DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed February 24, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, 17, and 20, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application Numbers KR10-2022-0135815, filed October 20, 2022, and KR10-2023-0117376, filed September 5, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 26, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dorrance does not teach receiving encrypted data and not proceeding with decryption of said data until the number of received reports exceeds a threshold value.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dorrance states that the decryption process does not occur until all of the coded blocks are received from the connected vehicles. The preset threshold number is equivalent to the number of cars connected to the system. By waiting until all of the blocks are received, the system of Dorrance is waiting for the number of blocks to reach the preset threshold defined by the number of connected vehicles.
An updated and detailed rejection follows bellow.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11-14, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonk (US 20210129845; of record in IDS), in view of Boudguiga et al. (US 20220239463; hereinafter Boudguiga), and further in view of Dorrance et al. (US 20200245115; hereinafter Dorrance, already of record).
Regarding Claim 1,
Bonk teaches
A system for providing an autonomous driving safety map service, (Bonk: Abstract) the system comprising:
an autonomous vehicle configured to transmit anomaly information of an autonomous driving system acquired during the driving of the vehicle; (Bonk: Paragraph [0011]) and
a server for providing safety map service, (Bonk: Paragraph [0022], [0074]) configured to receive the anomaly information of the autonomous driving system from one or more of the autonomous vehicles driving within a specific area, (Bonk: Paragraph [0028]-[0029]) generate autonomous driving danger zone information based on one or more of the location of occurrence of the anomaly information or identification information of the autonomous vehicle, (Bonk: Paragraph [0040]-[0041]; “...the road anomaly logs 134 may be updated when a particular road anomaly is resolved (e.g., via road construction) or evolves (e.g., a road crack becoming wider or more dangerous).” and [0042]; “...the routing engine 160 can track the routes of each AV 187 of the fleet 185 throughout the transport service region. In an addition or an alternative to the functions of the map editor 155, the routing engine 160 may receive road anomaly triggers from the sensor data analyzer 145, indicating the locations, classifications, and resolution responses for each road anomaly in the transport service region.”) and provide the generated autonomous driving danger zone information in conjunction with a map of the specific area. (Bonk: Paragraph [0043]; “For each resolution response for each road anomaly, the routing engine 160 can dynamically instruct AVs 187 that are currently on routes that will cause the AVs 187 to potentially intersect or otherwise impact a road anomaly, to perform the resolution response associated with the road anomaly.”)
...
Bonk does not teach
...
wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to encrypt the anomaly information of the autonomous driving system by using an encryption-based privacy assurance technique and transmit the encrypted anomaly information to the server,
wherein the server is configured to classify the encrypted anomaly information based on one or more of the location of occurrence of the anomaly information or identification information of the autonomous vehicle without decrypting the encrypted anomaly information,
wherein only when the number of the encrypted anomaly information classified according to a specific location or specific identification information is greater than a preset threshold value, the server is configured to decrypt the corresponding anomaly information to generate the autonomous driving danger zone information.
However in the same field of endeavor, Boudguiga teaches
...
wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to encrypt the anomaly information of the autonomous driving system by using an encryption-based privacy assurance technique and transmit the encrypted anomaly information to the server, (Boudguiga: Paragraph [0036], [0039])
wherein the server is configured to classify the encrypted anomaly information based on one or more of the location of occurrence of the anomaly information or identification information of the autonomous vehicle without decrypting the encrypted anomaly information, (Boudguiga: Paragraph [0041]-[0044]; “...the processing function (for example the classification function) can take account of the data of several vehicles, as long as they are encrypted with the same homomorphic public key HE.pk.sup.vsp. This is advantageous when comparing the behaviour of two vehicles at the same location (for example in the context of an accident) or when the classification model is trained in an unsupervised manner.” The system is able to receive encrypted information from multiple vehicles and classify it based on which vehicle sent what data.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driving map safety service of Bonk with the encryption and classification of data of Boudguiga for the benefit of not overloading the computing platform. (Boudguiga: Paragraph [0040])
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, does not teach
...
wherein only when the number of the encrypted anomaly information classified according to a specific location or specific identification information is greater than a preset threshold value, the server is configured to decrypt the corresponding anomaly information to generate the autonomous driving danger zone information.
However in the same field of endeavor, Dorrance teaches
...
wherein only when the number of the encrypted anomaly information classified according to a specific location or specific identification information and received from a plurality of different autonomous vehicles is greater than a preset threshold value, the server is configured to decrypt the corresponding anomaly information to generate the autonomous driving danger zone information, (Dorrance: Paragraph [0118]-[0121], [0124]; Examiner notes that reception of all the coded blocks teaches the preset threshold that initiates decoding) and wherein the encrypted anomaly information is maintained in encrypted form without decryption until the number exceeds the preset threshold value. (Dorrance: Paragraph [0122]-[0124]; “Upon reception of all of the coded blocks, the NIE 1010 decodes and reconstructs the octree representing the dynamic object, e.g. obstacle 1020, in 1220.” The system waits to acquire all of the data before decoding, therefore making the threshold the same as the number of total vehicles reporting information.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bonk and Boudguiga with the transmission rate of Dorrance for the benefit of providing an accurate depiction of a vehicle's environment in real-time (or as close to real-time as possible) in a network-friendly manner. (Dorrance: Paragraph [0003])
Regarding Claim 2,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the anomaly information of the autonomous driving system is generated based on one or more of whether a takeover request message has been generated in the autonomous vehicle, whether driver intervention has occurred in the driving of the autonomous vehicle, or whether an error message of the autonomous driving system has been generated. (Bonk: Paragraph [0047], [0057]-[0058], [0060]-[0061])
Regarding Claim 6,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to transmit the anomaly information based on a predetermined information transmission rate. (Dorrance: Paragraph [0217], [0219]-[0220], [0225])
The motivation to combine Bonk, Boudguiga, and Dorrance, is the same as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to generate the autonomous driving danger zone information by further reflecting environmental information related to the location of occurrence of the anomaly information in the anomaly information. (Bonk: Paragraph [0057]-[0058])
Regarding Claim 12,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to receive destination information from the user of the autonomous vehicle to generate a route plan to the destination based on the autonomous driving danger zone information. (Bonk: Paragraph [0042], [0044], [0056])
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 11-14, and 20, above, and further in view of Kerecsen (US 20200294401, already of record).
Regarding Claim 3,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1,...
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, does not teach
...wherein the identification information of the autonomous vehicle comprises a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the autonomous vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kerecsen teaches
...wherein the identification information of the autonomous vehicle comprises a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the autonomous vehicle. (Kerecsen: Abstract, Paragraph [0186])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bonk, Boudguiga, and Dorrance, with the use of a VIN for vehicle identification of Kerecsen for the benefit of associating sensor data with a specific vehicle and its location. (Kerecsen: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 11-14, and 20, above, and further in view of Emi et al. (US 20190116460; hereinafter Emi, already of record).
Regarding Claim 4,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1,...
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, does not teach
...wherein when the autonomous vehicle is located within a predetermined information transmission restricted area, the autonomous vehicle is configured to stop transmitting the anomaly information.
However in the same field of endeavor, Emi teaches
...wherein when the autonomous vehicle is located within a predetermined information transmission restricted area, the autonomous vehicle is configured to stop transmitting the anomaly information. (Emi: Paragraph [0025], [0041])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bonk, Boudguiga, and Dorrance, with the stopping of anomaly information transmission of Herlocker for the benefit of preventing radio wave interference with other wireless communication systems. (Emi: Paragraph [0006]-[0007])
Regarding Claim 5,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, further in view of Dorrance, and further in view of Emi, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein when the autonomous vehicle is located within a predetermined range from the origin or destination of a route set by a user of the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle is configured to stop transmitting the anomaly information. (Emi: Paragraph [0082]-[0084])
The motivation to combine Bonk, Boudguiga, Dorrance, and Emi, is the same as stated for Claim 4 above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 11-14, and 20, above, and further in view of Abbas (US 20210099308, already of record).
Regarding Claim 8,
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, teaches
The system of claim 1,...
Bonk, in view of Boudguiga, and further in view of Dorrance, does not teach
...wherein the encryption-based privacy assurance technique comprises one or more of homomorphic encryption or functional encryption.
However in the same field of endeavor, Abbas teaches
...wherein the encryption-based privacy assurance technique comprises one or more of homomorphic encryption or functional encryption. (Abbas: Paragraph [0035], [0087])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bonk with the data encryption and decryption of Abbas for the benefit of enabling secure data transmissions between the data platform 111 (e.g., a server) and a client device 201 (e.g., an ECU 105). (Abbas: Paragraph [0059])
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 8 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights