DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment filed on July 23, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 6, 8, 16-17 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20, as amended, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7, 9 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 limitation “an encryption module configured to encrypt control data … and decrypt encrypted control data” and “a failsafe module configured to detect”, in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Looking to the specification it is unclear if the modules are merely software instructions or some other structure. Page 2, lines 6-12, establishes that the module includes a “non-volatile memory (electrically erasable programmable read-only memory, hereinafter, EEPROM)”. The limitations recite an apparatus which is structure comprising modules which from the specification can be structure in the form of memory modules, however lacking any clear link to the corresponding structure it is unclear what structure if any is required by the limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9 dependent from claim 1 and are therefore rejected upon the same rationale.
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 1-5, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the actions related to comparing data, which is a mental activity.
Under Step 1, claims 1-5, 7, 9 recite an apparatus, claims 10-15, 18 and 20, recite a method. As such each of the claims falls within one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2(a) – Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
In the instant case the limitations generally recite encrypting and decrypting data and then comparing that data. Given how broad the claims are currently written this allows for merely mental steps. As such each the steps is directed toward the abstract idea. Further as the structure recited is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). That is the claims merely recite the functions of encrypting, decrypting and comparing the data. The claims do not establish how these functions are achieved other than an electronic control apparatus is performing these functions in some way. As such this amounts to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it does not render the abstract idea into a practical application.
While the applicant has argued that the limitations cannot be performed practically in the human mind, the applicant is merely relying on the type of data and not any specifics on how that data is being manipulated. Unlike the examples stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, the limitations of the claims merely recite the idea of encrypting and decrypting and comparing the information, without any specifics of how the data is manipulated. Looking toward the cited reference Geeksforgeeks SDES is a simple version of DES and is in fact smaller with fewer parameters and made for educational purposes. From this claims continue to recite an abstract idea of generally applying encryption and decryption on a set of data. There are no specifics to how the data is manipulated or the extent of data being manipulated. As such it is merely an abstract idea which is being applied on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Lacking any additional arguments the Examiner has not been persuaded and the rejections have therefore been maintained.
As such when considered individually or in combination the elements fail to render the claims into a practical application.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted the above the steps of encrypting, decrypting and comparing are generic and as such are not considered to be a practical application.
As state above the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – an electronic control apparatus, and vehicle. The hardware in claimed limitations is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As noted above there are no additional elements which indicate that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 recite “wherein the control software uses the decrypted data for calculation” and “comprising using the decrypted data for calculation of the control software” which describes the using the decrypted data but does not provide any specifics of how it is used or what calculations are performed. As such this is still merely applying the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Lacking any additional elements the claims have not been rendered into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 recite “wherein the control software uses the decrypted data in which contamination is not detected by the failsafe module for calculation” and “using the decrypted data in which contamination of the data is not detected by comparing the encrypted data with the decrypted data for calculation of the control software” which describes the using the decrypted data but does not provide any specifics of how it is used or what calculations are performed. As such this is still merely applying the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Lacking any additional elements the claims have not been rendered into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recite “wherein the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key”, which merely describes the type of data, but not how it is utilized. Other than to describing the data the limitations do not provide any function or use of the data and as such fails to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5, 14 and 14 recite “wherein the encryption module includes a first subkey and a second subkey, each of which is generated from the master key and used for encryption and decryption of the data”, “wherein the encrypting of the data using the master key includes encrypting the data using a first subkey and a second subkey generated from the master key” and “wherein the decrypting of the encrypted data using the master key includes decrypting the encrypted data using a first subkey and a second subkey generated from the master key”, which describes encrypting and decrypting in a general sense but does not provide any specifics toward the algorithm used to decrypt and encrypt the data, as such this is still merely applying the abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f). Lacking any additional elements the claims have not been rendered into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7 and 18 recite “wherein the encrypted data and the decrypted data include the same information in the same array” which is merely describing the data and lacking any additional elements the claims have not been rendered into a practical application.
Dependent claims 9 and 20 recite “wherein the failsafe module outputs a corresponding notification signal to the outside upon detecting contamination of the data” and “wherein the detecting of contamination of the data further includes outputting a corresponding notification signal to the outside upon detecting contamination of the data” which is merely outputting data which is a general function, and as such is merely applying the abstract using a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Lacking any additional elements the claims have not been rendered into a practical application.
Thus when considered individually or as a combination these elements do not amount to a practical application.
As such claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20 recite an abstract idea and without any specifics to how the functions are performed the claims are not found to render the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walmsley et al. (WO01/61917A1) hereafter Walmsley, in view of Teshler et al. (US 11,818,235 B1) hereafter Teshler, further in view of GeeksforGeeks.com, “Simplified Data Encryption Standard Key Generation”, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/simplified-data-encryption-standard-key-generation/ , (September 27, 2021) hereafter GeeksforGeeks.
As per claim 1, Walmsley discloses an apparatus comprising:
an encryption module configured to encrypt data received from a software for a vehicle function using a master key and decrypt encrypted data received from another apparatus for the vehicle using the master key (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the data which is received is encrypted using a key the data is transmitted to other parts of the system. Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt, as such this acts as the master key, and this is a standard for the DES algorithm. The encryption algorithm is DES or Data Encryption Standard is implemented in hardware and software. Page 82, line 31-34; discloses that a master key is used to validate they keys used in the vehicle and used to control access to the vehicle); and
a failsafe module configured to detect contamination of the data by comparing the encrypted data with the decrypted data (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the decrypted data is compared to encrypted data to determine if there is a match. If there is a match the data is considered valid and if there is not a match the data is considered to be invalid. Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses the encryption algorithm is DES or Data Encryption Standard is implemented in hardware and software).
wherein the encryption module includes a data encryption standard (DES) algorithm for encrypting or decrypting the data (Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses the encryption algorithm is DES or Data Encryption Standard is implemented in hardware and software).
Walmsley further discloses wherein the failsafe module detects contamination of the data by decrypting the encrypted data, encrypting the decrypted data, and recomparing the encrypted data with the decrypted data (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that as part of the decrypting and encrypting the data the data is recompared to determine if the data itself is valid).
The applicant’s originally filed specification states “The control software 100 includes data and programs for controlling various electronic control systems, including a braking system, a steering system, a drive system, a multimedia system, and the like, of a vehicle”, Page 6, lines 5-7. The Examiner notes that this is an open ended list and as such is not a specific definition of what “control software” is limited to, therefore the term is considered broadly.
While Walmsley discusses encrypting and decrypting data between components it is not specific that it is for an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and that the data is control data and that the software is control software. To establish the scope of the claims the Examiner notes the applicant’s originally filed specification states “The control software 100 includes data and programs for controlling various electronic control systems, including a braking system, a steering system, a drive system, a multimedia system, and the like, of a vehicle”, Page 6, lines 5-7. The Examiner notes that this is again an open ended list and as such does not provide a specific definition of what “control software” is limited to, therefore the term is considered broadly. For the purposes of expedited prosecution the Examiner has provided the following reference to establish that communicating is between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and that the software controlling the communication is control software. While Walmsley discloses the use of DES or Data Encryption Standard, it is not explicit that it uses Simplified Data Encryption Standard or (S-DES).
Teshler, which like the Walmsley discusses encrypting and decrypting using Data Encryption Standard (DES) or other symmetric forms of cryptography to secure data, teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle for controlling a vehicle function. Teshler additionally teaches that the data is transmitted and received from another electronic control apparatus for the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data. From this it would have been obvious to utilize the known techniques of DES when validating the communication between the vehicle ECU and other vehicle ECUs within the same vehicle. As stated in Walmsley symmetric algorithms are faster to compute and require less software or silicon, Walmsley, page 9, line 8. As such it would have been obvious to apply symmetric encryption to the communication inside and outside a vehicle to provider faster computing and requiring less software).
Walmsley discloses a method for determining if data is valid. Walmsley establishes both encrypted and decrypting data using known techniques. The data is then compared to determine if the data is valid or invalid. Walmsley establishes determining if the data has been contaminated. While Walmsley establishes multiple environments of use including vehicles, it is not explicit that it communicates between an electronic control apparatus of a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software.
Teshler establishes using similar known methods of encrypting and decrypting data and teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the data validation system of Walmsley the ability to use this type of data validation between a vehicle and outside sources as taught by Teshler since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Teshler, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of validating data provided by Walmsley, with the ability to use this type of data validation between a vehicle and outside sources as taught by Teshler, for the purposes of ensuring security when transmitting data. As stated in Walmsley symmetric algorithms are faster to compute and require less software or silicon, Walmsley, page 9, line 8. As such it would have been obvious to apply symmetric encryption to the communication inside and outside a vehicle to provider faster computing and requiring less software.
While Walmsley discloses the implementation using standard (DES) encryption algorithm, it is not explicit that it uses simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm.
GeeksforGeeks, which like the combination talks about the use of DES, teaches that simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm is a known algorithm for encrypting and decrypting and is a simple version of DES that is described in the combination (Page 1, Paragraphs [0001]-[0003]; teaches that Simplified Data Encryption Standard (S-DES) is a simple version of the DES Algorithm. The algorithm is similar to DES but smaller and has fewer parameters. Like DES it uses a symmetric key which uses the same key for both encryption and decryption. It begins with a master key which is converted into two 8 bit keys which are shared between both sender and receiver. Since the combination establishes that the use of DES is already known it would have been obvious to replace the algorithm with another symmetric key algorithm. Further S-DES has the advantage of being simpler and using less parameters which as shown in Walmsley would result in a faster processing speed).
Walmsley discloses a method for determining if data is valid. Walmsley establishes both encrypted and decrypting data using known techniques. The data is then compared to determine if the data is valid or invalid. Walmsley establishes determining if the data has been contaminated. Teshler establishes using similar known methods of encrypting and decrypting data and teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software. The combination fails to establish the algorithm used to encrypt and decrypt is simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm.
GeeksforGeeks establishes it is known for the algorithm used to encrypt and decrypt is simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the DES algorithm shown in the combination of Walmsley and Teshler with the S-DES algorithm as taught by GeeksforGeeks.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of GeeksforGeeks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of validating data provided by Walmsley and Teshler, the ability use simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm as taught by GeeksforGeeks, for the purposes of implementing other symmetric key algorithms. Since the combination establishes that the use of DES is already known it would have been obvious to replace the algorithm with another symmetric key algorithm. Further S-DES has the advantage of being simpler and using less parameters which as shown in Walmsley would result in a faster processing speed.
As per claim 2, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 1, Walmsley further discloses wherein the control software uses the decrypted data for calculation (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the decrypted data is used for calculating the validity of the data and thus the control software).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 3, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 1, Walmsley further discloses wherein the control software uses the decrypted data in which contamination is not detected by the failsafe module for calculation (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that when the data is compared a contamination or invalid data is not found when there is a match. The match is found by comparing the decrypted and encrypted data).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 5, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 1, Walmsley further discloses wherein the encryption module includes a first subkey and a second subkey, each of which is generated from the master key and used for encryption and decryption of the data (Walmsley, Page 4, lines 21-27; discloses an alternate form of symmetric encryption where the key or master key is converted into several subkeys. The multiple subkeys are used to encrypt and decrypt the data. As there are multiple subkeys there is at least a first and second subkey generated from the master key).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 7, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 1, Walmsley further discloses wherein the encrypted data and the decrypted data include a same information in a same array (Walmsley, Page 4, lines 21-27; discloses that the encrypted data and the decrypted data include a same information in a same array).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 9, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 1, Walmsley further discloses wherein the failsafe module outputs a corresponding notification signal to the outside upon detecting contamination of the data (Page 35, lines 32-35; discloses that upon detecting that the data is invalid or contaminated the system outputs a signal notifying the system of the result. That is the result of the comparison is sent to the system to indicate if the valid or invalid).
Teshler teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle for controlling a vehicle function. Teshler additionally teaches that the control data is transmitted and received from another electronic control apparatus for the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data. From this it would have been obvious to utilize the known techniques of DES when validating the communication between the vehicle ECU and other vehicle ECUs within the same vehicle. As stated in Walmsley symmetric algorithms are faster to compute and require less software or silicon, Walmsley, page 9, line 8. As such it would have been obvious to apply symmetric encryption to the communication inside and outside a vehicle to provider faster computing and requiring less software).
As per claim 10, Walmsley discloses a data transmitting and receiving method (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the data which is received is encrypted using a key the data is transmitted to other parts of the system.), the method comprising:
encrypting data received from software for a vehicle function using a master key and transmitting the encrypted data to another apparatus for the vehicle (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the data which is received is encrypted using a key the data is transmitted to other parts of the system. Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt, as such this acts as the master key, and this is a standard for the DES algorithm. The encryption algorithm is DES or Data Encryption Standard is implemented in hardware and software. Page 82, line 31-34; discloses that a master key is used to validate they keys used in the vehicle and used to control access to the vehicle);
receiving encrypted control data from the another apparatus for the vehicle and decrypting the received encrypted data received using the master key (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the encrypted data which is received is decrypted using the key. Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt, as such this acts as the master key); and
detecting contamination of the data by comparing the transmitted encrypted data with the decrypted data (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the decrypted data is compared to encrypted data to determine if there is a match. If there is a match the data is considered valid and if there is not a match the data is considered to be invalid).
wherein the encrypting of the data using the master key includes the encrypting the data using a data encryption standard (DES) encryption algorithm (Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses the encryption algorithm is DES or Data Encryption Standard is implemented in hardware and software. Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt, as such this acts as the master key).
wherein the decrypting of the encrypted data using the master key includes decrypting the control data using a DES decryption algorithm (Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses the encryption algorithm is DES or Data Encryption Standard is implemented in hardware and software. Page 3, lines 35-38; discloses that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt, as such this acts as the master key), and
Walmsley further discloses wherein the detecting a contamination of the data further includes decrypting the encrypted data, encrypting the decrypted data, and recomparing the encrypted data with the decrypted data to detect contamination of the data (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that as part of the decrypting and encrypting the data the data is recompared to determine if the data itself is valid).
While Walmsley discusses encrypting and decrypting data between components it is not specific that it is for an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and that the data is control data and that the software is control software. To establish the scope of the claims the Examiner notes the applicant’s originally filed specification states “The control software 100 includes data and programs for controlling various electronic control systems, including a braking system, a steering system, a drive system, a multimedia system, and the like, of a vehicle”, Page 6, lines 5-7. The Examiner notes that this is again an open ended list and as such does not provide a specific definition of what “control software” is limited to, therefore the term is considered broadly. For the purposes of expedited prosecution the Examiner has provided the following reference to establish that communicating is between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and that the software controlling the communication is control software. While Walmsley discloses the use of DES or Data Encryption Standard, it is not explicit that it uses Simplified Data Encryption Standard or (S-DES).
Teshler, which like the Walmsley discusses encrypting and decrypting using Data Encryption Standard (DES) or other symmetric forms of cryptography to secure data, teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle for controlling a vehicle function. Teshler additionally teaches that the data is transmitted and received from another electronic control apparatus for the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data. From this it would have been obvious to utilize the known techniques of DES when validating the communication between the vehicle ECU and other vehicle ECUs within the same vehicle. As stated in Walmsley symmetric algorithms are faster to compute and require less software or silicon, Walmsley, page 9, line 8. As such it would have been obvious to apply symmetric encryption to the communication inside and outside a vehicle to provider faster computing and requiring less software).
Walmsley discloses a method for determining if data is valid. Walmsley establishes both encrypted and decrypting data using known techniques. The data is then compared to determine if the data is valid or invalid. Walmsley establishes determining if the data has been contaminated. While Walmsley establishes multiple environments of use including vehicles, it is not explicit that it communicates between an electronic control apparatus of a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software.
Teshler establishes using similar known methods of encrypting and decrypting data and teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the data validation system of Walmsley the ability to use this type of data validation between a vehicle and outside sources as taught by Teshler since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Teshler, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of validating data provided by Walmsley, with the ability to use this type of data validation between a vehicle and outside sources as taught by Teshler, for the purposes of ensuring security when transmitting data. As stated in Walmsley symmetric algorithms are faster to compute and require less software or silicon, Walmsley, page 9, line 8. As such it would have been obvious to apply symmetric encryption to the communication inside and outside a vehicle to provider faster computing and requiring less software.
While Walmsley discloses the implementation using standard (DES) encryption algorithm, it is not explicit that it uses simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm.
GeeksforGeeks, which like the combination talks about the use of DES, teaches that simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm is a known algorithm for encrypting and decrypting and is a simple version of DES that is described in the combination (Page 1, Paragraphs [0001]-[0003]; teaches that Simplified Data Encryption Standard (S-DES) is a simple version of the DES Algorithm. The algorithm is similar to DES but smaller and has fewer parameters. Like DES it uses a symmetric key which uses the same key for both encryption and decryption. It begins with a master key which is converted into two 8 bit keys which are shared between both sender and receiver. Since the combination establishes that the use of DES is already known it would have been obvious to replace the algorithm with another symmetric key algorithm. Further S-DES has the advantage of being simpler and using less parameters which as shown in Walmsley would result in a faster processing speed).
Walmsley discloses a method for determining if data is valid. Walmsley establishes both encrypted and decrypting data using known techniques. The data is then compared to determine if the data is valid or invalid. Walmsley establishes determining if the data has been contaminated. Teshler establishes using similar known methods of encrypting and decrypting data and teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software. The combination fails to establish the algorithm used to encrypt and decrypt is simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm.
GeeksforGeeks establishes it is known for the algorithm used to encrypt and decrypt is simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the DES algorithm shown in the combination of Walmsley and Teshler with the S-DES algorithm as taught by GeeksforGeeks.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of GeeksforGeeks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of validating data provided by Walmsley and Teshler, the ability use simplified data encryption standard (S-DES) encryption algorithm as taught by GeeksforGeeks, for the purposes of implementing other symmetric key algorithms. Since the combination establishes that the use of DES is already known it would have been obvious to replace the algorithm with another symmetric key algorithm. Further S-DES has the advantage of being simpler and using less parameters which as shown in Walmsley would result in a faster processing speed.
As per claim 11, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Walmsley further discloses comprising using the decrypted data for calculation of the control software (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that the decrypted data is used for calculating the validity of the data and thus the control software).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 12, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Walmsley further discloses comprising using the decrypted data in which contamination of the data is not detected by comparing the encrypted data with the decrypted data for calculation of the control software (Walmsley, Page 26, lines 23-31; discloses that when the data is compared a contamination or invalid data is not found when there is a match. The match is found by comparing the decrypted and encrypted data).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 14, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Walmsley further discloses wherein the encrypting of the data using the master key includes encrypting the data using a first subkey and a second subkey generated from the master key (Walmsley, Page 4, lines 21-27; discloses an alternate form of symmetric encryption where the key or master key is converted into several subkeys. The multiple subkeys are used to encrypt and decrypt the data. As there are multiple subkeys there is at least a first and second subkey generated from the master key).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 15, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Walmsley further discloses wherein decrypting of the encrypted data using the master key includes decrypting the encrypted data using a first subkey and a second subkey generated from the master key (Walmsley, Page 4, lines 21-27; discloses an alternate form of symmetric encryption where the key or master key is converted into several subkeys. The multiple subkeys are used to encrypt and decrypt the data. As there are multiple subkeys there is at least a first and second subkey generated from the master key).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 18, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Walmsley further discloses wherein the encrypted data and the decrypted data include the same information in the same array (Walmsley, Page 4, lines 21-27; discloses that the encrypted data and the decrypted data include the same information in the same array).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
As per claim 20, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Walmsley further discloses wherein the detecting of contamination of the data further includes outputting a corresponding notification signal to the outside upon detecting contamination of the data (Page 35, lines 32-35; discloses that upon detecting that the data is invalid or contaminated the system outputs a signal notifying the system of the result. That is the result of the comparison is sent to the system to indicate if the valid or invalid).
Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walmsley et al. (WO01/61917A1) hereafter Walmsley, in view of Teshler et al. (US 11,818,235 B1) hereafter Teshler, further in view of GeeksforGeeks, further in view of Liao et al. (WO 2018/194971 A1) hereafter Liao.
As per claim 4, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 1, Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
The combination however fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key.
Liao, which like the combination talks about encrypting communications, teaches it is known wherein the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key (Liao, paragraph [0102]; teaches it is known different keys to be generated off the master key by utilizing a tuning parameter. As shown in Liao this provides security context, this is done to provide different usage types and controls. Since the combination already establishes the use of keys it would have been obvious to use a tuning parameter to provide security context and better control access to specific groups based on usage).
Walmsley discloses a method for determining if data is valid. Walmsley establishes both encrypted and decrypting data using known techniques. The data is then compared to determine if the data is valid or invalid. Walmsley establishes determining if the data has been contaminated. Teshler establishes using similar known methods of encrypting and decrypting data and teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software. The combination fails to establish the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key.
Liao establishes it is known for the control software to include a tuning parameter including the master key, to provide a security context and to distinguish groups based on usage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the data validation system of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks the ability include a tuning parameter including the master key as taught by Liao since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Liao, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of validating data provided by Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks, with the ability include a tuning parameter including the master key as taught by Liao, for the purposes of grouping access based on different types of usage. Since the combination already establishes the use of keys it would have been obvious to use a tuning parameter to provide security context and better control access to specific groups based on usage.
As per claim 13, the combination of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks teaches the electronic control apparatus of claim 10, Teshler teaches that the data is control data or data from ECU (Teshler, Col. 11, lines 23-63; teaches that it is known for an ECU or Electronic Control Unit to contain symmetric cryptography acceleration service such as DES. This includes remote communications. As showed in Col. 9, line 60 through Col. 10, line 19; specifically in vehicle communications. This can include ECU software flashing, ECU software recovery, monitoring, encryption, authentication, digital certificate and key management. Col. 7, lines 1-35; teach that the communications are routed using software controllers. Each of the network ECUs include Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) ECU, Adaptive Front lighting System (AFS), Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ECU. This is the same as what is discussed in the applicant’s originally filed specification and as such is considered control data).
The combination however fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key.
Liao, which like the combination talks about encrypting communications, teaches it is known wherein the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key (Liao, paragraph [0102]; teaches it is known different keys to be generated off the master key by utilizing a tuning parameter. As shown in Liao this provides security context, this is done to provide different usage types and controls. Since the combination already establishes the use of keys it would have been obvious to use a tuning parameter to provide security context and better control access to specific groups based on usage).
Walmsley discloses a method for determining if data is valid. Walmsley establishes both encrypted and decrypting data using known techniques. The data is then compared to determine if the data is valid or invalid. Walmsley establishes determining if the data has been contaminated. Teshler establishes using similar known methods of encrypting and decrypting data and teaches it is known to communicate between an electronic control apparatus for a vehicle and the data is transmitted and received from outside the vehicle and that the software controlling the communication is control software. The combination fails to establish the control software includes a tuning parameter including the master key.
Liao establishes it is known for the control software to include a tuning parameter including the master key, to provide a security context and to distinguish groups based on usage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the data validation system of Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks the ability include a tuning parameter including the master key as taught by Liao since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Liao, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of validating data provided by Walmsley, Teshler and GeeksforGeeks, with the ability include a tuning parameter including the master key as taught by Liao, for the purposes of grouping access based on different types of usage. Since the combination already establishes the use of keys it would have been obvious to use a tuning parameter to provide security context and better control access to specific groups based on usage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on page 6, regarding the 112 (f) interpretations and 112 (b) rejections the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter the claims continue to recite a generic placeholder and the function it performs without any corresponding structure. As such the claims continue to invoke 112(f). As the applicant has not amended the language to establish the structure or establish where the structure is in the specification the 112 (b) rejections continue to apply. As such the Examiner has not been persuaded and the rejections have been maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 regarding the 101 rejections, specifically that, “The Office asserted that the claims recite actions related to comparing data, which is a mental activity. Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
“The claims are amended from reciting "data" to "control data" and "control software" to "control software for controlling a vehicle function" throughout the claims. Specifically, claim 1 recites: "an encryption module configured to encrypt control data received from a control software for controlling a vehicle function using a master key and decrypt encrypted control data received from another electronic control apparatus for the vehicle using the master key."”
“Applicant respectfully submits that encrypting control data received from a control software for controlling a vehicle function is not achievable by merely using a mental process. Encrypting and decrypting data at this level is impossible by using merely a human brain, and it is impossible to use those data to control the vehicle through a mental process. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 are patent eligible.”
“Claim 10 recites features similar to those recited in claim 1, and therefore are patent eligible for reasons analogous to those discussed with respect to claim 1.”
“Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 depend from claim 1 or 10, recite additional features, and patent eligible for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10, and/or for the additionally recited features.”
“Claims 6, 8, 16, 17 and 19 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer, rendering the rejection to claims 6, 8, 16, 17 and 19 moot.”
“Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the applicant has argued that the limitations cannot be performed practically in the human mind, the applicant is merely relying on the type of data and not any specifics on how that data is being manipulated. Unlike the examples stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A, the limitations of the claims merely recite the idea of encrypting and decrypting and comparing the information, without any specifics of how the data is manipulated. Looking toward the cited reference Geeksforgeeks SDES is a simple version of DES and is in fact smaller with fewer parameters and made for educational purposes. From this claims continue to recite an abstract idea of generally applying encryption and decryption on a set of data. There are no specifics to how the data is manipulated or the extent of data being manipulated. As such it is merely an abstract idea which is being applied on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Lacking any additional arguments the Examiner has not been persuaded and the rejections have therefore been maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11, regarding the art rejections specifically, “Claim 1 is amended specify the means for encrypting and decrypting control data as the SDES algorithm. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is different from the configurations of applied references for at least the reasons discussed below.”
“The Office asserted that Walmsley describes that the data which is received is encrypted using a key the data is transmitted to other parts of the system, and that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt, as such this acts as the master key. (Office Action, pages 13-14 ).”
“In particular, Walmsley describes general encryption and decryption of data for transmission between a trusted chip and an untrusted authentication chip, using symmetric keys for cryptographic operations”
“However, as recited in amended claim 1, an encryption module is configured to encrypt control data received from a control software for controlling a vehicle function using a master key and decrypt encrypted control data received from another electronic control apparatus for the vehicle using the master key. In a non-limiting embodiment of the present application, the control software is located within a vehicle electronic control unit, e.g., an electronic parking brake device, and encrypted control data is received from another electronic control apparatus, e.g., an electronic stability control device.”
“One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Walmsley does not teach or suggest at least decrypting encrypted control data received from another, separate vehicle electronic control unit using the same master key.”
“Rather, Walmsley's system operates within the context of authentication between a trusted chip and an untrusted chip using encryption, decryption, and signature verification to ensure authenticity of the untrusted chip and data messages. There is no teaching or suggestion of decrypting data received from another electronic control apparatus using the same master key. Claim 1 of the present application requires encryption and decryption of control data exchanged between two electronic control apparatuses using a master key, which is not disclosed or rendered obvious by Walmsley.”
“Additionally, the Office asserted that Walmsley describes that as part of the decrypting and encrypting the data, the data is recompared to determine if the data itself is valid. (Office Action, page 18).”
[quoting Walmsley page 26, lines 23-31]
“However, as recited in amended claim 1, the failsafe module detects contamination of the control data by decrypting the encrypted control data, encrypting the decrypted control data, and recomparing the encrypted control data with the decrypted control data.”
“Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Walmsley's system performs: 1) signature verification by comparing a decrypted signature with a calculated signature derived from the decrypted random number (i.e., signature verification process rather than data reencryption comparison); and 2) encryption comparison of the random number and data message, but it does not involve decrypting encrypted control data and then re-encrypting and comparing the decrypted control data as claimed.”
“In contrast, claim 1 requires that the failsafe module detect corruption by performing a decrypt-then-encrypt-then-compare process on the control data itself. Walmsley merely verifies authenticity via signature matching or compares two separately encrypted versions generated during processing, rather than decrypting existing encrypted control data and re-encrypting the same decrypted data to detect corruption. Therefore, Walmsley does not teach or suggest the claimed corruption detection mechanism of the failsafe module.”
“Teshler, Liao and Geeks are not applied in a manner that attempts to make up for these deficiencies.”
“For at least the foregoing reasons, no combination of the applied references would have rendered claim 1 prima facie obvious.”
“Claim 10 recites features similar to those recited in claim 1, and therefore distinguishes over the applied references for reasons analogous to those discussed with respect to claim 1.”
“Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 depend from claim 1 or 10, and recite additional features. The deficiencies of the applied references with respect to claim 1 were discussed above. Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20, therefore, distinguish over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, and/or for the additionally recited features.”
“Claims 6, 8, 16, 17 and 19 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer, rendering the rejection to claims 6, 8, 16, 17 and 19 moot.”
“Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references are respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the applicant has argued that the configurations of the applied art is different from what is claimed, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection the primary reference Walmsley as well as the secondary reference Teshler both use DES. The Examiner has cited the GeeksforGeeks reference to establish that SDES is merely a simplified version of DES and as such would have been obvious to use as it utilizes less parameters and makes it easier to understand. The applicant appears to be arguing the amended language to describe the type of data which is being encrypted and decrypted, specifically control data. The Examiner notes that the claims are broad as they do not establish any specifics to the control data and as described in the applicant’s originally filed specification this is a broad term for any data coming from a ECU node. The Examiner notes the limitations do not establish that these are from a specific control unit or have specific types of data or even the amount of data or what the data represents. Rather it is merely encrypting and decrypting data so it can compare that data to what is expected to determine if it is compromised or invalid. As shown in the rejection Walmsley does in fact determine if the data being transmitted and received is valid or not by encrypting decrypting and comparing the data. Additionally the data is again encrypted and decrypted and recompared to determine it validity. The Teshler reference establishes it is known to send data between ECUs in a vehicle and for those ECUs to control elements such as the brakes which as described in the applicant’s specification can be control data. Further the data is encrypted using DES and as such it would have been obvious as shown in Walmsley to ensure the data is valid and not compromised.
While the applicant has argued that Walmsley is not the same the Examiner notes that the claims are broad and allow for the data to be data from an ECU which as shown in the combination can be a signature ensuring that the data has not be compromised. The claims fail to establish any specifics as how the data is evaluated or even what the specific data represents and as such the references as combined read over the claims as currently written. Lacking any additional arguments from the applicant the Examiner has not been persuaded and the rejections have been maintained.
All rejections made towards the dependent claims are maintained due to the lack of a reply by the applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action in the prior Office Action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over Walmsley in view of Teshler, and, where appropriate, in further view of GeeksforGeeks and Liao.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
. Ishidoshiro, Takashi (EP 1517512 B1) – discusses validating communications between nodes by encrypting, decrypting and comparing data.
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 PAUL R FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571)272-8878. 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.
PAUL R. FISHER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2498
/PAUL R FISHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498 11/9/2025
Prosecution Insights