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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 remain pending in the application. Claim 21 and 22 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103, applicant argues against the independent claims as amended with limitations from dependent claims 9 and 19. Specifically, applicant alleges that the Kairali reference fails to disclose “based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed” because by disclosing slowing down for an already in-progress update it actually teaches away from the claimed limitation. The examiner disagrees as this is not accurate to the Kairali reference which does not anywhere state that the update is in progress before performing the speed reduction. The reference does not in any part of paragraph [0051] that the applicant points to state that the update is in progress already when the speed is adjusted, and in stating “in some embodiments, vehicle 301 may even be stopped entirely in order to apply upgrades or updates before entering the location” the reference more likely implies this operation change is a condition of performing the update at all and not merely done mid-update. Regardless, the argument is not based on the actual text of the Kairali reference and therefore fails to counter the rejection of the claim.
The applicant further states that the slowdown is to increase the available time for the so the updating is not “based on” the speed reduction, however as the reference states that the speed reduction is necessary in order to perform the update in this sicario, this reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of performing this step based on the reduced speed. As such, the examiner maintains the rejections.
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 1-4, 7, 10, 11-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirwani (US 20230048368), herein after referred to as Pirwani, in view of Lee (US 20210331712), herein after referred to as Lee, and Kairali (US 20240314139), herein after referred to as Kairali.
Regarding Claim 1, Pirwani discloses:
a communication circuit; (see at least [0110] “The communication unit 298A transmits and receives data to and from the network 292”)
a processor configured to control an autonomous vehicle; (see at least [0085] “ An autonomous vehicle may have and use one or more sensors and/or a navigation unit to drive autonomously.”)
and memory (see at least [0049] “ memory devices that control onboard functions of the transport 120,”)
storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: (see at least [0045] “ Various driving systems of the instant solution can utilize software, an array of sensors as well as machine learning functionality,”)
transmit, to a first external device via the communication circuit (see at least [0058] “The processor associated with the security check software 110 then may transmit a notification to a server”)
and based on detecting an unauthorized modification to software of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0058] “a processor of the transport 120 may identify a first security check failure on a first transport software item, perform a second security check on a second transport software item, and determine a second security check failure on the second transport software item. In response, the processor may ... provide a notification to a server, such as a server communicably coupled to the transport 120. In one embodiment, different software items of a transport 120 have been corrupted or modified in an unauthorized fashion.”)
by a second external device different from the first external device, (see at least [0058] “If two or more software modules are determined to be corrupted by the security check software 110, this may be an indication of a more intrusive hacking and attempt to take outside control of the transport 120.”)
a signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software, (see at least [0058] “a processor of the transport 120 may identify a first security check failure on a first transport software item, perform a second security check on a second transport software item, and determine a second security check failure on the second transport software item. In response, the processor may ... provide a notification to a server, such as a server communicably coupled to the transport 120. In one embodiment, different software items of a transport 120 have been corrupted or modified in an unauthorized fashion.”)
wherein the first external device comprises a server; (see at least [0058] “The processor associated with the security check software 110 then may transmit a notification to a server associated with the transport 120 of the status and location of the transport 120, along with an indication that multiple software items have been compromised.”)
perform, based on the transmission of the signal, (see at least [0058] “The server may interpret this as a likely hacking attack to the transport 120,”)
at least one of: changing from the first mode to a second mode that allows a passenger of the autonomous vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle, stopping operation of the autonomous vehicle for a specified time duration, or limiting a function executed by the autonomous vehicle; (see at least [0058] “and suspend further operation until the transport 120 is towed to an appropriate maintenance facility to repair the changed or corrupted software items.”)
and restore the software, based on receiving first data for restoring the software from the first external device. (see at least [0059] “the processor associated with the security check software 110 may request the previous version of the software item from a server associated with the transport 120. Once the previous version of the software item has been received, a transport processor will install and execute the previous version of the software item.”
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
in a first mode in which the autonomous vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving level greater than or equal to a specified level,
based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
in a first mode in which the autonomous vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving level greater than or equal to a specified level, (see at least [Fig. 14] [0293] “ detecting the hacking states of the in-vehicle devices of the vehicle 10 based on the hacking alerting message, and continuing the autonomous driving mode or switching to the emergency driving mode according to the type of hacking state information.”
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform the process in a first mode in which the autonomous vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving level greater than or equal to a specified level, as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [0291]. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's claimed invention that the autonomous driving vehicle of the Lee reference is starting the cited process in an autonomous driving level equal to the "autonomous driving mode", and performs the process while in this first mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kairali discloses:
based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed. (see at least [0051] “the velocity of the vehicle may be adjusted to slow the vehicle down, allowing more time to retrieve and apply the updates or upgrades to the software systems of the vehicle 301”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform software installation based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed, as taught by Kairali to ensure an update is completed before the vehicle enters an area in which it must be completed [0051].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Pirwani further discloses:
stop the operation of the autonomous vehicle for the specified time duration or limit the function, (see at least [0058] “and suspend further operation until the transport 120 is towed to an appropriate maintenance facility to repair the changed or corrupted software items.”)
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: a powertrain of the autonomous vehicle, a body of the autonomous vehicle, a chassis of the autonomous vehicle, or a communication gateway of the autonomous vehicle,
wherein the function is associated with the unauthorized modification.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: a powertrain of the autonomous vehicle, a body of the autonomous vehicle, a chassis of the autonomous vehicle, or a communication gateway of the autonomous vehicle, (see at least [0017] “a third emergency driving mode in which the autonomous vehicle is gradually stopped or immediately stopped." [0020] "switching to the third emergency driving mode may be performed when the hacking target device is at least one of a driving operation device, a main ECU, or a vehicle driving device,”)
wherein the function is associated with the unauthorized modification. (see at least [0020] “a third emergency driving mode in which the autonomous vehicle is gradually stopped or immediately stopped." [0020] "switching to the third emergency driving mode may be performed when the hacking target device is at least one of a driving operation device, a main ECU, or a vehicle driving device,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to stop operation or limit function based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: a powertrain of the autonomous vehicle, a body of the autonomous vehicle, a chassis of the autonomous vehicle, or a communication gateway of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the function is associated with the unauthorized modification, as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [00291].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
change from the first mode to the second mode,
based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: an autonomous driving feature of the autonomous vehicle or an information feature of the autonomous vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
change from the first mode to the second mode, (see at least [0279] “when determination is made that continuation of the autonomous driving mode is not possible, it is possible to switch to an emergency driving mode allowing driving of the vehicle 10 to be guided by the server or the user so as to be controlled out of the autonomous driving mode”)
based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: an autonomous driving feature of the autonomous vehicle or an information feature of the autonomous vehicle. (see at least [0018] “switching to the first emergency driving mode may be performed when the hacking target device is at least one of a user interface device, an object detection device, a communication device, a sensing unit, or a location data generating device, and determination is made that the hacking target device is hacked or is likely to be hacked.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to change from the first mode to the second mode based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: an autonomous driving feature of the autonomous vehicle or an information feature of the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [0291].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Pirwani further discloses:
wherein the first data comprises the software before being modified by the second external device. (see at least [0059] “Once the previous version of the software item has been received, a transport processor will install and execute the previous version of the software item.”)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Pirwani further discloses:
receive, from the first external device via the communication circuit, second data; (see at least [0066] “ the processor receiving a valid software update,”)
and update, based on the second data, the restored software. (see at least [0119] “Then verifying the first portion of critical updates and a second portion of non-critical updates … running the verified first portion with other processes after the period of time.") (*Examiner interprets that a system capable of providing software updates is capable of providing an update to restored software)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Pirwani further discloses:
restore the software (see at least [0059] “Once the previous version of the software item has been received, a transport processor will install and execute the previous version of the software item.”)
based on receiving, via an input device of the autonomous vehicle, a request to restore the software. (see at least [0059] “the processor associated with the security check software 110 may request the previous version of the software item from a server associated with the transport 120.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Pirwani discloses:
transmitting, to a first external device via the communication circuit (see at least [0058] “The processor associated with the security check software 110 then may transmit a notification to a server”)
and based on detecting an unauthorized modification to software of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0058] “a processor of the transport 120 may identify a first security check failure on a first transport software item, perform a second security check on a second transport software item, and determine a second security check failure on the second transport software item. In response, the processor may ... provide a notification to a server, such as a server communicably coupled to the transport 120. In one embodiment, different software items of a transport 120 have been corrupted or modified in an unauthorized fashion.”)
by a second external device different from the first external device, (see at least [0058] “If two or more software modules are determined to be corrupted by the security check software 110, this may be an indication of a more intrusive hacking and attempt to take outside control of the transport 120.”)
a signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software, (see at least [0058] “a processor of the transport 120 may identify a first security check failure on a first transport software item, perform a second security check on a second transport software item, and determine a second security check failure on the second transport software item. In response, the processor may ... provide a notification to a server, such as a server communicably coupled to the transport 120. In one embodiment, different software items of a transport 120 have been corrupted or modified in an unauthorized fashion.”)
wherein the first external device comprises a server; (see at least [0058] “The processor associated with the security check software 110 then may transmit a notification to a server associated with the transport 120 of the status and location of the transport 120, along with an indication that multiple software items have been compromised.”)
performing, based on the transmission of the signal, (see at least [0058] “The server may interpret this as a likely hacking attack to the transport 120,”)
at least one of: changing from the first mode to a second mode that allows a passenger of the autonomous vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle, stopping operation of the autonomous vehicle for a specified time duration, or limiting a function executed by the autonomous vehicle; (see at least [0058] “and suspend further operation until the transport 120 is towed to an appropriate maintenance facility to repair the changed or corrupted software items.”)
and restoring the software, based on receiving, from the first external device, first data for restoring the software. (see at least [0059] “the processor associated with the security check software 110 may request the previous version of the software item from a server associated with the transport 120. Once the previous version of the software item has been received, a transport processor will install and execute the previous version of the software item.”
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
in a first mode in which the autonomous vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving level greater than or equal to a specified level,
and based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
in a first mode in which the autonomous vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving level greater than or equal to a specified level, (see at least [Fig. 14] [0293] “ detecting the hacking states of the in-vehicle devices of the vehicle 10 based on the hacking alerting message, and continuing the autonomous driving mode or switching to the emergency driving mode according to the type of hacking state information.”
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform the process in a first mode in which the autonomous vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving level greater than or equal to a specified level, as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [0291]. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's claimed invention that the autonomous driving vehicle of the Lee reference is starting the cited process in an autonomous driving level equal to the "autonomous driving mode", and performs the process while in this first mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kairali discloses:
and based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed. (see at least [0051] “the velocity of the vehicle may be adjusted to slow the vehicle down, allowing more time to retrieve and apply the updates or upgrades to the software systems of the vehicle 301”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform software installation based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than or equal to a specified speed, as taught by Kairali to ensure an update is completed before the vehicle enters an area in which it must be completed [0051].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the stopping of the operation or limiting of the function is based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: a powertrain of the autonomous vehicle, a body of the autonomous vehicle, a chassis of the autonomous vehicle, or a communication gateway of the autonomous vehicle,
wherein the function is associated with the unauthorized modification.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
wherein the stopping of the operation or limiting of the function is based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: a powertrain of the autonomous vehicle, a body of the autonomous vehicle, a chassis of the autonomous vehicle, or a communication gateway of the autonomous vehicle, (see at least [0017] “a third emergency driving mode in which the autonomous vehicle is gradually stopped or immediately stopped." [0020] "switching to the third emergency driving mode may be performed when the hacking target device is at least one of a driving operation device, a main ECU, or a vehicle driving device,”)
wherein the function is associated with the unauthorized modification. (see at least [0020] “a third emergency driving mode in which the autonomous vehicle is gradually stopped or immediately stopped." [0020] "switching to the third emergency driving mode may be performed when the hacking target device is at least one of a driving operation device, a main ECU, or a vehicle driving device,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to stop operation or limit function based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: a powertrain of the autonomous vehicle, a body of the autonomous vehicle, a chassis of the autonomous vehicle, or a communication gateway of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the function is associated with the unauthorized modification, as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [00291].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the changing from the first mode to the second mode is based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: an autonomous driving feature of the autonomous vehicle or an information feature of the autonomous vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
wherein the changing from the first mode to the second mode (see at least [0279] “when determination is made that continuation of the autonomous driving mode is not possible, it is possible to switch to an emergency driving mode allowing driving of the vehicle 10 to be guided by the server or the user so as to be controlled out of the autonomous driving mode”)
is based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: an autonomous driving feature of the autonomous vehicle or an information feature of the autonomous vehicle. (see at least [0018] “switching to the first emergency driving mode may be performed when the hacking target device is at least one of a user interface device, an object detection device, a communication device, a sensing unit, or a location data generating device, and determination is made that the hacking target device is hacked or is likely to be hacked.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to change from the first mode to the second mode based on identifying that the unauthorized modification to the software is associated with at least one of: an autonomous driving feature of the autonomous vehicle or an information feature of the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [0291].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Pirwani further discloses:
wherein the first data comprises the software before being modified by the second external device. (see at least [0059] “Once the previous version of the software item has been received, a transport processor will install and execute the previous version of the software item.”)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Pirwani further discloses:
receiving, from the first external device via the communication circuit, second data; (see at least [0066] “ the processor receiving a valid software update,”)
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose, however makes obvious:
and updating, based on the second data, the restored software. (see at least [0119] “Then verifying the first portion of critical updates and a second portion of non-critical updates … running the verified first portion with other processes after the period of time.") (*Examiner considers it obvious to a person having ordinary experience in the art that a system capable of providing software updates may provide an update to restored software)
Regarding Claim 20, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Pirwani further discloses:
restoring the software (see at least [0059] “Once the previous version of the software item has been received, a transport processor will install and execute the previous version of the software item.”)
based on receiving, via an input device of the autonomous vehicle, a request to restore the software. (see at least [0059] “the processor associated with the security check software 110 may request the previous version of the software item from a server associated with the transport 120.”)
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirwani (US 20230048368), herein after referred to as Pirwani, in view of Lee (US 20210331712), herein after referred to as Lee, Kairali (US 20240314139), herein after referred to as Kairali, and Duval (US 20210157563), herein after referred to as Duval.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Pirwani further discloses:
perform a software test, (see at least [0060] “ a processor of the transport 120 may receive a request to perform one or more security checks on transport software items”)
and transmit, to the first external device via the communication circuit and based on a result of the software test being normal, a signal indicating the result. (see at least [0060] “ In response, the processor may perform the one or more security checks and transmit the results of the one or more security checks.”)
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
based on the software being restored;
In the same field of endeavor, Duval discloses:
based on the software being restored; (see at least [0070] “the method (400) cancels the current update then completes the software update by verifying that the software was restored to the state prior to initiating the update.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform a test based on the software being restored, as taught by Duval to ensure a partially-updated software is returned to an operation state when an update is interrupted [0070].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 5, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the software test comprises at least one of software verification or software validation.
In the same field of endeavor, Duval discloses:
wherein the software test comprises at least one of software verification or software validation. (see at least [0070] “the method (400) cancels the current update then completes the software update by verifying that the software was restored to the state prior to initiating the update.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform a software test that comprises at least one of software verification or software validation, as taught by Duval to ensure a partially-updated software is returned to an operation state when an update is interrupted [0070].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Pirwani further discloses:
performing a software test, (see at least [0060] “ a processor of the transport 120 may receive a request to perform one or more security checks on transport software items”)
and transmitting, to the first external device via the communication circuit and based on a result of the software test being normal, a signal indicating the result. (see at least [0060] “ In response, the processor may perform the one or more security checks and transmit the results of the one or more security checks.”)
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
based on the software being restored;
In the same field of endeavor, Duval discloses:
based on the software being restored; (see at least [0070] “the method (400) cancels the current update then completes the software update by verifying that the software was restored to the state prior to initiating the update.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform a test based on the software being restored, as taught by Duval to ensure a partially-updated software is returned to an operation state when an update is interrupted [0070].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the software test comprises at least one of software verification or software validation.
In the same field of endeavor, Duval discloses:
wherein the software test comprises at least one of software verification or software validation. (see at least [0070] “the method (400) cancels the current update then completes the software update by verifying that the software was restored to the state prior to initiating the update.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to perform a software test that comprises at least one of software verification or software validation, as taught by Duval to ensure a partially-updated software is returned to an operation state when an update is interrupted [0070].
Claims 8, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirwani (US 20230048368), herein after referred to as Pirwani, in view of Lee (US 20210331712), herein after referred to as Lee, Kairali (US 20240314139), herein after referred to as Kairali, and Gomes (US 20190205115), herein after referred to as Gomes.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 7, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
update the restored software after the autonomous vehicle is stopped.
In the same field of endeavor, Gomes discloses:
update the restored software after the autonomous vehicle is stopped. (see at least [0216] “ Updates to sensor and controller software and/or firmware may, for example, require that the AV be stopped and “parked,” to permit the updates to be safely performed,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to update the restored software after the autonomous vehicle is stopped, as taught by Gomes to safely perform an update [0216].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 17, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
updating the restored software after the autonomous vehicle is stopped.
In the same field of endeavor, Gomes discloses:
updating the restored software after the autonomous vehicle is stopped. (see at least [0216] “ Updates to sensor and controller software and/or firmware may, for example, require that the AV be stopped and “parked,” to permit the updates to be safely performed,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to update the restored software after the autonomous vehicle is stopped, as taught by Gomes to safely perform an update [0216].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Pirwani further discloses:
based on the transmitting of the signal: (see at least [0058] “If the processor associated with the security check software 110 determines two failed verifications, the security check software 110 may inhibit the transport 120”)
controlling autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than the specified speed; (see at least [0090] “In one embodiment, the solutions can also be utilized to make a transport partially inoperable by (in certain embodiments), limiting speed, limiting the ability to be near another vehicle, limiting speed to a maximum”)
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
changing from the first mode to the second mode;
and outputting a signal for the passenger of the autonomous vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle
wherein the restoring of the software is prohibited when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is greater than the specified speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
changing from the first mode to the second mode; (see at least [0284] “a first emergency driving mode in which assistance of a user is required ... either of the first emergency driving mode and the second emergency driving mode may be selected based on hacking state information.”)
and outputting a signal for the passenger of the autonomous vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0283] “For example, when a hacking state is detected in the location data generating device in the autonomous driving apparatus 260, manual driving of the user may be requested”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani change from a first mode which entails autonomous driving to a second mode which allows driver control, as well as output a signal to the driver to control the vehicle , as taught by Lee to provide hacking security to an autonomous driving apparatus of a vehicle [0291].
In the same field of endeavor, Gomes discloses:
wherein the restoring of the software is prohibited when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is greater than the specified speed.(see at least [0184] “the update metadata for a particular update such as, for example, a driving-related update, may indicate that to perform the particular update, the vehicle must be in a particular “state” (e.g., “parked,” or travelling, or below a specified speed).”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to prohibit restoring the software when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is greater than the specified speed, as taught by Gomes to safely perform an update [0216].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirwani (US 20230048368), herein after referred to as Pirwani, in view of Lee (US 20210331712), herein after referred to as Lee, Kairali (US 20240314139), herein after referred to as Kairali, Gomes (US 20190205115), herein after referred to as Gomes, and Liem (US 20200007342), herein after referred to as Liem.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 11, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
controlling, based on the transmitting of the signal and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than the specified speed;
and based on the speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than the specified speed, initiating the restoring of the software.
In the same field of endeavor, Liem discloses:
controlling, based on the transmitting of the signal and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0181] “In this way, attacks on the system 200 and/or failures of components 204 of the system 200 can be quickly detected and appropriate measures (such as entering a fail-safe mode or raising an alarm) can be taken at the step 308.”)
to reduce the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than the specified speed; (see at least [0183] “At the step 308, the second action can take a variety of forms, such as one or more of: ... operation that could cause harm to humans (e.g. travelling above a certain speed) may be prohibited.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the autonomous driving field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to control based on the transmitting of the signal and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Liem to take action to preserve safety in the event of a vehicle hacking attack [0183].
In the same field of endeavor, Gomes discloses:
and based on the speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than the specified speed, initiating the restoring of the software (see at least [0184] “the update metadata for a particular update such as, for example, a driving-related update, may indicate that to perform the particular update, the vehicle must be in a particular “state” (e.g., “parked,” or travelling, or below a specified speed).”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pirwani to restore the software when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than the specified speed, as taught by Gomes to safely perform an update [0216].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights