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 4/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, and 21 remain pending in the application, Claim 23 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C 103, applicant argues that The Pirwani reference fails to disclose “based on the transmitting of the signal: controlling autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than the specified speed” and the Kairali reference fails to disclose “wherein the restoring is initiated only when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed, and the restoring is prohibited when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is greater than the specified speed”, both of these arguments are moot as after the applicant’s amendments the Pirwani reference is not used to read on this limitations, and the Kairali reference is not applied at all.
Regarding the Liem reference, applicant states that the reference fails to disclose the speed reduction “based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software” however this is obvious in view of the combined references as applied to the present rejection below. While Liem discloses slowing down in response to a vehicle hacking, the Lee reference discloses different responses to different types of unauthorized modification to the software. These two in combination with Pirwani therefore make the claim obvious: Lee discloses a system having different responses to different software intrusions, selecting a different emergency mode based on the type of hacking target ([0291] “In this case, the vehicle 10 may be switched to the emergency driving mode corresponding to the type of the hacking target device” and responding to different security breach types ([0031] “a driving method that allows the autonomous vehicle to determine at least one security breach type and responds to each security breach type” These different response options include transitioning to user control, to remote control, moving into a safe lane, or coming to a stop. Therefore, in combination with Liem which discloses limited speed as a response to unauthorized software modification, it would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include Liem’s response of slowing the vehicle as a response made “based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software”. For this and the reasons above, the examiner maintains the previous rejection was proper, and makes the rejections of the amended claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “hanging from the first mode to the second mode based on the speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than the specified speed;” which is new matter not present in the specification as no mention is made of vehicle speed in relation switching from first to second mode. The specification only cites the system/vehicle doing something based on speed of the autonomous vehicle being less or greater than some specified speed in relation to the restoring of the software, the transition between modes is not described in any way that indicates the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
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, 8, 10, 11-14, 17, 18, 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, Liem (US 20200007342), herein after referred to as Liem, and Gomes (US 20190205115), herein after referred to as Gomes.
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,
control, based on the transmitting of the signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a specified speed;
wherein the restoring is initiated only when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed, and the restoring is prohibited when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is greater than the 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.”
control, based on the transmitting of the signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, (see at least [0031] “ the present invention may present a driving method that allows the autonomous vehicle to determine at least one security breach type and responds to each security breach type" [0291] "In this case, the vehicle 10 may be switched to the emergency driving mode corresponding to the type of the hacking target 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 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 well as control a vehicle, based on the transmitting of the signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, 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, Liem discloses:
autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a 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]. The Liem reference, in combination with Lee, discloses doing this based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software as Lee discloses a plurality of emergency driving responses to different types of unauthorized software modification, and Liem discloses slowing as a potential type of response.
In the same field of endeavor, Gomes discloses:
wherein the restoring is initiated only when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed, and the restoring 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 restore the software when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed but prohibit when above, as taught by Gomes to safely perform an update [0216].
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 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 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,
controlling, based on the transmitting of the signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a specified speed;
wherein the restoring is initiated only when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed, and the restoring is prohibited when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is greater than the 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.”
controlling, based on the transmitting of the signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, (see at least [0031] “ the present invention may present a driving method that allows the autonomous vehicle to determine at least one security breach type and responds to each security breach type" [0291] "In this case, the vehicle 10 may be switched to the emergency driving mode corresponding to the type of the hacking target 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 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 well as control a vehicle, based on the transmitting of the signal indicating the unauthorized modification to the software and based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software, 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, Liem discloses:
autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle to reduce a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a 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]. The Liem reference, in combination with Lee, discloses doing this based on a type of the unauthorized modification to the software as Lee discloses a plurality of emergency driving responses to different types of unauthorized software modification, and Liem discloses slowing as a potential type of response.
In the same field of endeavor, Gomes discloses:
wherein the restoring is initiated only when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed, and the restoring 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 restore the software when the speed of the autonomous vehicle is less than or equal to the specified speed but prohibit when above, as taught by Gomes to safely perform an update [0216].
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 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 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, 16, and 23 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, Liem (US 20200007342), herein after referred to as Liem, Gomes (US 20190205115), herein after referred to as Gomes, 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].
Regarding Claim 23, modified Pirwani discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
perform, based on the software being restored, a software test;
and control, based on identifying that the software is restored and that a result of the software test is normal, the autonomous vehicle in the first mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Duval discloses:
perform, based on the software being restored, a software test; (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, based on the software being restored, a software test, as taught by Duval to ensure a partially-updated software is returned to an operation state when an update is interrupted [0070].
Combined with Duval, Pirwani makes obvious:
and control, based on identifying that the software is restored and that a result of the software test is normal, the autonomous vehicle in the first mode. (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.”)
The Pirwani reference discloses a system which, when the unauthorized software modification is found, may undertake one of several responses such as stopping unveil towed back to a maintenance facility [0058] or restoring the previous software version and operating under this software [0059]. The examiner interprets this returning to previous operation under previous software as making it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that normal operation, i.e. the previous level of autonomous driving, is resumed. Operating as previously done under the previous software level would entail, to a person with ordinary skill, returning to the operation before the unauthorized software modification.
Claim 21 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, Liem (US 20200007342), herein after referred to as Liem, Gomes (US 20190205115), herein after referred to as Gomes, and Fields (US 20210064027), herein after referred to as Fields.
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”)
Pirwani does not explicitly disclose:
changing from the first mode to the second mode based on the speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than the specified speed;
and outputting a signal for the passenger of the autonomous vehicle to control the autonomous vehicle
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, Fields discloses:
based on the speed of the autonomous vehicle being less than the specified speed; (see at least [0061] “the security arbiter may select a time period during which the vehicle should transition to a different level of autonomous capability. The time period may be calibrated based on the speed of the vehicle 802 on the road 806,”)
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 and Lee to change from first mode to second mode based on the speed of the vehicle, as taught by Fields to ensure a vehicle is in a safe state to transition to manual driving before a dangerous area [0061].
Conclusion
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