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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 01/06/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 2 and 14-16 were canceled.
Claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the double patenting, the argument is not persuasive since the amended limitation is disclosed in view of the primary reference and has been updated as an obviousness in view of the primary reference as shown in the office action below.
With respect to the 102 rejection, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the primary reference discloses the amended limitation as mapped in the office action below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 3-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/740624 in view of Yang et al. (US 20220014549 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite the same matter with minor differences like the co-pending applications recite server corresponding to second apparatus.
Yang ¶82 and 92 teach based on a vehicle (V2X) detecting misbehavior which is sent to a second apparatus a vehicle certificate is revoked.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 18/740624 with revocation of the certificate of the first apparatus as disclosed by Yang to ensure connected vehicles to the system do not have an error (see Yang ¶92).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20220014549 A1) hereinafter referred to as Yang.
With respect to claim 1, Yang discloses: A system including a first apparatus and a second apparatus, the first apparatus comprising: one or more first processors; and at least one first memory coupled to the one or more first processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the one or more first processors to function as: (Yang Fig. 4 illustrates first vehicle (V2X) apparatus and second communication apparatuses).
a detection unit configured to detect an error which occurs in the first apparatus, wherein the error is related with security problem of the first apparatus and safety problem of the first apparatus; (Yang ¶82 discloses V2X detect misbehavior of the vehicle and in addition ¶2 discloses malfunction and incorrect data being used).
and a notification unit configured to notify occurrence of the error, and the second apparatus comprising: one or more second processors; (Yang ¶92 teaches a subject node [notification] issuing a certificate revocation of the V2X based on security malfunction).
and at least one second memory coupled to the one or more second processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the one or more second processors to function as: a reception unit configured to receive the notification; and a revocation unit configured to revoke a certificate of the first apparatus based on the notification received by the reception unit. (Yang ¶92 teaches a subject node issuing a certificate revocation of the V2X based on security malfunction to be sent to the misbehavior authority for processing and revocation).
With respect to claim 4, Yang discloses: The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a determination unit configured to determine a necessity for revocation of the certificate of the first apparatus based on the notification received by the reception unit, wherein when the determination unit determines to revoke the certificate of the first apparatus, the revocation unit revokes the certificate of the first apparatus based on the notification received by the reception unit. (Yang ¶92 discloses reception node sends certificate revocation recommendation to misbehavior authority based on V2X detection of misbehavior. Yang ¶181 discloses receiving revocation directive from the misbehavior authority).
With respect to claim 5, Yang discloses: The system according to claim 4, wherein the determination unit determines the necessity of revocation of the certificate of the first apparatus based on a type of the error and a level indicating a level of severity of the error included in the notification received by the reception unit. (Yang ¶92 discloses reception node sends certificate revocation recommendation to misbehavior authority based on V2X detection of misbehavior type of error and also the paragraph discloses threshold [level]).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1, 4-5 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Unagami et al. (US 20140129829 A1) hereinafter referred to as Unagami.
With respect to claim 3, Yang discloses: The system according to claim 1,
Yang does not explicitly disclose: wherein the revocation unit revokes the certificate of the first apparatus by registering a serial number of the certificate of the first apparatus included in the notification and a current date and time in a certificate revocation list (CRL).
However, Unagami in an analogous art discloses: wherein the revocation unit revokes the certificate of the first apparatus by registering a serial number of the certificate of the first apparatus included in the notification and a current date and time in a certificate revocation list (CRL). (Unagami ¶31 teaches obtaining certificate time and date and data included in a CRL wherein each certificate has an ID [serial number] as understood from Unagami Figs. 3A-3B ¶73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing apparatuses disclosed by Yang wherein the revocation unit revokes the certificate of the first apparatus by registering a serial number of the certificate of the first apparatus included in the notification and a current date and time in a certificate revocation list (CRL) as disclosed by Unagami to retain critical identifying certificate data and log (see Unagami ¶31, Figs. 3A-3B, ¶73).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1, 4-5 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 8452958 B2) hereinafter referred to as Sun.
With respect to claim 6, Yang discloses: The system according to claim 1, further comprising:
Yang does not explicitly disclose: a third apparatus, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to transmit a CRL to the third apparatus in response to a query from the third apparatus that has received a message from the first apparatus.
However, Sun in an analogous art discloses: a third apparatus, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to transmit a CRL to the third apparatus in response to a query from the third apparatus that has received a message from the first apparatus. (Sun col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 10 teach client 100 [third apparatus] receiving a message from a certificate holder [first apparatus] wherein “client 100 [third apparatus] may periodically check CRL 108 during the lifetime of certificate 102 by sending a CRL fetching request [query] to retrieve the CRL list from the CA server or CRL server [second apparatus] to determine if the certificate 102 is found in that list and should no longer be relied upon.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing apparatuses disclosed by Yang with a third apparatus, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to transmit a CRL to the third apparatus in response to a query from the third apparatus that has received a message from the first apparatus as disclosed by Sun to ensure that the CRL is up to date (see Sun col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 10).
With respect to claim 7, Yang discloses: The system according to claim 1, further comprising:
Yang does not explicitly disclose: a third apparatus, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to periodically transmit a CRL to the third apparatus.
However, Sun in an analogous art discloses: a third apparatus, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to periodically transmit a CRL to the third apparatus. (Sun col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 10 teach “CA server or CRL server” periodically transmitting the CRL to the client 100 based on the client request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing apparatuses disclosed by Yang with a third apparatus, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to periodically transmit a CRL to the third apparatus as disclosed by Sun to ensure that the CRL is up to date (see Sun col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 10).
With respect to claim 9, Yang in view of Sun disclose: The system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more second processors further function as: a transmission unit configured to transmit to the third apparatus that the certificate of the first apparatus has been revoked. (Sun col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 10 teach the server [second apparatus] transmitting to client 100 [third apparatus] the CRL which indicates if a certificate of another apparatus [first apparatus] has be revoked).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Sun as applied to claim 1, 4-7, 9 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Hydrie et al. (US 20090138486 A1) hereinafter referred to as Hydrie.
With respect to claim 8, Yang in view of Sun disclose: The system according to claim 6,
Yang in view of Sun do not explicitly disclose: wherein when a serial number of the certificate of the first apparatus included in the message received from the first apparatus is registered in the CRL received from the second apparatus, the third apparatus discards the message received from the first apparatus.
However, Hydrie in an analogous art discloses: wherein when a serial number of the certificate of the first apparatus included in the message received from the first apparatus is registered in the CRL received from the second apparatus, the third apparatus discards the message received from the first apparatus. (Hydrie table 001, which is under ¶71, teaches certificate is saved by certificate serial number for tracking and revocation. Additionally, Hydrie ¶85 teaches the second device can be “checking a CRL, identifies that the SCD has been revoked (in step 503) or that the publisher of a piece of content [message received from the first apparatus] has had their uthorization revoked (in step 504), the SCD will not be stored (in step 304) but will be discarded or rejected.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing apparatuses disclosed by Yang in view of Sun wherein when a serial number of the certificate of the first apparatus included in the message received from the first apparatus is registered in the CRL received from the second apparatus, the third apparatus discards the message received from the first apparatus as disclosed by Hydrie because identification of a certificate by a number for accuracy and ensure that data from a srouce that is not supposed to be shared according to a CRL is discarded (see Hydrie table 001 and ¶85).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Sun as applied to claim 1, 4-7, 9 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Barrett et al. (US 11695574 B2) hereinafter referred to as Barrett.
With respect to claim 13, Yang in view of Sun disclose: The system according to claim 6,
Yang in view of Sun do not explicitly disclose: wherein the first apparatus and the third apparatus are each either a vehicle or a roadside device.
However, Barrett in an analogous art discloses: wherein the first apparatus and the third apparatus are each either a vehicle or a roadside device. (Barrett Fig. 1 illustrates communication is between two vehicles first and third apparatus and other apparatuses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing apparatuses disclosed by Yang in view of Sun allowing the computing system of certificate management taught by Yang and Sun to be included in vehicles as taught by Barrett since current need for secure vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see Barrett col 1 lines 20-35).
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 HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493