DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 101/10/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/18/2026.
a. Claims 1-2, 7, 10, 11-12, 20 are amended
b. Claims 6 are cancelled
c. Claims 21 are new
Overall, Claims 1-5, 7-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 7-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-5, 7-10, 21 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 11-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 11, 20) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 11, 20) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor:
[B] detecting a request for a software application from a vehicle,
[C] wherein the software application includes source code comprising at least one embedded placeholder;
[D] identifying at least one sensitive plain-text data value which is mapped to the at least one embedded placeholder;
[E] replacing, by an embedded system of the vehicle at runtime, the dummy value with the at least one sensitive plain-text data value without storing the plain-text data value in non-volatile memory to generate modified source code;
[F] executing the modified source code via the software application in an embedded system vehicle
[G] controlling a safety-critical vehicle function that affects maneuvering of the vehicle while travelling along the route based on the executed modified source code in the embedded system.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 11, 20) recites: identifying sensitive data (i.e. “sensitive plain-text data values”) ([D]); replacing placeholders with identified stored data (i.e. “sensitive plain-text data values” or “proprietary data”) ([E]); and controlling the vehicle function ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “making in an executable file a replacement of the placeholder with useful/sensitive data”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “identifying at least one sensitive plain-text data value”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally identifying data or information, without physical aid. Further, the step “replacing, by an embedded system of the vehicle at runtime, the dummy value with the at least one sensitive plain-text data value”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally replacing the identified data/information with other data/information, without physical aid. Further, the step “controlling a safety-critical vehicle function”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally executing the programmed task, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11, 20) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIM – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or to a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h); MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For example, the additional elements “a processor,” and “memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.”
The modifiers: “wherein the software application includes source code …”, as applied to detecting a request for a software application, are nothing more than general links to the computing environment, which, as noted, amounts to instructions to “apply it,” or nothing more than descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of claim elements (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The modifiers do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea: “making in an executable file a replacement of the placeholder with useful/sensitive data”.
Therefore, those modifiers do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional claim elements also recite: “detecting a request for a software application from a traveling vehicle” ([B]); executing the modified source code via the software application in an embedded system vehicle ([F]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent – MPEP 2106.05(f)), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional active elements of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 11, 20) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 11, 20) does not further include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like in Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps ([E]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea (“making in an executable file a replacement of the placeholder with useful/sensitive data”) could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 11, 20 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of claim 17, further recites:
compiling comprises compiling the source code with a wrapper that includes the at least one sensitive plain-text data value thereby compiling the wrapper with the source code.
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claims 17, merely elaborates on the abstract idea identified in the independent claim(s). It does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2 or Step 2B and, therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons that make the independent claim(s) ineligible.
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claims 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of claim 19, further recites:
wherein the data store comprises an embedded library, and
executing pre-written code from the embedded library to modify the source
code.
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of dependent claims 19, merely elaborates on the abstract idea identified in the independent claim(s). It does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2 or Step 2B and, therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons that make the independent claim(s) ineligible.
Therefore, dependent claim 9 (which is representative of dependent claims 19) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 further recites:
transforming a header file using a template header that replaces a token with a corresponding value from a variable in a file stored in the data store and having an identical name as the token, the method further including
compiling the source code using the transformed header file.
Dependent claim 10 merely elaborates on the abstract idea identified in the independent claim(s). It does not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A2 or Step 2B and, therefore, is ineligible for the same reasons that make the independent claim(s) ineligible.
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 21 which are representative of claims 12-18, respectively, further recite:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value is associated with a critical vehicle function that is integral to operating the vehicle.
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value comprises financial, banking, or personally-identifiable information about at least one occupant of the vehicle.
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value is associated with a geographic location of the vehicle.
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value identifies a device associated with an occupant of the vehicle.
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value is associated with a type of data that was previously compromised in another vehicle.
wherein the replacing comprises modifying the source code in response to an initiation of a financial transaction at the vehicle.
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value comprises at least one symmetric key pair.
wherein the vehicle function that affects maneuvering of the vehicle comprises at least one of a braking function, a steering function, a throttle control, and power steering.
These further elements in the dependent claims only limit other claim elements, like the one or more sensitive plain-text data values; the replacing, by describing their nature, structure and/or content, thus further limiting the form of the transactions that are acted upon in the independent claims. The nature, form or structure of these elements themselves do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the further elements in dependent claims 2-8, which are representative of claims 12-18, respectively, do not perform any claimed method steps and are not part of the claimed system. They are outside the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“making in an executable file a replacement of the placeholder with useful/sensitive data”), from a judicial exception into an eligible application, because they do not represent significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2-5, 8 (which are representative of claims 12-16, 18, respectively), 21 are deemed ineligible.
In addition, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the computing claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea on a computing environment (see Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). For this purpose, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig6 and [0180]-[0193], including among others: memory; RAM, cache, processor, i/o device.
When the dependent claims are considered individually, and a as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance is not able to transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into an eligible subject matter.
Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1-5, 7-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (Possession)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected for reciting the subject matter “controlling a safety-critical vehicle function …” which is not adequately described in the specification, in the drawings or in the original set of claims to satisfy the requirements as described in MPEP 2163.05 V: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved …” Further "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement).”
In the instant situation, the application specification attempts to describe the subject matter “controlling a safety-critical vehicle function …” at [0053] However, no further information, like calculation method or algorithm is provided; i.e. HOW the function is performed. In addition, the specification verbally recites (ipsis verbis) the language of the claim. While the specification discloses the function, it discloses neither the necessary structure, nor the necessary algorithm to perform the function, i.e. HOW the calculation is performed.
The question is, given the disclosure, would a POSITA conclude that the inventor was in possession of the subject matter “controlling a safety-critical vehicle function …” in order to cause a system to perform the functions? The answer is clearly “no.” It looks as if the invention recites subject matter that have neither structure nor algorithm.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For examination purpose, Examiner will interpret “controlling a safety-critical vehicle function …” as any type of calculation, which is what the prior art of record discloses. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (US 2020/0262391), in view of Jawa (US 9,524,154), in further view of Ashton et al (US 2014/0214265), in further view of Agarwal (US 2016/0044041).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 20: Pham discloses: A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor:
detecting a request for a software application from a vehicle {see at least [0046] vehicle computer; [claims 3, 11, 27] vehicle computer}
executing the modified source code via the software application in an embedded system of a vehicle and {see at least [0046] … in instances where the secondary device corresponds to a vehicle computer, the action(s) can include performing any suitable action(s) on the vehicle, such as unlocking doors or windows, opening a trunk, starting an engine, and/or performing any other suitable action(s).}
Pham does not disclose, however, Jawa discloses:
wherein the software application includes source code comprising at least one embedded placeholder containing a dummy value; {see at least (18)-(20)/[3:38-4:31] executable code, machine code which points to value, function pointer (reads on code with embedded place holder)}
identifying at least one
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham to include the elements of Jawa. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to control vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. In the instant case, Pham evidently discloses utilizing an application to cause a vehicle to perform an action. Jawa is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of utilizing a file with proprietary data for the program execution in the same or similar context. Since both utilizing an application to cause a vehicle to perform an action, as well as utilizing a file with proprietary data for the program execution are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pham, as well as Jawa would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pham / Jawa.
Pham, Jawa does not disclose, however Agarwal discloses:
… dummy value … {see at least [0032] placeholder with meaningless value (reads on dummy value)}
… sensitive plain-text data value … {see at least [0032] to be overwritten with a sensitive key (reads on sensitive data value)
replacing, by an embedded system of the vehicle at runtime, the dummy value with the at least one sensitive plain-text data value without storing the plain-text data value in non-volatile memory to generate modified source code; {see at least [0032] placeholder is meaningless value to be replaced later; … the fixup specifies the address of the placeholder and conveys that this address is to be overwritten with a real, legitimate value. (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on replacing the dummy value with the real, legitimate value). The reference does not disclose the term “non-volatile”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. The claim element “to generate modified source code” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa to include the elements of Agarwal. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to protect the sensitive plain-text data values at software run time. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Agarwal is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of sensitive plain-text data values embedded into object code in the same or similar context. Since both controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner, as well as sensitive plain-text data values embedded into object code are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pham, Jawa, as well as Agarwal would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pham, Jawa / Agarwal.
Pham, Jawa, Agarwal does not disclose, however, Ashton discloses:
controlling a safety-critical vehicle function that affects maneuvering of the vehicle while travelling along the route based on the executed modified source code in the embedded system. {see at least [0026] control functions while traveling (reads on vehicle maneuvers). The claim element “safety-critical … that affects maneuvering of the vehicle while travelling along the route” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal to include the elements of Ashton. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to safely stir the vehicle. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Ashton is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of controlling the vehicle movement in the same or similar context. Since both controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner, as well as controlling the vehicle movement are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, as well as Ashton would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Pham, Jawa, Agarwal / Ashton.
Regarding Claims 2, 12: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Pham further discloses:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value is associated with the safety-critical vehicle function. {see at least [0046] … performing any suitable action(s) on the vehicle, such as unlocking doors or windows, opening a trunk, starting an engine, and/or performing any other suitable action(s) …}
Regarding Claims 3, 13: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Pham further discloses:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value comprises financial, banking, or personally-identifiable information about at least one occupant of the vehicle. {see at least such as booking a hotel room, purchasing tickets to an event, and/or any other suitable action(s)}
Regarding Claims 4, 14: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Pham, Jawa, Agarwal does not disclose, however Ashton discloses:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value is associated with a geographic location of the vehicle. {see at least [0028] GPS system; position of the vehicle}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton to include additional elements of Ashton. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide to the vehicle computer data relevant for the calculations. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Ashton is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of position of the vehicle in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 5, 15: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Pham further discloses:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value identifies a device associated with an occupant of the vehicle. {see at least [0006]-[0007] authenticating a user (reads on sensitive plain-text data value information associated with occupant); generating unique identifier (reads on sensitive plain-text data value information associated with occupant)}
Regarding Claim 16: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Pham, Jawa, Agarwal does not disclose, however Ashton discloses:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value is associated with a type of data that was previously compromised in another vehicle. {see at least [0056] vehicle trajectory previously adjusted. Referring to the type of data as “previously compromised in another vehicle”, absent any form or structure to distinguish it from any kind of data, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton to include additional elements of Ashton. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide to the vehicle computer data relevant for the calculations. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Ashton is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of data previously adjusted (could be compromised data) in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7, 17: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Agarwal further discloses: executing comprises
compiling the source code with a wrapper that includes the at least one sensitive plain-text data value thereby compiling the wrapper with the source code. {see at least [0032] software developer includes a placeholder (reads on compiling source code with wrapper)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton to include additional elements of Agarwal. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create the premise to replace that placeholder with the sensitive data once the code is running. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Agarwal is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of embedding a placeholder in the source code in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 8, 18: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Pham further discloses:
wherein the at least one sensitive plain-text data value comprises at least one symmetric key pair. {see at least [0005] PKI, public key (reads on symmetric key pair)}
Regarding Claims 9, 19: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Jawa further discloses:
wherein the data store comprises an embedded library, and {see at least fig11, fig12, rc1102, (87)-(92)/[17:57-19:13] shared library cache (reads on embedded library)}
the replacing comprises executing pre-written code from the embedded library to modify the source code. {see at least fig11, rc1104, (87)-(88)/[17:57-18:11] executable portion}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton to include additional elements of Jawa. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to store relevant data/information in a place easily accessible for the computer. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Jawa is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of an embedded library in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 11. Jawa further discloses:
wherein the replacing comprises:
transforming a header file using a template header that replaces a token with a corresponding value from a variable in a file stored in the data store and based on a name of the token, {see at least fig4A rc402, (54)/[11:63-12:17] header process; fig6A, rc612, rc614, (57)-(59)/[12:47-13:7] changing pointer value (reads on transforming header)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal to include additional elements of Jawa. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide the processor with the right data types. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Jawa is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of transforming a header file in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21: Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Ashton further discloses:
wherein the vehicle function that affects maneuvering of the vehicle comprises at least one of a braking function, a steering function, a throttle control, and power steering. {see at least {0022]-[0023] power train, steering system , steering input (based on the BRI (MEP 2111), reads on power steering)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton to include additional elements of Ashton. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the security of the power steering operation. In the instant case, Pham, Jawa, Agarwal, Ashton evidently discloses controlling vehicle actions in a safe and secure manner. Ashton is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a steering maneuver in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210178851 A1 Duan; Ning et al. INTELLIGENT IN-VEHICLE AIR-QUALITY CONTROL - A mechanism is provided for controlling the internal air-quality of a vehicle, including configuring a control policy that controls an internal air-quality of a vehicle and performing an action dictated by the control policy according to a window status of the vehicle.
US 20130086594 A1 Cottrell; John C. EXECUTION OF APPLICATIONS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS A PLURALITY OF COMPUTING DEVICES - According to one embodiment, a system comprises at least one processor. The system detects on a computing device an invocation event facilitating execution of one or more applications. The applications include at least one remote application. A search path is examined to determine locations for the one or more applications, and includes at least one indicator indicating a remote location for execution of a corresponding remote application. Each indicator associated with the at least one remote application is resolved to determine a remote location for execution of the corresponding remote application. The applications are executed at the determined locations with each remote application being executed on a corresponding remote computing device at the corresponding remote location. Embodiments may further include a method and computer-readable media encoded with software for executing applications distributed across a plurality of computing devices in substantially the same manner described above.
US 20200262391 A1 Pham; Thien Van METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR TRANSMITTING ACTION INFORMATION USING QR CODES - Methods, systems, and media for performing actions using Quick Response (QR) codes are provided. In some embodiments, the method comprises: generating, at a secondary user device, a unique identifier (UID) and a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) key pair, wherein the PKI key pair includes a public key and a private key; generating a QR code using the UID, wherein the QR code includes an indication of an action to be performed by the secondary device; causing the QR code to be presented on a display associated with the secondary user device; receiving, from a primary device, encrypted action data that corresponds to the indication of the action to be performed by the secondary device; decrypting the encrypted action data using the private key of the PKI key pair; and causing the action to be performed by the secondary device using the decrypted action data.
US 20140214265 A1 Ashton; Ryan S. et al. VEHICLE DRIFT DETERMINATION APPARATUS AND METHOD - Disclosed herein are embodiments of an apparatus and method for determining a drift of a vehicle. In one aspect, a vehicle testing apparatus for determining a drift of a vehicle from trajectory data indicative of a trajectory of the vehicle during a drift test comprises: a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to: determine an initial local vehicle heading based on an initial trajectory dataset of the trajectory data, and determine, for the vehicle, an amount of drift indicative of a deviation of the vehicle from the initial local vehicle heading based on a comparison between the initial local vehicle heading and a drift test dataset of the trajectory data.
US 20200174491 A1 Boydens; Joachim et al. An Agricultural System - A system including a controller associated with an agricultural vehicle. The controller is configured to: receive other-vehicle-data that is representative of another vehicle that is in an agricultural field; and determine route-plan-data that is representative of a route to be taken by the agricultural vehicle in the agricultural field, based on the other-vehicle-data.
US 20240034348 A1 Robinson; Andrew et al. LIVE REMOTE ASSISTANCE REQUEST AND RESPONSE SESSIONS - A method is described and includes detecting by a vehicle an ambiguous situation involving the vehicle; classifying the detected ambiguous situation; and submitting in substantially real-time a request for remote assistance by a remote advisor to resolve the detected ambiguous situation, wherein contents of the request are based at least in part on the classifying.
US 10472091 B2 Irish; James Michael Method and apparatus using a drone to input vehicle data - An unmanned aerial vehicle is operated to utilize one or more tools included in an attachment assembly to obtain state measurements on an object being analyzed by the unmanned aerial vehicle. The attachment assembly can include one or more of a digital camera for capturing a digital image (or a series of images), a color meter for measuring a paint color, a thermographic camera for measuring infrared radiation, an electronic nose device for measuring odors, or an electronic distance measuring device for measuring a distance between objects. An operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle is then modified based on the obtained state measurements.
US 9524154 B2 Jawa; Manish et al. Method and system for identifying and replacing system calls - One embodiment of the system disclosed herein facilitates identifying a system call in an application and replacing the identified system call with a customized function call. During operation, the system executes an executable file of the application, wherein the executable file has been modified to execute a hooking and injection manager at run time. Prior to executing the system call, the system executes the hooking and injection manager. While executing the hooking and injection manager, the system determines, from a symbol table, a symbol table index value corresponding to a symbol associated with the system call. The system further determines an import table entry storing a pointer to the system call based on the symbol table index value, and changes the pointer in the import table entry so that the pointer indicates an address of the customized function call.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that when
Claim 1 is "viewed as a whole", Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept, but rather an embedded system within a vehicle which can securely execute software that controls vehicle maneuvering. The claim includes performing runtime replacement of embedded placeholders in source code with sensitive data, executing the modified source code within an embedded system, and using the execution results to control a safety critical vehicle function. These steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action ahs determined that the independent claims are directed to “making in an executable file a replacement of the placeholder with useful/sensitive data”, which is comparable to observation, evaluation that can be performed in the human mind. It is also important to point out, that “the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)”
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims provide a technical mechanism which can securely use sensitive control data at runtime without persisting the sensitive data to a non-volatile memory of the vehicle. The recited operations are tightly coupled to embedded system execution and physical vehicle control, which places the claim squarely in the realm of technological processes rather than abstract ideas.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
In the context of eligibility analysis, the term ‘abstract idea” has been defined by the Office in MPEP 2016.04-07. Technological processes, as defined by the Office, can also be considered abstract ideas under the circumstances disclosed in MPEP 2016.04-07
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “These recited steps are not traditional in the art of source code execution on a vehicle, let alone, source code used to control at least one of an ignition, a throttle, a braking system, and a steering system of a vehicle while travelling on a route.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant notes that Applicant's claims impose meaningful, practical, and succinct operations that improves vehicle technology.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, the eligibility analysis in the instant Office action does not allege that the operations recited by the instant application are not “impose meaningful, practical, and succinct.”
Second, it appears that Applicant makes reference to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “This is not a mere data output or a post solution activity. Instead, the claimed method secures the use of vehicle software by replacing dummy data with sensitive data.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Thus, Applicant's numerous claim limitations would clearly integrate an alleged abstract idea into a practical application that does not monopolize a judicial exception and are thereby patent eligible because the practical application of Applicant's claims allow for a real-world benefit through computing systems.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Second, the essence of the argument appears to be that since the Office has not shown that the claims “would preempt all applications of the alleged abstract idea”, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper. However, as the Federal Circuit pointed out in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015, #2014-1139, 2014-1144), “[while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. ... Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot” (slip op. pp. 14-15). Similarly, in OIP Technologies, Inc. vs. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir., June 11,2015, #2012-1696), the Federal Circuit held “that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract. See buySAFE, Inc. v.Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345”.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that under the second step (2B) of Alice the ordered combination of elements in the independent claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office action has determined:
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 11, 20) does not further include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like in Step 2A.2.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
As a general remark, Examiner points out that, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In sum piecemeal analysis of references is not a proper examination practice.
Applicant submits that the prior art of record does not disclose: “"replacing, by an embedded system of the vehicle at runtime, the dummy value with the at least one sensitive plain-text data value without storing the plain-text data value in non-volatile memory, to generate modified source code;”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Agarwal discloses:
replacing, by an embedded system of the vehicle at runtime, the dummy value with the at least one sensitive plain-text data value without storing the plain-text data value in non-volatile memory to generate modified source code; {see at least [0032] placeholder is meaningless value to be replaced later; … the fixup specifies the address of the placeholder and conveys that this address is to be overwritten with a real, legitimate value. (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on replacing the dummy value with the real, legitimate value). The reference does not disclose the term “non-volatile”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. The claim element “to generate modified source code” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits that the prior art of record does not disclose: “controlling a safety-critical vehicle function that affects maneuvering of the vehicle while travelling along the route based on the executed modified source code in the embedded system”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Ashton discloses:
controlling a safety-critical vehicle function that affects maneuvering of the vehicle while travelling along the route based on the executed modified source code in the embedded system. {see at least [0026] control functions while traveling (reads on vehicle maneuvers)}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698