DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 11-19 are pending in this 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 17 and 18 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 12, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. (CN-106183821-A), [hereinafter “Adam”] in view of Hsu et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0121538) [hereinafter “Hsu”] in further view of N/A (KR-101188413-B1) [hereinafter “KR ‘413”].
As per claim 1, Adam teaches the method for security monitoring of a vehicle-mounted system, wherein the vehicle-mounted system comprises a plurality of levels of functions (Abstract, security system “mounted” on a vehicle with different levels related to measured security parameters), and the method comprises: receiving, by a first security monitoring module of a first level of the plurality of levels (security memory manager acts like a hypervisor for security-critical-operating system), first exception information from a second level, wherein the first level is an upper level of the second level (Page 2 para. 9, sending security parameters and variables can trigger an increase in security level); determining, by the first security monitoring module, whether the first exception information exceeds a processing range of the first security monitoring module (Page 2 para. 11, determining based on the security parameter that security requirements are higher than current level and requires more accurate measurements see Page 3 para. 1-2).
Adam does not explicitly teach exception information sent between security modules. Hsu teaches exception information sent between security modules ([0017], security level information is sent between security modules which jointly govern the security implementation and security levels).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Adam with the teachings of Hsu, exception information sent between security modules, to compartmentalize the security functionalities for ease of reuse and user decision making.
The combination of Adam and Hsu does not explicitly teach monitoring, by the first security monitoring module, a running state of a function module included in the second level and a running state of the second security monitoring module; sending, by the first security monitoring module, the first exception information to a third level when the first exception information exceeds the processing range of the first security monitoring module; and performing security processing on the first exception information by the third level, wherein the third level is an upper level of the first level. KR ‘413 teaches monitoring, by the first security monitoring module, a running state of a function module included in the second level and a running state of the second security monitoring module (Page 2, para. 5, virtual machine unit does a live check on the state of a primary virtual machine); sending, by the first security monitoring module, the first exception information to a third level when the first exception information exceeds the processing range of the first security monitoring module (Page 2, para. 5, sends a fault notice to the VMM if response not received) also (Page 2, para. 6, VMM is designed with the capability to handle this type of fault by setting a change to the memory access control address); and performing security processing on the first exception information by the third level, wherein the third level is an upper level of the first level (Page 2, para. 6, VMM then can reset the primary virtual machine or the virtual machine unit by setting a change to the memory access control address).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Adam and Hsu with the teachings of KR ‘413, monitoring, by the first security monitoring module, a running state of a function module included in the second level and a running state of the second security monitoring module, to compartmentalize the security functionalities for ease of reuse and user decision making.
As per claim 3, the combination of Adam, Hsu and KR ‘413 teaches the method for security monitoring according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: monitoring, by the first security monitoring module, a running state of the first level (Adam; Page 5 para. 7, monitoring for security events during the running of vehicle including things like torque).
As per claim 7, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 9, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the combination of Adam, Hsu and KR ‘413 teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the electronic device is located on a vehicle (Adam; Abstract, processing unit on a vehicle used to measure and test security parameters).
Claims 2, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, Hsu and KR ‘413 in further view of Jung et al. (US PGPUB No. 2009/0259839) [hereinafter “Jung”].
As per claim 2, the combination of Adam, Hsu and KR ‘413 teaches the method for security monitoring according to claim 1.
The combination of Adam, Hsu and KR ‘413 does not explicitly teach performing security processing on the first exception information by the second security monitoring module when the first exception information does not exceed a processing range of the second security monitoring module; or performing security processing on the first exception information by the first security monitoring module when the first exception information does not exceed the processing range of the first security monitoring module. Jung teaches performing security processing on the first exception information by the second security monitoring module when the first exception information does not exceed a processing range of the second security monitoring module ([0051], when security level of user is the same as the second security module, the second security module is used); or performing security processing on the first exception information by the first security monitoring module when the first exception information does not exceed the processing range of the first security monitoring module ([0051], when security level of user is the same level as the first security module, the first security module is used).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Adam, Hsu and KR ‘413 with the teachings of Jung, performing security processing on the first exception information by the second security monitoring module when the first exception information does not exceed a processing range of the second security monitoring module; or performing security processing on the first exception information by the first security monitoring module when the first exception information does not exceed the processing range of the first security monitoring module, to route processing to the appropriate components for efficient and accurate execution of security policies.
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s after-final arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9 and 11-12, 15-16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered and are persuasive. Examiner has introduced a new prior art reference, KR ‘413, to address the discussed feature/s.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ujiie et al. (US PGPUB No. 2017/0192770), Meller et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/007515), Batmaz et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0303567), Borg et al. (CN-109791524-A), N/A (CN-111240877-A), Strobl et al. ("Towards automotive virtualization," 2013 International Conference on Applied Electronics, Pilsen, Czech Republic, 2013, pp. 1-6), Othmane et al. ("Towards extended safety in connected vehicles," 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013), The Hague, Netherlands, 2013, pp. 652-657, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2013.6728305) and Park et al. ("Power Management of Virtualized Automotive HMI Systems," 2024 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2024, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICCE59016.2024.10444479) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including different security levels in vehicle operations and communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights