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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 10, 2025. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee at al. (US 2012/0047550, “Lee”) in view of Millen at al. (US 2021/0242508, “Millen”) and further in view of Hingos et al. (US 2021/0383027, “Hingos”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a device comprising:
{a receiver circuit configurable to receive data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component}; and
a digital circuit configurable to:
generate a first hash {based on the data} ([0035] “device 105 includes multiple embedded integrity value registers 240” );
store the first hash ([0025] “An embedded integrity value register 240 may store a value which can be accessed by integrity check processing module 210 when performing its integrity check” [0035] “device 105 includes multiple embedded integrity value registers 240”);
generate a second hash based on the data after storing the first hash ([0062] “determination is made as to whether at least a portion of the data that first device is attempting to send is in a protected class.” [0063] “… step 720 where the measured integrity value of the first device is determined.” [0029] “integrity check processing module 210 may store intermediate measured values in addition to the measured integrity value discussed above, which may also be called a final measured integrity value or hash value”); and verify the second hash using the first hash before the device transmits the data ([0063] – “the measured integrity value of the first device is compared to the embedded integrity value of the first device. In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device”).
Lee teaches claim 1 but does not teach a receiver circuit configured to receive data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component.
Millen teaches a receiver circuit configured to receive data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component (FIG. 2 shows Module Monitoring System 200 includes controller 205 connected to sensor 505. [0033] “a battery monitoring system according to embodiments of the present disclosure that includes generating (402), by a module monitoring system (200) of a battery management system, battery sensor data. The battery sensor data indicates one or more attributes of one or more cells of a module (e.g., cells (104a-n) of a module (106a-n) of FIG. 1) of a battery (e.g., a battery of an electric vehicle).” Also [0034] “… generating (404), by the MMS (200), based on the battery sensor data, integrity data. The integrity data facilitates verification and validation of the battery sensor data when transmitted through the battery management system”).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature a receiver circuit configured to receive data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component, as taught by Millen in Lee to ensure that safety data such as battery sensor data has been received unaltered, uncorrupted, and from a valid source.
The combination does not teach generate a first hash based on the data ([0026] “the hash application 230 can calculate hashes of data or files that are stored in the flash memory 228. Such hashes can be stored for forensic purposes, among others… the original data and the corresponding hash of the data can be stored… the hash can be calculated and compared to the stored hash so as to verify the data before sending it.”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature generate a first hash based on the data, as taught by Hingos in Lee to ensure that data has not been modified.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 1 and further teaches further comprising a wireless transceiver ([0117] - devices 105 may comprise radio transmitters operable to transmit data from a device 105 wirelessly to other devices 105, gateways 110, and backend server 115) configured to transmit the data and the hash ([0057] “the originating device may transmit its measured integrity value with any data that it sends over the network of devices”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein the device further comprises a wireless transceiver ([0117] - devices 105 may comprise radio transmitters operable to transmit data from a device 105 wirelessly to other devices 105, gateways 110, and backend server 115), and wherein the digital circuit is further configurable to: verify the second hash by at least determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash based on comparing the second hash to the stored first hash; and cause the wireless transceiver to transmit the data in response to determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash ([0063] - In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 4 and further teaches wherein the digital circuit is configurable to cause the wireless transceiver to transmit the stored first hash or the second hash, along with the data, in response to determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash ([0057] “the originating device may transmit its measured integrity value with any data that it sends over the network of devices”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein the digital circuit is further configurable to: determine that the second hash is not equal to the stored first hash based on comparing the second hash to the stored first hash; and prevent transmission of the data in response to determining that the second hash is not equal to the stored first hash ([0063] “If the method determines that the values do not match, the method continues with step 735 where the data transmission is restricted in accordance with a policy. This restriction may be that the data is not sent at all or that a limited amount of data is sent in the transmission”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 1 and Millen further teaches wherein the data indicates the sensed parameter of one or more battery cells ([0033] “a battery monitoring system according to embodiments of the present disclosure that includes generating (402), by a module monitoring system (200) of a battery management system, battery sensor data).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches a method comprising:
{receiving, by a secondary node in a communication network, data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component};
generating, by the secondary node, a first hash {based on the data} ([0035] “device 105 includes multiple embedded integrity value registers 240”);
storing, by the secondary node, the first hash ([0025] “An embedded integrity value register 240 may store a value which can be accessed by integrity check processing module 210 when performing its integrity check” [0035] “device 105 includes multiple embedded integrity value registers 240”);
generating, by the secondary node, a second hash based on the data after storing the first hash ([0063] “… step 720 where the measured integrity value of the first device is determined.” [0029] “integrity check processing module 210 may store intermediate measured values in addition to the measured integrity value discussed above, which may also be called a final measured integrity value or hash value”); and verifying, by the secondary node, the hash before the data is transmitted to a primary node in the communication network ([0063] – “the measured integrity value of the first device is compared to the embedded integrity value of the first device. In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device”).
Lee teaches claim 1 but does not teach receiving, by a secondary node in a communication network, data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component.
Millen teaches receiving, by a secondary node in a communication network, data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component (FIG. 2 shows Module Monitoring System 200 includes controller 205 connected to sensor 505. [0033] “a battery monitoring system according to embodiments of the present disclosure that includes generating (402), by a module monitoring system (200) of a battery management system, battery sensor data. The battery sensor data indicates one or more attributes of one or more cells of a module (e.g., cells (104a-n) of a module (106a-n) of FIG. 1) of a battery (e.g., a battery of an electric vehicle).” Also [0034] “… generating (404), by the MMS (200), based on the battery sensor data, integrity data. The integrity data facilitates verification and validation of the battery sensor data when transmitted through the battery management system”).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature receiving, by a secondary node in a communication network, data indicating a sensed parameter of a monitored component, as taught by Millen in Lee to ensure that safety data such as battery sensor data has been received unaltered, uncorrupted, and from a valid source.
The combination does not teach generating… a first hash based on the data.
Hingos teaches to generating… a first hash based on the data ([0026] “the hash application 230 can calculate hashes of data or files that are stored in the flash memory 228. Such hashes can be stored for forensic purposes, among others… the original data and the corresponding hash of the data can be stored… the hash can be calculated and compared to the stored hash so as to verify the data before sending it.”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature generating… a first hash based on the data, as taught by Hingos in Lee to ensure that data has not been modified.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 8 and further teaches transmitting the data and the second hash to the primary node ([0057] “the originating device may transmit its measured integrity value with any data that it sends over the network of devices”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 10 and further teaches verifying the second hash by determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash based on comparing the second hash to the stored first hash; and transmitting the data to the primary node in response to determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash ([0063] - In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 11 and further teaches transmitting the stored first hash or the second hash, along with the data, to the primary node in response to determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash ([0057] “the originating device may transmit its measured integrity value with any data that it sends over the network of devices”).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 8 and further teaches determining that the second hash is not equal to the stored first hash based on comparing the second hash to the stored first hash; and preventing transmission of the data to the primary node in response to determining that the second hash is not equal to the stored first hash ([0063] “If the method determines that the values do not match, the method continues with step 735 where the data transmission is restricted in accordance with a policy. This restriction may be that the data is not sent at all or that a limited amount of data is sent in the transmission”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a device comprising: a system comprising: a monitor circuit configurable to: be coupled to a monitored component; and sense a parameter of the monitored component; a communication circuit coupled to the monitor circuit (FIG 5 device 105 includes Control module 205 connected to measuring module 220) and configured to: {receive, from the monitor circuit, data indicating the sensed parameter};
generate a first hash {based on the data} ([0035] “device 105 includes multiple embedded integrity value registers 240”);
store the first hash ([0025] “An embedded integrity value register 240 may store a value which can be accessed by integrity check processing module 210 when performing its integrity check” [0035] “device 105 includes multiple embedded integrity value registers 240”);
generate a second hash based on the data after storing the first hash ([0063] “… step 720 where the measured integrity value of the first device is determined.” [0029] “integrity check processing module 210 may store intermediate measured values in addition to the measured integrity value discussed above, which may also be called a final measured integrity value or hash value”); and verify the second hash using the first hash before the communication circuit transmits the data ([0063] – “the measured integrity value of the first device is compared to the embedded integrity value of the first device. In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device”).
Lee teaches claim 1 but does not teach receive, from the monitor circuit, data indicating the sensed parameter.
Millen teaches receive, from the monitor circuit, data indicating the sensed parameter (FIG. 2 shows Module Monitoring System 200 includes controller 205 connected to sensor 505. [0033] “a battery monitoring system according to embodiments of the present disclosure that includes generating (402), by a module monitoring system (200) of a battery management system, battery sensor data. The battery sensor data indicates one or more attributes of one or more cells of a module (e.g., cells (104a-n) of a module (106a-n) of FIG. 1) of a battery (e.g., a battery of an electric vehicle).” Also [0034] “… generating (404), by the MMS (200), based on the battery sensor data, integrity data. The integrity data facilitates verification and validation of the battery sensor data when transmitted through the battery management system”).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature receive, from the monitor circuit, data indicating the sensed parameter, as taught by Millen in Lee to ensure that safety data such as battery sensor data has been received unaltered, uncorrupted, and from a valid source.
The combination does not teach to generate a first hash based on the data
Hingos teaches to generate a first hash based on the data ([0026] “the hash application 230 can calculate hashes of data or files that are stored in the flash memory 228. Such hashes can be stored for forensic purposes, among others… the original data and the corresponding hash of the data can be stored… the hash can be calculated and compared to the stored hash so as to verify the data before sending it.”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature to generate a first hash based on the data, as taught by Hingos in Lee to ensure that data has not been modified.
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 14 and further teaches wherein the communication circuit is further configured to transmit the data and the second hash ([0057] “the originating device may transmit its measured integrity value with any data that it sends over the network of devices”).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 14 and further teaches to verify the second hash by at least determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash based on comparing the second hash to the stored first hash; and transmit the data in response to determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash ([0063] - In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 17 and further teaches wherein the communication circuit is configurable to transmit the stored first hash or the second hash, along with the data, in response to determining that the second hash is equal to the stored first hash ([0057] “the originating device may transmit its measured integrity value with any data that it sends over the network of devices”).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 14 and further teaches wherein the communication circuit is further configurable to: determine that the second hash is not equal to the stored first hash based on comparing the second hash to the stored first hash; and prevent transmission of the data in response to determining that the second hash is not equal to the stored first hash ([0063] “If the method determines that the values do not match, the method continues with step 735 where the data transmission is restricted in accordance with a policy. This restriction may be that the data is not sent at all or that a limited amount of data is sent in the transmission”).
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Millen and Hingos teaches claim 14 and Millen further teaches wherein the monitored component includes one or more battery cells, and wherein the monitor circuit is configurable to: be coupled to the one or more battery cells; and sense the parameter of the one or more battery cells ([0033] “a battery monitoring system according to embodiments of the present disclosure that includes generating (402), by a module monitoring system (200) of a battery management system, battery sensor data).
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Millen further in view of Hingos and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0171865, “Park”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Millen teaches claim 1 and further teaches further comprising a memory, wherein the hash is a first hash, and wherein the digital circuit is further configured to: store the first hash in the memory ([0025] “An embedded integrity value register 240 may store a value which can be accessed by integrity check processing module 210 when performing its integrity check”); and verify the second hash by comparing the second hash to the stored first hash ([0063] – “the measured integrity value of the first device is compared to the embedded integrity value of the first device. In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device”)
{encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data}.
The combination does not teach encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data.
Park teaches encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data ([0016] “convert the variable data into hash values using a hash function, encrypt the measured data, and then transmit the encrypted measured data with the converted hash values as headers to the communication unit”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature to encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data, as taught by Park in Lee for improving security and reliability of data.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Millen teaches claim 8 and further teaches storing the first hash in a memory; before transmitting the data to the primary node, generating a second hash based on the data ([0025] “An embedded integrity value register 240 may store a value which can be accessed by integrity check processing module 210 when performing its integrity check”); before transmitting the data to the primary node, verifying the second hash by comparing the second hash to the stored first hash ([0063] – “the measured integrity value of the first device is compared to the embedded integrity value of the first device. In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device”)
{encrypting the data after verifying the second hash and before transmitting the encrypted data}.
The combination does not teach encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data.
Park teaches encrypting the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data ([0016] “convert the variable data into hash values using a hash function, encrypt the measured data, and then transmit the encrypted measured data with the converted hash values as headers to the communication unit”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature to encrypting the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data, as taught by Park in Lee for improving security and reliability of data.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Millen teaches claim 14 and further teaches wherein the communication circuit includes a memory, and wherein the communication circuit is further configurable to: store the first hash in the memory ([0025] “An embedded integrity value register 240 may store a value which can be accessed by integrity check processing module 210 when performing its integrity check”); and verify the second hash by comparing the second hash to the stored first hash ([0063] – “the measured integrity value of the first device is compared to the embedded integrity value of the first device. In step 730, a determination is made as to whether the embedded integrity value of the first device matches the measured integrity value of the first device. If the values do match, the method continues with step 715 where the first device continues its attempts to send the data to the second device”)
{encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the communication circuit transmits the encrypted data}.
The combination does not teach encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data.
Park teaches encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data ([0016] “convert the variable data into hash values using a hash function, encrypt the measured data, and then transmit the encrypted measured data with the converted hash values as headers to the communication unit”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feature to encrypt the data after verifying the second hash and before the device transmits the encrypted data, as taught by Park in Lee for improving security and reliability of data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642