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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to: a pre-appeal brief filed on 30 December 2025.
2. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Hass et al. (US Publication No. 20190372944), hereinafter Hass and in view of Takemori et al. (JP Publication no. 2018078484), hereinafter Takemori.
Regarding claim 1:
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions (Hass, ¶35).
and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: (Hass, ¶42-43).
determine whether all of a plurality of control units within a vehicle have successfully secure booted (Hass, ¶8).
Hass does not explicitly suggest, and in response to determining that all of the plurality of control units have successfully secure booted, generate an identification for the vehicle based on the plurality of control units that have successfully secure booted; however, in a same field of endeavor Takemori discloses this limitation (Takemori, page 17, para. 6-8, page 13, para.5 and page 24, para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining successful boot operation of Hass with the identifier generation disclosed in Takemori to have data security stated by Takemori, at page 23, para.1.
Regarding claim 2:
wherein the identification specify a plurality of cryptographic signatures associated with the plurality of control units that have successfully secure booted, and wherein each of the plurality of cryptographic signatures is unique (Hass, ¶21).
Regarding claim 3:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: in response to determining that not all of the plurality of control units have successfully secure booted, re-boot a failed control unit that has not successfully secure boot; determine whether the failed control unit has successfully re-booted; and in response to determining that the failed control unit has not successfully re-booted, disable one or more non-essential functions of the vehicle (Hass, ¶22).
Regarding claim 4:
wherein: the plurality of control units comprise a central control unit and one or more secondary control unit; the central control unit comprises the memory and the at least one processor; and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether all of the plurality of control units have successfully secure booted by: performing a secure boot; determining whether the secure boot was a success; in response to determining that the secure boot was a success, transmitting a request for a status of the one or more secondary control unit to the one or more secondary control unit; receiving the status of the one or more secondary control unit from the one or more secondary control unit; and determining whether the one or more secondary control unit has successfully secure booted based on the status (Hass, ¶26-27).
Regarding claim 5:
wherein: the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in response to failing the secure boot, transmitting a first failure notification to the one or more secondary control unit; and the one or more secondary control unit is configured to, in response to receiving the first failure notification, select one control unit from the plurality of control units different from the central control unit as a new central control unit (Hass, ¶29).
Regarding claim 6:
wherein the status of the one or more second control unit is cryptographically signed by the corresponding one or more second control unit using a cryptographic key. (Hass, ¶4).
Regarding claim 7:
wherein the plurality of control units comprise an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (Hass, abstract).
Regarding claim 10:
determining whether all of a plurality of control units within a vehicle have successfully secure booted (Hass, ¶8).
Hass does not explicitly suggest, and in response to determining that all of the plurality of control units have successfully secure booted, generating an identification for the vehicle based on the plurality of control units that have successfully secure booted; however, in a same field of endeavor Takemori discloses this limitation (Takemori, page 17, para. 6-8, page 13, para.5 and page 24, para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining successful boot operation of Hass with the identifier generation disclosed in Takemori to have data security stated by Takemori, at page 23, para.1.
Regarding claim 11:
wherein the identification specify a plurality of cryptographic signatures associated with the plurality of control units that have successfully secure booted, and wherein each of the plurality of cryptographic signatures is unique (Hass, ¶21).
Regarding claim 12:
further comprising: in response to determining that not all of the plurality of control units have successfully secure booted, re-booting a failed control unit that has not successfully secure boot; determining whether the failed control unit has successfully re-booted; and in response to determining that the failed control unit has not successfully re-booted, disabling one or more non-essential functions of the vehicle (Hass, ¶9).
Regarding claim 13:
wherein: the plurality of control units comprise a central control unit and one or more secondary control unit; and the determining whether all of the plurality of control units within the vehicle have successfully secure booted comprises: performing, by the central control unit, a secure boot; determining, by the central control unit, whether the secure boot was a success; in response to determining that the secure boot was a success, transmitting, by the central control unit, a request for a status of the one or more secondary control unit to the one or more secondary control unit; receiving, by the central control unit, the status of the one or more secondary control unit from the one or more secondary control unit; and determining, by the central control unit, whether the one or more secondary control unit has successfully secure booted based on the status (Hass, ¶26-27).
Regarding claim 14:
further comprising: in response to failing the secure boot, transmitting, by the central control unit, a first failure notification to the one or more secondary control unit; and in response to receiving the first failure notification, selecting, by the one or more secondary control unit, one control unit from the plurality of control units different from the central control unit as a new central control unit (Hass, ¶29).
Regarding claim 15:
wherein the status of the one or more second control unit is cryptographically signed by the corresponding one or more second control unit using a cryptographic key (Hass, ¶21).
Regarding claim 16:
wherein the plurality of control units comprise an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (Hass, abstract).
Regarding claim 19:
determine whether all of a plurality of control units within a vehicle have successfully secure booted (Hass, ¶8).
Hass does not explicitly suggest, and in response to determining that all of the plurality of control units have successfully secure booted, generate an identification for the vehicle based on the plurality of control units that have successfully secure booted; however, in a same field of endeavor Takemori discloses this limitation (Takemori, page 17, para. 6-8, page 13, para.5 and page 24, para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining successful boot operation of Hass with the identifier generation disclosed in Takemori to have data security stated by Takemori, at page 23, para.1.
Regarding claim 20:
wherein the identification specify a plurality of cryptographic signatures associated with the plurality of control units that have successfully secure booted, and wherein each of the plurality of cryptographic signatures is unique (Hass, ¶21).
Regarding claim 21:
Hass does not explicitly suggest, further comprising a server, wherein the server is configured to block an incorrect key used by a third party attacker, wherein a correct key is based on a salt, wherein the salt is the identification, wherein the identification comprises a plurality of cryptographic signatures respectively corresponding to the plurality of control components of the vehicle, and the identification is a vehicle identification number (VIN); however in a same field of endeavor Takemori discloses this limitation (Takemori, page 14, para.5).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Hass and Takemori applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
4. Claims 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Takemori and in view of Wadhwa et al. (US Publication No. 20120030512), hereinafter Wadhwa.
Regarding claim 8:
Hass in view of Takemori does not explicitly suggest, wherein the identification comprises a Software Bill of Material; however, in a same field of endeavor Wadhwa disclose this limitation (SBOM) (Wadhwa, ¶49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of successful boot detection of ECU of Hass in view of Takemori with the use of identification disclosed in Wadhwa to have secured provisioning to vehicle, stated by Wadhwa at para.75.
Regarding claim 9:
Hass in view of Takemori does not explicitly suggest, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit the identification to a server via an Elliptic Curve Integrated Encryption Scheme (ECIES); however, in a same field of endeavor Wadhwa disclose this limitation (Wadhwa, ¶57-58).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Hass in view of Takemori and Wadhwa applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17:
Hass in view of Takemori does not explicitly suggest, wherein the identification comprises a Software Bill of Material (SBOM); however, in a same field of endeavor Wadhwa disclose this limitation (Wadhwa, ¶49-50).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Hass in view of Takemori and Wadhwa applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monjour Rahim whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or CANANDA) or 571-272-1000.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890
Prosecution Insights