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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to application DE 102022201896.6 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1, 6, and 9-12 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are pending. Claims 1 and 9-12 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant arguments, on pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 03/30/2026 (hereinafter “REMARKS”), with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues the prior art of record alone fails to render obvious the amended claims. However, in view of the amended independent claims and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made over Abo El-Fotouh et al. (EP Patent Application No. 3291119; hereinafter “Abo El-Fotouh”), in view of FILIPEK et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0026958; hereinafter “FILIPEK”), further in view of Broyles et al. (US PGPub No. 2008/0162848; hereinafter “Broyles”), further in view of Bartlett et al. (US PGPub No. 2021/0142602; hereinafter “Bartlett”).
FILIPEK teaches rebooting the ECUs of the vehicle in a way that mitigates damage of the attack (¶ 0025, ¶ 0027). Broyles teaches a restart followed by a locking of memory by controlling I/O (¶ 0025-0028, Fig. 3). FILIPEK teaches mitigating damage from the cyber-attack, in a safe way, during operation of the vehicle (¶ 0025).
Bartlett teaches rebooting a device or installing a software update in order to remedy an issue with the electric device (Barlett ¶ 0270, ¶ 0266).
Therefore, the combination of Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett disclose all the limitations of the amended independent claims.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims, the amendments to the
independent claims have necessitated a new ground of rejection with respect to the independent claims from which the dependent claims depend, thereby requiring new grounds of rejection for the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 and 6-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “… subsequent to the resetting, activating a write lock and/or read lock of a memory of the first component; and deactivating the write lock and/or read lock in response to a modification of the vehicle to close a security gap in the vehicle electrical system, the security gap being closed by an update to the software of the first component”. Under the BRI, the claims activate a write lock and then deactivate the write lock after an update to the software of the first component, however, that is not supported and directly contradicts what's described in the specification. See page 12, lines 11-23, which recites "Memory 91 is equipped with a write lock and/or read lock 92. In some examples, component 27c may include a (pure) write lock. After the write lock is activated, all or certain write operations in memory 91 may be prevented. In some examples, activating write lock 92 may result in a content of memory 92 no longer being changeable. In other examples, activating write lock 92 may result in only a subgroup of the changes of the content of memory 92, which are available with a deactivated write lock, being possible. For example, with an activated write lock 92, changing a software component that is stored in the memory may be impossible (whereas with a deactivated write lock 92, the software component may be updated within the scope of an update)". When the write lock is a pure write lock, changing the software of the component may be impossible as all write operations are prevented, and therefore the update would not be possible for the software of the first component. Some embodiments of the independent claims may be supported, however, as the BRI covers an embodiment that is not supported, therefore the claim is rejected. Independent claims 9-12 recite the same limitations and are thus also rejected. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected for failing to remedy the issues of the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “… subsequent to the resetting, activating a write lock and/or read lock of a memory of the first component; and deactivating the write lock and/or read lock in response to a modification of the vehicle to close a security gap in the vehicle electrical system, the security gap being closed by an update to the software of the first component”. It is not readily clear whether the “modification of the vehicle” refers to the software update of the first component, or whether it refers to an alternative change to the vehicle separate from the software update. As understood by one skilled in the art, a software update of a component is prevented when memory of the component is write locked. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Independent claims 9-12 recite the same limitations and are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected for failing to remedy the issues of the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claim 8 currently depends from claim 5 which is canceled. Therefore, the claim is rejected.
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 1-4, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abo El-Fotouh et al. (EP Patent Application No. 3291119; hereinafter “Abo El-Fotouh”), in view of FILIPEK et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0026958; hereinafter “FILIPEK”), further in view of Broyles et al. (US PGPub No. 2008/0162848; hereinafter “Broyles”), further in view of Bartlett et al. (US PGPub No. 2021/0142602; hereinafter “Bartlett”).
As per claim 1: Abo El-Fotouh discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising the following steps:
recognizing a possibility of a manipulation of software of a first component of a plurality of components of a vehicle electrical system of a vehicle (an automotive security system for performing dynamic actions in response to a manipulation and/or intrusion detection in a vehicle … a manipulation detection component operable to detect a software manipulation on the software components during a boot process of the secure ECU and/or during a runtime of the secure ECU [abstract, Page 1, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0038]; a plurality of Electronic Control Units (ECUs) … ECUs are more and more networked [¶ 0002, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0056, Fig. 1, Examiner’s Note: vehicle with electronic (electric) control units which are networked]; the manipulation detection component can be located on a separate, central ECU in the same vehicle communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0015]; the intrusion detection component can be located in the same vehicle on a separate ECU or together with the manipulation detection component – on the central ECU communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0020, ¶ 0049]; the manipulation detection component is operable to detect a software manipulation on the software component during a boot process … during a runtime of the secure ECU [¶ 0038]);
initiating a countermeasure for mitigating the manipulation of the software of the first component (the manipulation detection component is operable to actively de-activate at least the manipulated software component [abstract, Page 1, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0016, ¶ 0017, ¶ 0032]; different response levels can be predefined. The pre-defined response levels can be stored in a memory storage located in the vehicle 110 and accessible by the manipulation detection component [¶ 0042]; In case the manipulation detection component 114 is located on the central ECU, if a manipulation is detected, the manipulation detection component 114 may send a secure signal to the secure ECU 112, wherein the secure signal causes the respective action to be performed [¶ 0043, Examiner’s Note: respective action is a countermeasure]);
and carrying out the countermeasure for mitigating the manipulation of the software of the first component (the manipulation detection component is operable to actively de-activate at least the manipulated software component [abstract, Page 1, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0016, ¶ 0017, ¶ 0032]; causes the respective action to be performed [¶ 0043]), wherein the countermeasure comprises:
in response to recognizing the possibility of the manipulation (the manipulation detection component 114 is operable to detect a software manipulation of the software components during a runtime of the secure ECU 112. Upon detection … operable to actively de-activate at least the manipulated software component [¶ 0038, Fig. 1, Secure ECU]),
[resetting the software of the first component to a known secure state], and
[subsequent to the resetting, activating a write lock and/or read lock of a memory of the first component]; and
[deactivating the write lock and/or read lock in response to a modification of the vehicle to close a security gap in the vehicle electrical system, the security gap being closed by an update to the software of the first component].
Abo El-Fotouh discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose resetting the software of the first component to a known secure state. However, FILIPEK teaches resetting the software of the first component to a known secure state (analyze whether the vehicle is in a current driving situation that is safe to reboot … cases scenarios or thresholds to determine if the vehicle is in a safe driving environment to reboot the vehicle system in the scenario of a cyber-attack … [¶ 0025]; A reboot may allow the cyberattack to cease attacking, or mitigate damage of the attack, in certain situations. For example, if the system identifies that the vehicle is on a freeway or high speed road (e.g., threshold speed of 50 miles per hour (MPH) is exceeded), the system may recognize the situation where the vehicle is stopping for a traffic jam or at a traffic intersection (e.g., for red traffic signal) [¶ 0025]). Abo El-Fotouh and FILIPEK are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vehicle protection. Therefore, based on Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of FILIPEK to the system of Abo El-Fotouh in order to secure the components of the vehicle under an attack during operation of the vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose subsequent to the resetting, activating a write lock and/or read lock of a memory of the first component. However, Broyles teaches subsequent to the resetting, activating a write lock and/or read lock of a memory of the first component (During set unlock 310 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the locked state to the unlocked state ... The flow proceeds to restart function 312 and computer system 200 restarts. [Broyles ¶ 0025, Fig. 3, 310, 312, 302, 314, 316]; if an unlock signal is read from input line 112, NV memory 114 is in an unlocked state and the flow proceeds to modify NV memory function 314 [Broyles ¶ 0026]; The flow proceeds to set lock state function 316 [Broyles ¶ 0027]; During set lock state function 316 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the unlocked state to the locked state [Broyles ¶ 0028]); deactivating the write lock and/or read lock (secondary I/O 206 driving output line 210 according to the content of lock status memory 208 provides a mechanism for locking and unlocking access to NV memory 114. [Broyles ¶ 0013]; processor 104 executes the instructions read from NV memory 114 by I/O controller hub 204 to cause the computer system 200 to receive user input specifying a modification of lock status memory 208 from a locked state to an unlocked state. Modifying lock status memory 208 causes secondary I/O 206 to drive an unlock signal along output line 210 to input line 1121 [Broyles ¶ 0016, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0026]). Broyles and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory control. Therefore, based on Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Broyles to the system of Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in order to enable secure access control of memory access. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose in response to a modification of the vehicle to close a security gap in the vehicle electrical system, the security gap being closed by an update to the software of the first component. However, Bartlett teaches in response to a modification of the vehicle to close a security gap in the vehicle electrical system, the security gap being closed by an update to the software of the first component (If an IoT hub detects that a particular IoT device is operating outside of the specified flow control parameters, determined at 3103, then AT 3104 the IoT hub will temporarily refrain from further communication with the IoT device (e.g., blocking communication between the IoT device and the IoT service). In addition, as mentioned the IoT service and/or IoT hub may take steps to remedy; the problem by rebooting the IoT device and/or installing a software update on the IoT device. [¶ 0270, ¶ 0266]). Bartlett and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of securing vehicles. Therefore, based on Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Bartlett to the system of Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in order to resolve security issues in a vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 2: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Abo El-Fotouh discloses wherein the recognition and/or the initiation are/is carried out in a central device configured to mitigate a manipulation of software (the manipulation detection component can be located on a separate, central ECU in the same vehicle communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0015]; the intrusion detection component can be located in the same vehicle on a separate ECU or together with the manipulation detection component – on the central ECU communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0020, ¶ 0049]; the manipulation detection component is operable to detect a software manipulation on the software component during a boot process … during a runtime of the secure ECU [¶ 0038]; In case the manipulation detection component 114 is located on the central ECU, if a manipulation is detected, the manipulation detection component 114 may send a secure signal to the secure ECU 112, wherein the secure signal causes the respective action to be performed [¶ 0043, Examiner’s Note: respective action is a countermeasure]), the central device configured to mitigate a manipulation being part of the vehicle electrical system and configured to mitigate a manipulation of software in each component of the plurality of components of the vehicle electrical system (the manipulation detection component can be located on a separate, central ECU in the same vehicle communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0015]; a plurality of Electronic Control Units (ECUs) … ECUs are more and more networked [¶ 0002, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0056, Fig. 1, Examiner’s Note: vehicle with electronic (electric) control units which are networked]; the manipulation detection component is operable to detect a software manipulation on the software component during a boot process … during a runtime of the secure ECU [¶ 0038]; a manipulation detection component operable to detect a software manipulation on the software components during a boot process of the secure ECU and/or during a runtime of the secure ECU [abstract, Page 1, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0038]).
As per claim 3: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Abo El-Fotouh and Broyles disclose wherein the resetting taking place prior to the activation of the write lock and/or read lock of the memory of the first component (the manipulation detection component is operable to actively de-activate at least the manipulated software component [Abo El-Fotouh, abstract, Page 1, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0016, ¶ 0017, ¶ 0032]; different response levels can be predefined. The pre-defined response levels can be stored in a memory storage located in the vehicle 110 and accessible by the manipulation detection component [Abo El-Fotouh ¶ 0042]; During set unlock 310 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the locked state to the unlocked state ... The flow proceeds to restart function 312 and computer system 200 restarts. [Broyles ¶ 0025, Fig. 3, 310, 312, 302, 314, 316]; if an unlock signal is read from input line 112, NV memory 114 is in an unlocked state and the flow proceeds to modify NV memory function 314 [Broyles ¶ 0026]; The flow proceeds to set lock state function 316 [Broyles ¶ 0027]; During set lock state function 316 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the unlocked state to the locked state [Broyles ¶ 0028]).
As per claim 4: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Abo El-Fotouh and Broyles disclose wherein the activation of the write lock and/or read lock of the memory of the first component is carried out by a security module of the first component (The manipulation detection component can be located on the secure ECU in the vehicle [Abo El-Fotouh ¶ 0015]; During set unlock 310 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the locked state to the unlocked state ... The flow proceeds to restart function 312 and computer system 200 restarts. [Broyles ¶ 0025, Fig. 3, 310, 312, 302, 314, 316]; if an unlock signal is read from input line 112, NV memory 114 is in an unlocked state and the flow proceeds to modify NV memory function 314 [Broyles ¶ 0026]; The flow proceeds to set lock state function 316 [Broyles ¶ 0027]; During set lock state function 316 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the unlocked state to the locked state [Broyles ¶ 0028]).
As per claim 6: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Abo El-Fotouh and Broyles disclose wherein a request for activating and/or deactivating the write lock and/or read lock of the memory of the first component comes from the central device configured to mitigate a manipulation (In case the manipulation detection component is located on the central ECU, if a manipulation is detected, the manipulation detection component may send a secure signal to the secure ECU, wherein the signal causes the respective action to be performed [Abo El-Fotouh ¶ 0015, ¶ 0022-0023, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0049]; the manipulation detection component can be located on a separate, central ECU in the same vehicle communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [Abo El-Fotouh ¶ 0015]; During set unlock 310 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the locked state to the unlocked state ... The flow proceeds to restart function 312 and computer system 200 restarts. [Broyles ¶ 0025, Fig. 3, 310, 312, 302, 314, 316]; if an unlock signal is read from input line 112, NV memory 114 is in an unlocked state and the flow proceeds to modify NV memory function 314 [Broyles ¶ 0026]; The flow proceeds to set lock state function 316 [Broyles ¶ 0027]; During set lock state function 316 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the unlocked state to the locked state [Broyles ¶ 0028]).
As per claim 9: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Abo El-Fotouh teaches a physical system that includes a processor configured to (a computer program product comprising instructions thereon … loaded and executed by at least one processor [¶ 0033]). The limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 10: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Abo El-Fotouh discloses a vehicle electrical system for a vehicle, comprising: a plurality of components of the vehicle electrical system that include a first component; wherein the vehicle electrical system is configured to: (a plurality of Electronic Control Units (ECUs) … ECUs are more and more networked [¶ 0002, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0056, Fig. 1, Examiner’s Note: vehicle with electronic (electric) control units which are networked]; the manipulation detection component can be located on a separate, central ECU in the same vehicle communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0015]; the intrusion detection component can be located in the same vehicle on a separate ECU or together with the manipulation detection component – on the central ECU communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0020, ¶ 0049]; the manipulation detection component is operable to detect a software manipulation on the software component during a boot process … during a runtime of the secure ECU [¶ 0038]). The limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 11: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Abo El-Fotouh discloses a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle electrical system including a plurality of components that include a first component; wherein the vehicle electrical system is configured to: (a plurality of Electronic Control Units (ECUs) … ECUs are more and more networked [¶ 0002, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0056, Fig. 1, Examiner’s Note: vehicle with electronic (electric) control units which are networked]; the manipulation detection component can be located on a separate, central ECU in the same vehicle communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0015]; the intrusion detection component can be located in the same vehicle on a separate ECU or together with the manipulation detection component – on the central ECU communicatively coupled to the secure ECU [¶ 0020, ¶ 0049]; the manipulation detection component is operable to detect a software manipulation on the software component during a boot process … during a runtime of the secure ECU [¶ 0038]). The limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
As per claim 12: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Abo El-Fotouh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: (a computer program product comprising instructions thereon … loaded and executed by at least one processor [¶ 0033]; the manipulation detection component and/or the intrusion detection component are running on a separate ECU or Backend server [¶ 0022, Examiner’s Note: a software component will necessarily be stored]). The limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and therefore the claim is likewise rejected.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett, further in view of Rahn et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0250344; hereinafter “Rahn”).
As per claim 7: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 1. Futhermore, Broyles discloses wherein the write lock and/or read lock [is a hardware write lock and/or hardware read lock] (During set unlock 310 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the locked state to the unlocked state ... The flow proceeds to restart function 312 and computer system 200 restarts. [Broyles ¶ 0025, Fig. 3, 310, 312, 302, 314, 316]; if an unlock signal is read from input line 112, NV memory 114 is in an unlocked state and the flow proceeds to modify NV memory function 314 [Broyles ¶ 0026]; The flow proceeds to set lock state function 316 [Broyles ¶ 0027]; During set lock state function 316 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the unlocked state to the locked state [Broyles ¶ 0028]).
Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose is a hardware write lock and/or hardware read lock. However, Rahn teaches is a hardware write lock and/or hardware read lock (an input/output (I/O) pin (e.g., a general I/O pin) on the hardware security device is electrically connected (e.g., by a wire) to a write-protect pin of the secure memory. The status of the I/O pin in the hardware security device is controlled using a value stored in the memory of the hardware security device … modifying the aforementioned value in the hardware security device, the electrically connected write-protection pin may be enabled or disabled … enable and disable write protection of the secure memory [Rahn ¶ 0038]). Rahn and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vehicle security. Therefore, based on Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett in view of Rahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Rahn to the system of Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett in order to require physical presence to modify the hardware security device for enabling and disabling the write protection (¶ 0038). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett, further in view of Schmidt et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0026176; hereinafter “Schmidt”).
As per claim 8: Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett teach all the limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, Abo El-Fotouh and Broyles disclose wherein the communication for the (if a manipulation is detected, the manipulation detection component 114 may send a secure signal to the secure ECU 112, wherein the secure signal causes the respective action to be performed [Abo El-Fotouh ¶ 0043, abstract, ¶ 0015, Examiner’s Note: respective action is a countermeasure]) activation and/or deactivation is secured (send a secure signal to the secure ECU 112, wherein the secure signal [Abo El-Fotouh ¶ 0015, ¶ 0043]; During set unlock 310 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the locked state to the unlocked state ... The flow proceeds to restart function 312 and computer system 200 restarts. [Broyles ¶ 0025, Fig. 3, 310, 312, 302, 314, 316]; if an unlock signal is read from input line 112, NV memory 114 is in an unlocked state and the flow proceeds to modify NV memory function 314 [Broyles ¶ 0026]; The flow proceeds to set lock state function 316 [Broyles ¶ 0027]; During set lock state function 316 and responsive to user input, lock state memory 208 content is modified from the unlocked state to the locked state [Broyles ¶ 0028]) [using one or multiple cryptographic methods].
Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose using one or multiple cryptographic methods. However, Schmidt teaches using one or multiple cryptographic methods (providing a seed for generating a random number during vehicle operation and enabling secure data communications … unique entropy data may be obtained from an entropy source while the vehicle is in an operating mode or in a driving mode … A set of paired cryptographic keys may be generated based on the at least one random number … the secure communication exchange may be established using the first and second cryptographic keys. The method may include transmitting data between the first unit and the second unit using the secure communication exchange [¶ 0009, ¶ 0009]). Schmidt and the instant application are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of vehicle security. Therefore, based on Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett further in view of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Schmidt to the system of Abo El-Fotouh in view of FILIPEK in view of Broyles in view of Bartlett in order to establishing cryptographic keys while a vehicle is in operation for use with secure data transmission (¶ 0008-0009). Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references above to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
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 JAMES P MOLES whose telephone number is (703)756-1043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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.
/JAMES P MOLES/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/JUNG W KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights