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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 12/29/2025, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Interview Summary
Examiner contacted the applicant’s representative on 5/22/2026 to discuss further amendments to the claims in order to expedite the prosecution. Mr. Curro however suggested to discuss the amendments at later time in the prosecution history.
Response to Arguments
There are no significant claims amendment filed with RCEX. The arguments filed on 03/20/2026 are repeated here for record.
1. "Comparing the SPOM of the first vehicle with one or more policies for a location, region, or zone".
Applicant argues: that Klein does not disclose comparing an SBOM with policies for a location, region, or zone.
Response: Klein teaches that connected vehicles exchange operational, firmware, and configuration information with transportation infrastructure (Klein [0020]). Under BRI, the SBOM is a from of firmware/ configuration metadata, and the "policies" corresponds to the infrastructure-defined operational constraints for a given region or zone. Klein further teaches that firmware and software components are mapped into a coherent SPOM structure (Klein [0044]), enabling the system to evaluate compliance with operational requirements. While Klein may not explicitly use the phrase "compare SBOM to policies" the reference clearly teaches evaluating vehicle software/firmware characteristics against infrastructure-defined operational constraints. A POSITA would understand that such evaluation necessarily involves comparing the vehicle's software state (SBOM) with the rules or requirements of the region. This is a routine and predictable use of known techniques for ensuring compliance in V2X systems.
2. "Upon comparing ...enabling vehicle-to-vehicle communication over the secure vehicle network."
Applicant asserts that Klein does not disclose enabling V2V communication based on compliance and that Beach eta al. does not cure this deficiency.
Response: Beach teaches zone-based operational rules that govern how a vehicle behaves when entering a region (Beach, [0022]). These rules include broadcasting information to the zone and modifying communication behavior based on zone-specific requirements. Under BRI, "enabling communication" includes modifying, permitting, or activating communication behaviors based on compliance with zone rules. A POSITA would recognize that if a zone can impose communication-related requirements (as Beach teaches), then enabling or disabling communication based on compliance is an obvious extension. The Applicant has not shown any criticality to the specific mechanism of "enabling V2V communication" that would render this non-obvious.
3. "Enabling V2V communication within the zone where the vehicle complies with the policies."
Applicant argues that Oh et al. does not disclose enabling V2V communication based on compliance policies.
Response: Oh et al. teaches, enabling V2V communication based on the type, capability, and predicted route of the other vehicle (Oh, [0141; fig.16). This is a conditional-enablement mechanism: communication is permitted only when certain criteria are met. Under BRI, "policies" include any rule set governing whether communication should occur. Oh's criteria (Vehicle type, capability, predicted route) are policies in the ordinary sense. A POSITA would find it obvious to extend Oh's conditional-enablement mechanism to include compliance with zone-based policies, especially in view of Beach's teaching that zones impose operational rules and Klein's teaching that vehicle software/firmware characteristics are evaluated against infrastructure requirement.
4. Motivation to combine; Applicant argues that the cited references do not collectively teach all elements of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Response: The rejection is based on a combination of references, not on any single reference alone. Under KSR, combining known techniques- SBOM evaluation (Klein), zone-based operational rules (Beach ), and conditional V2V communication enablement (Oh) - to achieve predictable results is obvious. Each reference addresses a different but complementary aspect of secure, policy-driven vehicle communication Further, applicant has not provided evidence of teaching away, unexpected results, or any secondary considerations that would overcome the prima facie case of obviousness and therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150270 A1), hereinafter “Klein” in view of Beach et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0129220 A1), hereinafter “Beach” and further in view of Oh et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0247537 A1), hereinafter “Oh”.
As to claim 1. Klein discloses, a computer-implemented method for establishing a secure vehicle network (Klein, [0003]), the computer-implemented method comprising:
fetching, by at least one processor, a software bill of materials (SBOM) documenting software components and dependencies of a first vehicle (Klein, [0007], the set of facts includes one or more of a software bill of materials (SBOM), operating system and kernel configuration, etc.);
comparing, by the at least one processor, the SBOM of the first vehicle with one or more policies for one or more location, region or zone the first vehicle is currently positioned within or routed to travel through (Klein, [0020], transportation infrastructures can also communicate with connected vehicles, which can be referred to as vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) communication.); and
upon comparing the SBOM of the first vehicle with the one or more policies (Klein, [0044], the firmware is fully mapped into a coherent SBOM.).
Klein however is silent to disclose explicitly, the first vehicle complies with the policies of the one or more location, region or zone, enabling, by the at least one processor, vehicle-to-vehicle communication over the secure vehicle network within the one or more location, region or zone the vehicle complies with the one or more policies.
Beach discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, the vehicle complies with the policies of the one or more location, region or zone, enabling, by the at least one processor, vehicle-to-vehicle communication over the secure vehicle network within the one or more location, region or zone the vehicle complies with the one or more policies (Beach, [0022], a zone, driving rules might require the autonomous vehicle to alert the driver that the vehicle is approaching the zone so that the driver can take control of steering, acceleration, etc. In another example they suggest that entering a zone might be associated with an automatic broadcast from the vehicle to others in the surrounding area signaling an unsafe condition.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Beach” into those of “Klein” to provide a capability of executing missions that abide by on-street rules or regulations, while also being able to seamlessly transition to and from “zones,” including off-street zones, with their set(s) of rules or regulations. An on-board memory stores roadmap information.
Klein and Beach however are silent to disclose explicitly, enabling vehicle-to-vehicle communication allowing communications to pass between the first vehicle and a second vehicle if the policies are complied with.
Oh discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, enabling vehicle-to-vehicle communication allowing communications to pass between the first vehicle and a second vehicle if the policies are complied with (Oh, fig.16, [0141], enabling V2V communication based on type and capability of the second vehicle and based on predicted routing or traveling information).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Oh” into those of “Klein and Beach” to provide a method for estimating a position of a vehicle, and a vehicle using the same. A vehicle location estimation apparatus includes a vehicle sensor configured to detect a vehicle, a communication unit configured to receive traveling information of a further vehicle from the further vehicle, and a controller configured to detect a position of the vehicle and a traveling trajectory of the further vehicle based on information of vehicles detected by the vehicle sensor and traveling information of the further vehicle transmitted from the further vehicle, and to predict a traveling route of the further vehicle, to match the predicted traveling route of the further vehicle with an expected traveling route on a map, thereby correcting the position of the vehicle.
As to claim 2. The combined system of Klein, Beach and Oh disclose the invention as in parent claim above including, muting, by the at least one processor, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication over the secure vehicle network while the first vehicle is positioned within the one or more location, region or zone where the SBOM fails to comply with the one or more policies (Beach, [0022], in a zone, driving rules might require the autonomous vehicle to alert the driver that the vehicle is approaching the zone so that the driver can take control of steering, acceleration, etc.).
As to claim 3. The combined system of Klein, Beach and Oh disclose the invention as in parent claim above including, modifying, by the at least one processor, a route of the first vehicle, wherein the route bypasses the one or more location, region or zone where the vehicle fails to comply with the one or more policies (Beach, [0044], The precise smooth path to the next point is modified to the left or right so as to avoid potential collisions and if these collisions cannot be avoided, slows and eventually stops the vehicle prior to collision. Alternatively using a user interface that alerts the human driver can call for driving control to be passed from the automated system to the human driver).
As to claims 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claims 1-3 above.
Examiner Note: Claims 4-7, 11-14 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571 272-7952. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights