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 the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1 and 15 and 28, claim 1, 15 and 28 are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Gross teaches “...wherein the respective safe designation [[configuration]] is based on a respective original equipment manufacturer (OEM) configuration, of the safety critical designation or the non-safety critical designation for each of a plurality of vehicle drive modes of the vehicle or each of a plurality of SoC operation stages for each of the plurality of ECU s”, (see FIG. 2 and paragraph 140-140 where the vehicle is parked and in a hibernation state and then some activity is detected which is not appropriate for that stage of hibernation and parking as the vehicle is being hacked at blocks 303 to 333 and an incident report is provided and then the vehicle user is also notified and see paragraph 139-143 where the vehicle may be driving and then hacked and in that case in the driving mode the vehicle is brought of the vehicle traffic and a first responder can come and get the vehicle)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of GROSS since GROSS teaches that a vehicle may have different modes of operation 1. Parked 2. Hibernating 3. Driving. The ai can detect if there is a hacking intrusion of the vehicle during these modes 1-3. This can occur when the vehicle is in different modes of operation such as parked and hibernating and then a signal can be provided to the user that the vehicle is being hacked and an intrusion is detected. The vehicle can also be hacked when driving. In this instance, the vehicle is provided into a safe mode of operation and to stop driving and pull over to a safe location and then a second vehicle comes and gets the first vehicle to remove the intrusion and incident and or fix the vehicle. See paragraph 129-143 of GROSS and FIG. 3.
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.
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 and 15-16 and 28, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar (hereinafter “KUMAR”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180337957A1 to Chen assigned to NIO filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20230138112A1 to Gross.
PNG
media_image2.png
732
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
744
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1 and 15 and 28, Kumar discloses “...1. An apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs) on a system-on-chip (SoC) of a vehicle; and (see FIG. 10 where the device has a number of GPU cores and a number of CPU cores and a SOC package 1002 with an input/output interface to devices 1070 and a supplemental memory 1060)
a controller configured to identify a respective safe designation for each of the plurality of ECUs, the respective safe designation for each of the plurality of ECUs comprising a safety critical designation or a non-safety critical designation, (see FIG .2 where the SOC on the chip has a dynamic sensor processor and a functional safety control logic block to determine the amount of a temperature increase over time which is compared to a threshold value and then as configuration update may occur where a second chip for safety can be actuated in block 230)
PNG
media_image4.png
708
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the controller further configured to load a respective configuration of at least one power feature, at least one limit feature, or a combination of the at least one power feature and the at least one limit feature into each of the plurality of ECUs based on the respective safe designation comprising the safety critical designation or the non-safety critical designation. (see paragraph 30 and 65 where the decision can be made to continue operation of the chip and to decrease operations to accommodate cooling of the chip and prevent damage)
PNG
media_image5.png
842
658
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 15 and 28 are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but CHEN teaches “...wherein the respective configuration is based on a respective original equipment manufacturer (OEM) configuration for each of the safety critical designation and the non-safety critical designation for each of the plurality of ECUs”. (CHEN teaches that each component can include a certificate monitoring component 830 for a component that has a normal credential level or an abnormal credential level. See paragraph 80-92 where the certificate monitoring component can determine that this is not authorized relative to the original credential and has been hacked. This can determine that this component ECU has been tampered with relative to the OEM and is now unsafe. )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of CHEN with a reasonable expectation of success since CHEN teaches that an OEM sensor in paragraph 24 can be hacked. The original credential can be compared to a current credential via attribute. The attributes comprise one or more of an identifying name or number, an identification of an owner of the credential, an identification of an issuer of the credential, a date and time when the credential becomes valid, a date and time when the credential expires, an indication of usage of the credential, an indication of a signature algorithm used to sign the credential, or a signature by an issuer of the credential. This can be indicating that the value has been changed and a remedial action can be provided to shut off the hacked sensor for increased safety.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Gross teaches “...wherein the respective safe designation [[configuration]] is based on a respective original equipment manufacturer (OEM) configuration, of the safety critical designation or the non-safety critical designation for each of a plurality of vehicle drive modes of the vehicle or each of a plurality of SoC operation stages for each of the plurality of ECU s”, (see FIG. 2 and paragraph 140-140 where the vehicle is parked and in a hibernation state and then some activity is detected which is not appropriate for that stage of hibernation and parking as the vehicle is being hacked at blocks 303 to 333 and an incident report is provided and then the vehicle user is also notified and see paragraph 139-143 where the vehicle may be driving and then hacked and in that case in the driving mode the vehicle is brought of the vehicle traffic and a first responder can come and get the vehicle)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of GROSS since GROSS teaches that a vehicle may have different modes of operation 1. Parked 2. Hibernating 3. Driving. The ai can detect if there is a hacking intrusion of the vehicle during these modes 1-3. This can occur when the vehicle is in different modes of operation such as parked and hibernating and then a signal can be provided to the user that the vehicle is being hacked and an intrusion is detected. The vehicle can also be hacked when driving. In this instance, the vehicle is provided into a safe mode of operation and to stop driving and pull over to a safe location and then a second vehicle comes and gets the first vehicle to remove the intrusion and incident and or fix the vehicle. See paragraph 129-143 of GROSS and FIG. 3.
In regard to claim 2 and 16, Kumar discloses “...2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first ECU of the plurality of ECUs on the SoC is configured to run a first workload with the safety critical designation and a second ECU of the plurality of ECUs on the SoC is configured to run a second workload with the non-safety critical designation. (see paragraph 30 and 65 where the decision can be made to continue operation of the chip and to decrease operations to accommodate cooling of the chip and prevent damage)
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.
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 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar and in view of NPL, SHREEJITH, Shanker et al., . Reconfigurable Computing in Next-Generation Automotive Networks, 12 IEEE EMBEDDED SYSTEMS LETTERS, VOL. 5, NO. 1, MARCH 2013
(https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/people/suhaib_fahmy/publications/esl2013-shreejith.pdf) (hereinafter “SHREEJITH”) and in view of Chen and Gross.
In regard to claim 4 and 18, Kumar discloses “..4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the safety critical designation or the non-safety critical designation (see paragraph 25-27 and 30 and 65 where the decision can be made to continue operation of the chip and to decrease operations to accommodate cooling of the chip and prevent damage)
Kumar is silent but Shreejith teaches “...comprises performance requirements related to run-time deadlines”. (see page 2, first column, line 1-10 from the bottom where the reconfiguration of resources that happen at run time)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of SHREEJITH with a reasonable expectation of success since SHREEJITH teaches that the in vehicle network architecture can be partitioned into different domains based on the performance and safety requirements. Using a flex ray interface and controller this can provide more computations based on the different modules such as shown in table 1 and this can happen at run time. See pages 1-2.
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.
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 5 and 19 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/049912 A1 to Rajesh and in view of Chen and Gross.
In regard to claim 5 and 19 and 29-30, Kumar is silent but Rajesh teaches “...5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to:
Generatre/modify the respective safe designation of at least one ECU of the plurality of ECUs in response to a change of at least one of a vehicle drive mode of the vehicle or an SoC operation stage”. (see claims 1-9 and paragraph 27-30 where the failover can be from a geofenced condition and where the vehicle is prevented from booting the OS 112 and an alert is provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of RAJESH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAJESH teaches that the vehicle can have a field programmable gate array (FPGA) that can include different partitions for safety and other functions. The second core can take over as a fail over agent when the first core has degraded and is about to fail. This can include a failure of the autonomous vehicle. This can prevent a failure of the entire system and instead provides a redundant computer system. See paragraph 18-29 and claims 1-9.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5 and 29, claims 5 and 29 are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Gross teaches “...the plurality of vehicle drive modes of the vehicle or an SoC operation stage of the plurality of SoC operation stages”, (see FIG. 2 and paragraph 140-140 where the vehicle is parked and in a hibernation state and then some activity is detected which is not appropriate for that stage of hibernation and parking as the vehicle is being hacked at blocks 303 to 333 and an incident report is provided and then the vehicle user is also notified and see paragraph 139-143 where the vehicle may be driving and then hacked and in that case in the driving mode the vehicle is brought of the vehicle traffic and a first responder can come and get the vehicle)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of GROSS since GROSS teaches that a vehicle may have different modes of operation 1. Parked 2. Hibernating 3. Driving. The ai can detect if there is a hacking intrusion of the vehicle during these modes 1-3. This can occur when the vehicle is in different modes of operation such as parked and hibernating and then a signal can be provided to the user that the vehicle is being hacked and an intrusion is detected. The vehicle can also be hacked when driving. In this instance, the vehicle is provided into a safe mode of operation and to stop driving and pull over to a safe location and then a second vehicle comes and gets the first vehicle to remove the intrusion and incident and or fix the vehicle. See paragraph 129-143 of GROSS and FIG. 3.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar (hereinafter “KUMAR”) and in view of Chen and in view of Gross.
In regard to claim 6 and 20, Kumar discloses “..6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the SoC operation stage comprises one of a
boot stage, a run stage, a sleep stage, or a power-down stage. (see paragraph 38 and 25-27 and 30 and 65 where the decision can be made to continue operation of the chip and to decrease operations to accommodate cooling of the chip and prevent damage)
Claims 7-10 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/049912 A1 to Rajesh and in view of Chen and in view of Gross.
In regard to claim 7 and 21, Kumar is silent but Rajesh teaches “...7. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the vehicle drive mode comprises one of a
parked mode, a stopped mode (see paragraph 29 where the device can be stopped and then restarted by a remote administrator 136), or a driving mode, each associated with cooling or without cooling of the vehicle”. (see paragraph 29-31 where the vehicle OS is prevented from booting and the prevention occurs based on an unsuccessful verification)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of RAJESH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAJESH teaches that the vehicle can have a field programmable gate array (FPGA) that can include different partitions for safety and other functions. The second core can take over as a fail over agent when the first core has degraded and is about to fail. This can include a failure of the autonomous vehicle. This can prevent a failure of the entire system and instead provides a redundant computer system. See paragraph 18-29 and claims 1-9.
PNG
media_image6.png
732
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, 22, Kumar is silent but Rajesh teaches “...8. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the respective configuration for each of the plurality of ECUs based on
the respective safe designation associated with at least one of the vehicle drive mode or (see FIG. 1 where a liveliness check is provided and if the system has degraded then the other chip will take over)
the SoC operation stage”. (see paragraph 29-31 where the vehicle OS is prevented from booting and the prevention occurs based on an unsuccessful verification)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of RAJESH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAJESH teaches that the vehicle can have a field programmable gate array (FPGA) that can include different partitions for safety and other functions. The second core can take over as a fail over agent when the first core has degraded and is about to fail. This can include a failure of the autonomous vehicle. This can prevent a failure of the entire system and instead provides a redundant computer system. See paragraph 18-29 and claims 1-9.
In regard to claim 9 and 23, Kumar is silent but Rajesh teaches “...9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: statically generate the respective configuration for each of the plurality of ECUs
based on a respective original equipment manufacturer (OEM) safe designation
associated with at least one of the vehicle drive mode or the SoC operation stage for each of the ECUs. (see paragraph 29-31 where the vehicle OS is prevented from booting and the prevention occurs based on an unsuccessful verification) (see FIG. 1 where a liveliness check is provided and if the system has degraded then the other chip will take over)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of RAJESH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAJESH teaches that the vehicle can have a field programmable gate array (FPGA) that can include different partitions for safety and other functions. The second core can take over as a fail over agent when the first core has degraded and is about to fail. This can include a failure of the autonomous vehicle. This can prevent a failure of the entire system and instead provides a redundant computer system. See paragraph 18-29 and claims 1-9.
In regard to claim 10 and 24, Kumar discloses “...10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: dynamically generate the respective configuration for each of the plurality of
ECUs based on a respective workload running on each of the plurality of ECUs at a
boundary between respective SoC operation stages or respective vehicle drive modes,
the respective workload being associated with one of the safety critical designation or
the non-safety critical designation” (see paragraph 55-56 and 25-27 and 30 and 65 where the decision can be made to continue operation of the chip and to decrease operations to accommodate cooling of the chip and prevent damage).
Claims 11-12 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/049912 A1 to Rajesh and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190049912A1 to POORNACHANDRAN that was filed in 2017 and assigned to Intel and in view of Chen and Gross.
PNG
media_image7.png
838
762
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 11 and 25, POORNACHANDRAN teaches “...11. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to: distribute the respective configuration for each of the plurality of ECUs from an
application layer to the plurality of ECUs via a secure channel”. (see FIG. 5 where the new configuration is provided in block 516 and then in blocks 518-524 the new configuration is made and the new partitioning is provided in block 520 and the new partition is then validated in blocks 522)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of POORNACHANDRAN with a reasonable expectation of success since POORNACHANDRAN teaches that the vehicle can have a new configuration in block 516. This can be a new configuration of the platform 100 based on the REMOTE ADMIN 136. This can allow the non-safety processors to now act as safety processors to replace the degraded devices. However, each may still communicate with each other. The updated configuration sent from the remote administrator is based on machine learning applied to the failover data from one or more crowdsourced analytics. See claims 1-14.
In regard to claim 12 and 26, POORNACHANDRAN teaches “...12. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising:
a processing device configured to receive the respective safe designation and the respective configuration for each of the plurality of ECUs and to load the respective safe designation and the respective configuration into each of the plurality of ECUs, the processing device further configured to allocate a respective thermal design power (TDP) budget to each of the plurality of ECUs based on the respective configuration for each of the plurality of ECUs. (see FIG. 5 where the new configuration is provided in block 516 and then in blocks 518-524 the new configuration is made and the new partitioning is provided in block 520 and the new partition is then validated in blocks 522 and paragraph 96 where this circuit 1112 can increase power efficiency based on the heat dissipation characteristic )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of POORNACHANDRAN with a reasonable expectation of success since POORNACHANDRAN teaches that the vehicle can have a new configuration in block 516. This can be a new configuration of the platform 100 based on the REMOTE ADMIN 136. This can allow the non-safety processors to now act as safety processors to replace the degraded devices. However, each may still communicate with each other. The updated configuration sent from the remote administrator is based on machine learning applied to the failover data from one or more crowdsourced analytics. See claims 1-14.
Claims 13-14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200379530A1a1 to Kumar (hereinafter “KUMAR”) and in view of Chen and Gross.
Kumar discloses “...13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein an ECU of the plurality of ECUs comprises a cluster of multiple ECUs of a same type”: (see paragraph 56).
In regard to claim 14 and 27, Kumar discloses “..14. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power feature comprises one or more of an active power feature or an idle power feature, and wherein the limit feature comprises one or more of a temperature limit, a power limit, a current limit, a voltage limit, or a thermal design power (TDP) limit”. (see paragraph 75 and 25-27 and 30 and 65 where the decision can be made to continue operation of the chip and to decrease operations to accommodate cooling of the chip and prevent damage)
In regard to claim 31 and 32, the primary reference is silent but Gross teaches “...31. (New) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the respective configuration is based on a respective additional OEM configuration for each of the safety critical designation and the nonsafety critical designation for each of the plurality of ECU s. (see paragraph 187 where an incident risk level is based on the configuration of the vehicle and an ai model that compares each OEM component sensors and deviations therefrom in paragraph 191 and a deviation that is determined to be at risk or unchanged; see FIG. 2 and paragraph 140-140 where the vehicle is parked and in a hibernation state and then some activity is detected which is not appropriate for that stage of hibernation and parking as the vehicle is being hacked at blocks 303 to 333 and an incident report is provided and then the vehicle user is also notified and see paragraph 139-143 where the vehicle may be driving and then hacked and in that case in the driving mode the vehicle is brought of the vehicle traffic and a first responder can come and get the vehicle)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the disclosure of KUMAR with the teachings of GROSS since GROSS teaches that a vehicle may have different modes of operation 1. Parked 2. Hibernating 3. Driving. The ai can detect if there is a hacking intrusion of the vehicle during these modes 1-3. This can occur when the vehicle is in different modes of operation such as parked and hibernating and then a signal can be provided to the user that the vehicle is being hacked and an intrusion is detected. The vehicle can also be hacked when driving. In this instance, the vehicle is provided into a safe mode of operation and to stop driving and pull over to a safe location and then a second vehicle comes and gets the first vehicle to remove the intrusion and incident and or fix the vehicle. See paragraph 129-143 of GROSS and FIG. 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666