first compute system and autonomy system must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 8, the “first compute system” lacks written description. In the Specification, it states the “first compute system includes an attack detection system” and “the first compute system identifies the command as an illegitimate command and notifies the autonomy system of the illegitimate command. The autonomy system is arranged to identify an appropriate action to take in response to the illegitimate command and to execute the appropriate action.” This seems to indicate these are two different systems.
However, the drawings and specification do not clearly indicate if these are two separate systems or a single system. As seen in at least Fig. 8, “autonomy compute system” 850 contains a “state-based attack detection arrangement.” This drawing can be interpreted to indicate that the first compute system and autonomy system are the same system due to the lack of clarity in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tateishi (US Publication 20190250902 hereinafter Tateishi).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 12), Tateishi teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a first command on a vehicle, the command being arranged to identify a first action to be taken by the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is in a first vehicle state and the first command has a first command state;
determining, on the vehicle, whether the first command state is consistent with the first vehicle state,
wherein determining whether the first command state is consistent with the first vehicle state includes determining whether the first command is legitimate;
when it is determined that the first command state is consistent with the first vehicle state, executing the first command, wherein executing the first command includes causing the first action to be taken by the vehicle (See at least: [0092] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of an update program acquisition process, showing process steps performed by the gateway 10.; [0109] via “For example, the gateway 10 may acquire an update program from the server device 9 and may store the acquired update program in the storage unit 12 while the vehicle 1 is driving. After the vehicle 1 is parked and the engine has stopped, the gateway 10 may transmit the stored update program to the ECU 2 to be updated.”); and
when it is determined that the first command state is not consistent with the first vehicle state, identifying the first command as an illegitimate command and ignoring the illegitimate command (See at least: [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process, wherein ignoring the illegitimate command includes causing the first action not to be taken by the vehicle (Step S59).” Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 13), Tateishi teaches wherein the first command is illegitimate when the first vehicle state is a driving state and legitimate when the vehicle first vehicle state is not the driving state, and wherein when it is determined that the first command state is not consistent with the first vehicle state, the method further includes: causing the vehicle to take a remedial action (See at least: [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process (Step S59).” Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.).
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 14), Tateishi teaches wherein the first command is issued by a source, and wherein the remedial action includes preventing the source from sending additional commands to the vehicle (See at least: [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process (Step S59).” Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6, 8-11, 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Lee (US 20210331712 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 15), Tateishi fails to teach the following limitation, however Lee teaches wherein the remedial action includes causing the vehicle to come to a stop, and wherein the method further includes: identifying a source of the first command;obtaining at least one additional command on the vehicle from the source after obtaining the first command; and ignoring the at least one additional command from the source. (See at least: [0293] via “FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating a vehicle security method according to the embodiment of the present invention. Specifically, FIG. 14 illustrates a vehicle security method including receiving a hacking alerting message from the server, detecting the hacking states of the in-vehicle devices of the vehicle 10 based on the hacking alerting message, and continuing the autonomous driving mode or switching to the emergency driving mode according to the type of hacking state information.”; [0306] via “In the embodiment of the present invention, the emergency driving mode may include a first emergency driving mode in which assistance of the user is required, a second emergency driving mode in which remote driving is performed by receiving a remote control signal from the server, and a third emergency driving mode in which the driving of the vehicle 10 is stopped.”; [0298] In the embodiment of the present invention, detecting presence of the hacking target device corresponding to the information about being hacked or being likely to be hacked and determining the type of the hacking target device do not necessarily take place in a chronological order, and detecting presence of the hacking target device and identifying the type of the hacking target device may be done at the same time. Note: The additional command that is ignored can be received again after ignoring the first one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tateishi in view of Lee to teach wherein the remedial action includes causing the vehicle to come to a stop, and wherein the method further includes: identifying a source of the first command; obtaining at least one additional command on the vehicle from the source after obtaining the first command; and ignoring the at least one additional command from the source so that the vehicle can come to a stop to get any critical software updates.
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claims 9, 16 and 21), Tateishi teaches wherein the first vehicle state is the driving state, and wherein determining whether the first command state is consistent with the first vehicle state includes determining whether the first command is one selected from a group including a maintenance action and a firmware action, wherein when it is determined that the first command state is not consistent with the first vehicle state (See at least: [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process (Step S59).” Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.),
but fails to teach a method further includes: providing information relating to the illegitimate command to a teleoperations system.
However, Lee teaches a method further includes: providing information relating to the illegitimate command to a teleoperations system (See at least: “[0281] The vehicle 10 may not only receive a hacking alerting message from the server but also request assistance to the server. When the vehicle 10 is detected to be in the hacking state, the vehicle 10 may transmit a user assistance request message to the server. For example, a message “The hacking state of the location data generating device has been detected and the remote driving of the center is required.” may be transmitted.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tateishi in view of Lee to teach a method further includes: providing information relating to the illegitimate command to a teleoperations system so that another system outside the vehicle system can provide any additional support to handle an illegitimate command.
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 10 and 17), Tateishi teaches wherein when it is determined that the first command is one selected from the group including the maintenance action and the firmware action, it is determined that the first command state is not consistent with the first vehicle state, and wherein the information relating to the illegitimate command includes information that identifies the illegitimate command and information that identifies the remedial action (See at least: [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process (Step S59).” Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.).
Regarding claim 8, Tateishi teaches a vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a propulsion system configured to propel the chassis;
a power system
a first compute system 10.; [0109] via “For example, the gateway 10 may acquire an update program from the server device 9 and may store the acquired update program in the storage unit 12 while the vehicle 1 is driving. After the vehicle 1 is parked and the engine has stopped, the gateway 10 may transmit the stored update program to the ECU 2 to be updated.”); and
an autonomy system arranged to identify an appropriate action to take in response to the illegitimate command and to execute the appropriate action (See at least: Fig. 1 items 2 “ECU”; [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process, wherein ignoring the illegitimate command includes causing the first action not to be taken by the vehicle (Step S59).” Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.).
but fails to explicitly disclose
a chassis;
a propulsion system configured to propel the chassis;
a power system carried on the chassis
a first compute system carried on the chassis.
However, Lee teaches a chassis; a propulsion system configured to propel the chassis; a power system carried on the chassis and a first compute system carried on the chassis (See at least: [0163] via “he driving control device 250 may include a power train driving control device, a chassis driving control device, a door/window driving control device, a safety device driving control device, a lamp driving control device, and an air-conditioner driving control device. The power train driving control device may include a power source driving control device and a transmission driving control device. The chassis driving control device may include a steering driving control device, a brake driving control device and a suspension driving control device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tateishi in view of Lee to teach a chassis; a propulsion system configured to propel the chassis; and a power system carried on the chassis a first compute system carried on the chassis so that the various vehicle systems can be physically installed on the vehicle and support how the vehicle functions.
Regarding claim 11, Tateishi teaches wherein the command identifies an action to be taken by the vehicle, and wherein determining, on the vehicle, whether the first command state is consistent with the first vehicle state includes:
determining whether the action is expected when the vehicle is in the first vehicle state, wherein when the action is not expected when the vehicle is in the first vehicle state, the first command state is not consistent with the first vehicle state (See at least: [0092] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of an update program acquisition process, showing process steps performed by the gateway 10.; [0109] via “For example, the gateway 10 may acquire an update program from the server device 9 and may store the acquired update program in the storage unit 12 while the vehicle 1 is driving. After the vehicle 1 is parked and the engine has stopped, the gateway 10 may transmit the stored update program to the ECU 2 to be updated.”; (See at least: [0103] via “Based on the driving information stored in the driving information DB 92c, the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c of the processing unit 91 estimates the no-driving time slot (the time slot when the vehicle is highly unlikely to be driving) for the vehicle 1 to which the update program has been transmitted (Step S58). Based on the no-driving time slot estimated by the no-driving time slot estimation unit 91c, the update timing determination unit 91d of the processing unit 91 determines the timing of the update process, wherein ignoring the illegitimate command includes causing the first action not to be taken by the vehicle (Step S59).”))
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Kaabouch et al. (US 20220272122 hereinafter Kaabouch).
Regarding claim 19, Tateishi fails to teach the following limitation, but Kaabouch teaches wherein the logic is further operable to: cause the vehicle to operate autonomously (See at least: " [0013] The present subject matter provides various technical solutions to technical problems facing autonomous vehicle control attacks (e.g., malicious control signals, jamming, etc.).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tateishi in view of Kaabouch to teach wherein the logic is further operable to: cause the vehicle to operate autonomously in order to navigate vehicles without human intervention.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi in view of Lee and further in view of WO 2021024588 hereinafter ‘588.
Regarding claim 22 (and similarly 23), Tateishi in view of Lee teaches wherein when it is determined that the first command state is not consistent with the first vehicle state, the method further includes: identifying a source of the first command (Refer at least to claims 1 and 4 for reasoning and rationale.);
but fails to teach causing an ability of the source to send additional commands to the vehicle to be disabled; and triggering a warning about the source.
However, ‘588 teaches causing an ability of the source to send additional commands to the vehicle to be disabled; and triggering a warning about the source (See at least: “In this case, if the communication state detection unit 30 detects a sign of a cyber attack from the log of the communication device, for example, the control unit 40 may cut off the connection with the Internet or notify the driver or the call center. Good. This makes it possible to prevent car hacking and accidents caused by cyber attacks.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that:
“It is respectfully submitted that no reference includes features offering identifying a first command as illegitimate and ignoring the illegitimate command. This feature is provided for in independent claim 1. Tateishi does not disclose ignoring an illegitimate command, or a command that is not consistent with a first vehicle state. The cited passage of Tateishi discloses determining the timing of an update process, which the Examiner equates to an illegitimate command (“Note: An illegitimate command is an update request when the car is driving.”). As Tateishi identifies a time to execute an update process (or, following the Examiner’s logic, an illegitimate command), Tateishi does not disclose ignoring an illegitimate command as recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tateishi teaches “wherein ignoring the illegitimate command includes causing the first action not to be taken by the vehicle” because Tateishi does not go through with the update when the vehicle is moving. According to broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner maintains this teaches “ignoring” as an update that is sent to be uploaded to the vehicle is purposely not installed and updated.
The Applicant contends that:
“The Examiner has not articulated how Tateishi discloses each feature included in claim 8, except to indicate in the Advisory Action that his position is that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of claim 8 is equivalent to the elements of claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner split up the rejection of claim 8 explicitly as requested by the Applicant. Although Tateishi teaches a vehicle and it is well know that the vehicle has a chassis, the Examiner included the previously presented Lee reference for explicit teaching of the chassis. The Examiner also maintains Tateishi teaches the first compute system and the autonomy system, especially in light of the lack of clarity in the drawings and specification regarding these terms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657