Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Remarks dated April 18th, 2025 responding to the Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-20.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 16-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are remain pending in the application and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are in independent form.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are finally rejected.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
REMARKS
The Objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of the claim.
The 35 USC § 112(2) rejection of claims 6, 13, and 19 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Applicants’ arguments filed on April 18th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For example:
Argument #1: Accordingly, Claims 1, 9, and 15 patentably define over Chen and Kishikawa, separately and in combination, because the references fail to disclose selecting the second integrity level for the first software package based on determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level (See Remarks, pages 9-10)
Answer to Argument #1: Applicant contends, prior arts of record do not teach “selecting the second integrity level for the first software package based on determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level” however, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. See Manaev (Patent No.: US 7,77,147 – art made of record) FIGS. 3-4 and Col. 4, lines 42-67.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 4-8 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 9 and 12-14 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and Claims 15 and 18-20 are directed to apparatus and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
Claims 1, 9 and 15: recite the limitations of
“receiving data describing a first software package that is one component of a software system, the first software package specifying a first integrity level” this is a mental process, the human mind can receive any data/information related to a software package with the aid of pen and paper (Observation).
“identifying a dependency of the first software package, wherein the dependency describes a relationship between the first software package and a second software package in the software system, the second software package specifying a second integrity” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine/identify a dependency/relationship between software packages with the aid of pen and paper (Observation).
“determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the integrity levels with the aid of pen and paper (Evaluate).
“based on determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level, selecting the second integrity level for the first software package” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine/select the appropriate integrity level with the aid of pen and paper (Judge).
“determining that the first software package satisfies one or more rules for the second integrity level” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine/compare the software package with rules with the aid of pen and paper (Judge).
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9 and 15 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
Claims 1, 9 and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “computer implemented,” “software system,” “A non- transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for,” “processor,” “integrity verification system,” and “computing circuitry” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 9 and 15 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claims 1, 9 and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the limitations:
“based on determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level, selecting the second integrity level for the first software package” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
“in response to determining that the first software package satisfies the one or more rules for the second integrity level, deploying the first software package to one or more autonomous vehicles (Avs)” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 9 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the first integrity level for the first software package is based on an intended use of the first software package within an autonomous driving software environment” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate intended use of the software package. Further, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “performing automated testing of the first software package; determining a portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing; and determining that the portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing satisfied a threshold associated with the second integrity level” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate testing of software package. Further, claims 5, 12 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5, 12 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 5, 12 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “receiving, from a software developer, other data indicating that a set of software development rules are met by the first software package; and determining that the first software package satisfies the second integrity level further based on the other data from the software developer” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate software development rules determined by a software developer. Further, claims 6, 13 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 13 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 6, 13 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “identifying a number of dependent software packages each depending on the first software package, the dependent software packages including the second software package; and in response to the number of dependent software packages satisfying a threshold, increasing the second integrity level for the first software package” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate number of dependent software packages. Further, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 20, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “in response to determining that the first software package satisfies the one or more rules for the second integrity level, adding the first software package to a code repository” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate adding software package to a repository. Further, claims 8, 14 and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8, 14 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 8, 14 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0114554 – hereinafter, Chen) in view of Kishikawa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0086541 – hereinafter, Kishikawa) and further in view of Manaev (Patent No.: US 7,774,147 – hereinafter, Manaev).
Regarding claim 1:
Chen discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
receiving data describing a first software package that is one component of a software system (“loading to the vehicle system data that identifies a specific set of modules that the vehicle will run and what details are needed for the vehicle to be considered healthy” (See para [0079])), [[the first software package specifying a first integrity level]];
identifying a dependency of the first software package, wherein the dependency describes a relationship between the first software package and a second software package in the software system (“The particular order for starting up the set of hardware and/or software modules is based on functional dependencies among the hardware and/or software modules” (See para [0018]). “When remotely starting the vehicle 101, there are certain dependencies that are accounted for in order to expedite and optimize the reliability of the remote startup process of the vehicle” (See para [0038]). “The particular order for starting up the set of hardware and/or software modules is based on functional dependencies among the hardware and/or software modules.” (See para [0091])), [[the second software package specifying a second integrity level]];
But Chen does not explicitly teach:
the first software package specifying a first integrity level.
the second software package specifying a second integrity level.
determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level;
based on determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level, selecting the second integrity level for the first software package;
determining that the first software package satisfies one or more rules for the second integrity level;
in response to determining that the first software package satisfies the one or more rules [[for the second integrity level]], deploying the first software package to one or more vehicles (Avs).
However, Kishikawa discloses:
the first software package specifying a first integrity level (“The integrity verification device includes: a verification schedule determiner that determines a verification timing at which to verify the integrity of each of the one or more pieces of software; an integrity verifier that, for each piece of software among the one or more pieces of software, determines, at the verification timing determined for the piece of software, whether first integrity information matches second integrity information,” (See para [0035]). “the verification schedule determiner may determine the verification timing of one piece of software among the one or more pieces of software such that a verification frequency of the one piece of software increases as the verification priority of the one piece of software increases” (See para [0037])).
the second software package specifying a second integrity level (“The integrity verification device includes: a verification schedule determiner that determines a verification timing at which to verify the integrity of each of the one or more pieces of software; an integrity verifier that, for each piece of software among the one or more pieces of software, determines, at the verification timing determined for the piece of software, whether first integrity information matches second integrity information, and determines that the integrity of the piece of software is ensured when the first integrity information and the second integrity information match, the first integrity information being information for verifying the integrity of the piece of software and that corresponds to at least a part of the piece of software corresponding to a verification scope, and the second integrity information being information calculated from at least a part of the piece of software at the verification timing “ (See para [0035]). “the verification schedule determiner may determine the verification timing of one piece of software among the one or more pieces of software such that a verification frequency of the one piece of software increases as the verification priority of the one piece of software increases” (See para [0037])).
determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level (“‘Verification priority’ indicates a priority at which to verify the integrity. The verification schedule is determined such that a verification target having a higher verification priority is subject to integrity verification immediately or more frequently. For example, the integrity is verified at 10-second intervals if the verification priority is ‘high’, the integrity is verified at 30-second intervals if the verification priority is ‘mid’, and the integrity is verified at 60-second intervals if the verification priority is ‘low’.” (See para [0124]));
determining that the first software package satisfies one or more rules for the second integrity level (“‘Verification priority’ indicates a priority at which to verify the integrity. The verification schedule is determined such that a verification target having a higher verification priority is subject to integrity verification immediately or more frequently. For example, the integrity is verified at 10-second intervals if the verification priority is ‘high’, the integrity is verified at 30-second intervals if the verification priority is ‘mid’, and the integrity is verified at 60-second intervals if the verification priority is ‘low’.” (See para [0124]));
in response to determining that the first software package satisfies the one or more rules [[for the second integrity level]], deploying the first software package to one or more vehicles (Avs) (“Note that the integrity verification time may be determined when the previous integrity verification ends, or may be determined when the priority is changed. Additionally, the integrity verification time may be set to a plurality of times for a single virtual machine (a single piece of software). In this case, the next and subsequent integrity verification times may be updated when the priority is changed.” (See para [0133])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kishikawa into the teachings of Chen because that would have provided an integrity verification device that verifies an integrity of one or more pieces of software in an in-vehicle network system. Through this, the integrity of at least part of the software to be verified, which is determined in an adaptive manner, can be verified based on the verification timing or the verification scope determined in accordance with the verification priority. In other words, it is possible that the integrity of at least a high-risk part of software can be verified preferentially. This makes it possible to suppress situations in which the effects of verifying the integrity of the one or more pieces of software are reduced, even if the verification frequency or the verification scope for verifying the integrity of low-risk software is reduced. Accordingly, the processing load involved in verifying the integrity of the software can be reduced in a system which requires real-time performance as suggested by Kishikawa (See para [0036]).
In addition, Manaev discloses:
based on determining that the second integrity level has greater standards than the first integrity level, selecting the second integrity level for the first software package (“In one embodiment, the fixes are assigned a priority level. The priority level of a failed fix is compared to a threshold priority level to determine whether or not to continue with the upgrade. For example, a user may determine that a particular fix has a ‘critical’ priority level such that it is important to the integrity of the system 300 or highly desired by the user. If the critical fix fails, the upgrade is aborted until a new fix for the intended data flaw is derived. As another example, if a particular fix having an ‘average’ priority fails, the analyze and fix module 310 may determine to continue with the upgrade without applying the particular fix.” (See Col. 4, lines 53-63));
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manaev into the teachings of Chen and Kishikawa because that would have evaluated all of the detected flaws as one unit before strategies for their fixing are devised and executed, which increased or maximized the probability of data reuse in upgraded complex software artifacts as suggested by Manaev (See Col. 5, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Chen further discloses wherein the first integrity level for the first software package is based on an intended use of the first software package within an autonomous driving software environment (“Achieving localization (precise location and orientation relative to context map) is a prerequisite to the vehicle operating autonomously. After localization is complete, the route for the job may be loaded to the vehicle, and there may be no further dependencies for starting up the other modules on the vehicle.” (See para [0085])).
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Chen does not explicitly teach: wherein determining that the first software package satisfies the second integrity level comprises:
performing automated testing of the first software package;
determining a portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing; and
determining that the portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing satisfies a threshold associated with the second integrity level.
However, Kishikawa discloses:
performing automated testing of the first software package (“an integrity verification method that verifies an integrity of one or more pieces of software in an in-vehicle network system.” (See para [0053]));
determining a portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing (“an integrity verification method that verifies an integrity of one or more pieces of software in an in-vehicle network system. Each of the one or more pieces of software is executed by one of one or more electronic control units connected to the in-vehicle network system. The integrity verification method includes: determining a verification timing at which to verify the integrity of each of the one or more pieces of software; for each piece of software among the one or more pieces of software,” (See para [0053])); and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kishikawa into the teachings of Chen because that would have provided an integrity verification device that verifies an integrity of one or more pieces of software in an in-vehicle network system. Through this, the integrity of at least part of the software to be verified, which is determined in an adaptive manner, can be verified based on the verification timing or the verification scope determined in accordance with the verification priority. In other words, it is possible that the integrity of at least a high-risk part of software can be verified preferentially. This makes it possible to suppress situations in which the effects of verifying the integrity of the one or more pieces of software are reduced, even if the verification frequency or the verification scope for verifying the integrity of low-risk software is reduced. Accordingly, the processing load involved in verifying the integrity of the software can be reduced in a system which requires real-time performance as suggested by Kishikawa (See para [0036]).
But Chen and Kishikawa do not explicitly teach:
determining that the portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing satisfies a threshold associated with the second integrity level.
However, Manaev discloses:
determining that the portion of the first software package tested by the automated testing satisfies a threshold associated with the second integrity level (“In one embodiment, the fixes are assigned a priority level. The priority level of a failed fix is compared to a threshold priority level to determine whether or not to continue with the upgrade. For example, a user may determine that a particular fix has a ‘critical’ priority level such that it is important to the integrity of the system 300 or highly desired by the user. If the critical fix fails, the upgrade is aborted until a new fix for the intended data flaw is derived. As another example, if a particular fix having an ‘average’ priority fails, the analyze and fix module 310 may determine to continue with the upgrade without applying the particular fix.” (See Col. 4, lines 53-63));
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manaev into the teachings of Chen and Kishikawa because that would have evaluated all of the detected flaws as one unit before strategies for their fixing are devised and executed, which increased or maximized the probability of data reuse in upgraded complex software artifacts as suggested by Manaev (See Col. 5, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Chen does not explicitly teach: wherein determining that the first software package satisfies the second integrity level comprises:
receiving, from a software developer, other data indicating that a set of software development rules are met by the first software package; and
determining that the first software package satisfies the second integrity level further based on the other data from the software developer.
However, Kishikawa discloses:
receiving, from a software developer, other data indicating that a set of software development rules are met by the first software package (“determining a verification timing at which to verify the integrity of each of the one or more pieces of software; for each piece of software among the one or more pieces of software, determining, at the verification timing determined for the piece of software, whether first integrity information matches second integrity information, and determining that the integrity of the piece of software is ensured when the first integrity information and the second integrity information match, the first integrity information being information for verifying the integrity of the piece of software and that corresponds to at least a part of the piece of software corresponding to a verification scope” (See para [0053])); and
determining that the first software package satisfies the second integrity level further based on the other data from the software developer (“determining a verification timing at which to verify the integrity of each of the one or more pieces of software; for each piece of software among the one or more pieces of software, determining, at the verification timing determined for the piece of software, whether first integrity information matches second integrity information, and determining that the integrity of the piece of software is ensured when the first integrity information and the second integrity information match, the first integrity information being information for verifying the integrity of the piece of software and that corresponds to at least a part of the piece of software corresponding to a verification scope” (See para [0053])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kishikawa into the teachings of Chen because that would have provided an integrity verification device that verifies an integrity of one or more pieces of software in an in-vehicle network system. Through this, the integrity of at least part of the software to be verified, which is determined in an adaptive manner, can be verified based on the verification timing or the verification scope determined in accordance with the verification priority. In other words, it is possible that the integrity of at least a high-risk part of software can be verified preferentially. This makes it possible to suppress situations in which the effects of verifying the integrity of the one or more pieces of software are reduced, even if the verification frequency or the verification scope for verifying the integrity of low-risk software is reduced. Accordingly, the processing load involved in verifying the integrity of the software can be reduced in a system which requires real-time performance as suggested by Kishikawa (See para [0036]).
Regarding claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Chen further comprising:
identifying a number of dependent software packages each depending on the first software package, the dependent software packages including the second software package (“When remotely starting the vehicle 101, there are certain dependencies that are accounted for in order to expedite and optimize the reliability of the remote startup process of the vehicle” (See para [0038]));
But Chen does not explicitly teach:
in response to the number of dependent software packages satisfies a threshold, increasing the second integrity level for the first software package.
However, Kishikawa discloses:
in response to the number of dependent software packages satisfies a threshold, increasing the second integrity level for the first software package (“In one embodiment, the fixes are assigned a priority level. The priority level of a failed fix is compared to a threshold priority level to determine whether or not to continue with the upgrade. For example, a user may determine that a particular fix has a ‘critical’ priority level such that it is important to the integrity of the system 300 or highly desired by the user. If the critical fix fails, the upgrade is aborted until a new fix for the intended data flaw is derived. As another example, if a particular fix having an ‘average’ priority fails, the analyze and fix module 310 may determine to continue with the upgrade without applying the particular fix.” (See Col. 4, lines 53-63));
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manaev into the teachings of Chen and Kishikawa because that would have evaluated all of the detected flaws as one unit before strategies for their fixing are devised and executed, which increased or maximized the probability of data reuse in upgraded complex software artifacts as suggested by Manaev (See Col. 5, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Chen does not explicitly teach: in response to determining that the software package satisfies the one or more rules for the second integrity level, adding the first software package to a code repository.
However, Kishikawa discloses:
in response to determining that the software package satisfies the one or more rules for the second integrity level, adding the first software package to a code repository (“integrity verifier 1024 determines whether the first integrity information, which is for verifying the integrity of the software to be verified and which corresponds to at least a part of the piece of the software corresponding to a verification scope, matches the second integrity information, which is calculated from at least a part of the piece of software at the verification timing. Integrity verifier 1024 determines that the integrity of the software is ensured when the first integrity information and the second integrity information match. Integrity verifier 1024 updates the integrity verification result for each piece of software, or each part of the piece of software, stored in verification result storage 1025, along with the verification time, using the integrity verification result from the verification of each piece of software, or each part of the piece of software.” (See paras [0088] – [0089])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kishikawa into the teachings of Chen because that would have provided an integrity verification device that verifies an integrity of one or more pieces of software in an in-vehicle network system. Through this, the integrity of at least part of the software to be verified, which is determined in an adaptive manner, can be verified based on the verification timing or the verification scope determined in accordance with the verification priority. In other words, it is possible that the integrity of at least a high-risk part of software can be verified preferentially. This makes it possible to suppress situations in which the effects of verifying the integrity of the one or more pieces of software are reduced, even if the verification frequency or the verification scope for verifying the integrity of low-risk software is reduced. Accordingly, the processing load involved in verifying the integrity of the software can be reduced in a system which requires real-time performance as suggested by Kishikawa (See para [0036]).
Regarding claim 9:
This is a non-transitory computer-readable medium version of the rejected method claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
This is a system version of the rejected method claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
The rejection of base claim 15 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
The rejection of base claim 15 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
The rejection of base claim 15 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 August 4th, 2025