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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 02/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess et al. (US20160358396A1) in view of Waraksa et al. (US4942393A), hereinafter Spiess and Waraksa.
Regarding claim 1, Spiess teaches of a method for a vehicular keyless entry system ("Near field Communication (NFC) in a mobile device or a wearable device such as mobile device accessory watches, activity tracking systems, etc. to enable such devices to be used as electronic keys", [0008]), comprising: decrypting the ID code portion of the keyless-entry transmission using a private key of the vehicle ("The destination (e.g., the vehicle based PKE controller or the mobile device 100 depending on the direction in which the data is being sent) can use its own private key to decrypt the data", [0014]); executing a functionality of the vehicle ("the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]).
However, Spiess does not teach of processing, at a vehicle, a keyless-entry transmission carrying an identification (ID) code portion; detecting whether the decrypted ID code portion matches one of a plurality of predetermined function codes of the vehicle; and executing a functionality of the vehicle corresponding with a function code of the vehicle that matches the decrypted ID code portion.
Waraksa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of processing, at a vehicle, a keyless-entry transmission carrying an identification (ID) code portion ("The 20-bit IDENTIFICATION code which is stored in the beacon chip, is combined with the 4-bit FUNCTION code to make a MESSAGE", Col. 9 lines 44-47); detecting whether the decrypted ID code portion matches one of a plurality of predetermined function codes of the vehicle ("The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1, "The microcomputer is programmed to decode the Miller encoded signal received from the digital data detection circuit 106 and compare the resulting bit patterns with the data previously stored in a non-volatile memory 120", Col. 11 lines 45-50); and executing a functionality of the vehicle corresponding with a function code of the vehicle that matches the decrypted ID code portion ("If the transmission is determined to be a valid beacon code, the receiver/controller 100 further performs the instructed function corresponding to the function code in the received transmission", Col. 10 lines 64-68, "The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Spiess with the teaching of Waraksa to include a plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding to vehicle functions with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system functionality and user convenience by enabling selective control of multiple vehicle operations (Waraksa, Col. 4 lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 3, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the decrypting of the ID code portion is done at an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle powered by a secondary power source of the vehicle ("The mobile device 100 and the vehicle based PKE controller can then communicate securely by encrypting/decrypting data via the stored encryption key", [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 3 as stated above, additionally, comprising: receiving the keyless-entry transmission via a radio frequency (RF) transceiver ("Embodiments described herein address the use of the Near Field Communication (NFC)", [0008]) coupled to the ECU ("The mobile device 100 and the vehicle based PKE controller can then communicate securely by encrypting/decrypting data via the stored encryption key", [0014]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the vehicular keyless entry system is one of a remote keyless entry (RKE) system ("Therefore, it is possible to use NFC-enabled smart phones for RKE functions", [0012]) and a passive keyless entry (PKE) system ("A passive entry system (PKE) controller coupled to the short range antenna is included to operate the vehicle", [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the functionality of the vehicle is one of a door-lock functionality, a door-unlock functionality, a vehicle-start functionality, and a window-control functionality ("the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Spiess teaches of a method for a vehicular keyless entry system ("Near field Communication (NFC) in a mobile device or a wearable device such as mobile device accessory watches, activity tracking systems, etc. to enable such devices to be used as electronic keys", [0008]), comprising: detecting, at a keyless-entry device of a vehicle, a request for a selected functionality of a plurality of functionalities of the vehicle ("one or more of the mobile device buttons (e.g., volume buttons, home button, etc.) may be mapped to perform pre-selected PKE operations through the PKE controller 106", [0017], "the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]); encrypting the function code of the vehicle into an identification (ID) code portion using a predetermined public key of the vehicle ("The data communication between the vehicle based PKE controller and the mobile device 100 is then encrypted using the destination's public key", [0014], "…control commands embedded in the received communication", [0015], shows that ID codes = control commands inside of the encrypted data sent to the vehicle); and generating, at the keyless-entry device, a keyless-entry transmission carrying the ID code portion ("The data communication between the vehicle based PKE controller and the mobile device 100 is then encrypted using the destination's public key", [0014], "…control commands embedded in the received communication", [0015], shows that ID codes = control commands inside of the encrypted data sent to the vehicle, "the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]).
However, Spiess does not teach of identifying a function code of a plurality of predetermined function codes of the vehicle corresponding with the plurality of functionalities, the function code corresponding with the selected functionality.
Waraksa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of identifying a function code of a plurality of predetermined function codes of the vehicle corresponding with the plurality of functionalities, the function code corresponding with the selected functionality ("The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1, "The microcomputer is programmed to decode the Miller encoded signal received from the digital data detection circuit 106 and compare the resulting bit patterns with the data previously stored in a non-volatile memory 120", Col. 11 lines 45-50).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Spiess with the teaching of Waraksa to include a plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding to vehicle functions with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system functionality and user convenience by enabling selective control of multiple vehicle operations (Waraksa, Col. 4 lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 14, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, comprising: transmitting the keyless-entry transmission via a radio frequency (RF) transceiver of the keyless-entry device ("Embodiments described herein address the use of the Near Field Communication (NFC)", [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, wherein the vehicular keyless entry system is one of a remote keyless entry (RKE) system ("Therefore, it is possible to use NFC-enabled smart phones for RKE functions", [0012]) and a passive keyless entry (PKE) system ("A passive entry system (PKE) controller coupled to the short range antenna is included to operate the vehicle", [0009]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, wherein the function code corresponds with one of a door-lock functionality, a door-unlock functionality, a vehicle-start functionality, and a window-control functionality ("the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess in view of Waraksa as applied above, and further in view of Gulati et al. (US20170048070A1), hereinafter Gulati.
Regarding claim 2, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the private key of the vehicle is stored in a Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) of the vehicle.
Gulati, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the private key of the vehicle is stored in a Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) ("The device birth certificate 504…may be stored in secure non-volatile memory areas of the programmable devices 128 with a variety of features…the features may include…write protected memory, cryptographically controlled memory access areas (e.g., Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB), etc.", [0120]) of the vehicle ("the SDM architecture may include processes for a job creation, a job execution, a device identification, a device authentication, a device cryptography, etc., to securely and reliably program the programmable devices 128…The SDM architecture may include…automotive electronics, computers, etc.", [0088]-[0089]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Gulati to store data in a Relay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase security measures in the system by preventing illegal data copy or access (Gulati, [0184]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the public key of the keyless-entry device is stored in a write-protected memory of the keyless-entry device.
Gulati, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the public key of the keyless-entry device is stored in a write-protected memory ("The device birth certificate 504…may be stored in secure non-volatile memory areas of the programmable devices 128 with a variety of features…the features may include…write protected memory, cryptographically controlled memory access areas (e.g., Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB), etc.", [0120]) of the the keyless-entry device ("the SDM architecture may include processes for a job creation, a job execution, a device identification, a device authentication, a device cryptography, etc., to securely and reliably program the programmable devices 128…The SDM architecture may include…automotive electronics, computers, etc.", [0088]-[0089]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Gulati to store data in a write-protected memory with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a tamper-resistant and secure storage area that prevents unauthorized modification of credentials (Gulati, [0185]).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess in view of Waraksa as applied above, and further in view of Canavor et al. (US20160280370A1), hereinafter Canavor.
Regarding claim 5, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the keyless-entry transmission carries a digital signature portion ("a public-private-key mechanism (e.g., public key infrastructure or PKI) may also be used based instead of using the shared security or encryption key. In a PKI based security mechanism, the vehicle based PKE controller includes a digital certificate having a private and a public key", [0014]), comprising: verifying the digital signature portion of the keyless-entry transmission and a predetermined public key of a keyless-entry device of the vehicle ("The public key of the mobile device 100 is provided to the vehicle based PKE controller", [0014], Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) implies signature verification).
However, modified Spiess does not teach of based on the ID code portion.
Canavor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of based on the ID code portion (“a digital signature for a message is information generated using a secret credential (e.g., private cryptographic key) that is cryptographically verifiable as cryptographically bound to the message”, [0038]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Canavor to have a digital signature based on the ID portion (indicative of a function code or a message) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety measures of the system by authenticating the ID code portion and verifying that it came from a trusted source by its associated with the digital signature (Canavor, [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Spiess teaches of all claim limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, wherein the keyless-entry transmission carries a digital signature portion ("a public-private-key mechanism (e.g., public key infrastructure or PKI) may also be used based instead of using the shared security or encryption key. In a PKI based security mechanism, the vehicle based PKE controller includes a digital certificate having a private and a public key", [0014]).
However, modified Spiess does not teach of comprising: generating the digital signature portion based on the ID code portion and a private key of the keyless-entry device.
Canavor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of comprising: generating the digital signature portion based on the ID code portion and a private key of the keyless-entry device (“a digital signature for a message is information generated using a secret credential (e.g., private cryptographic key) that is cryptographically verifiable as cryptographically bound to the message”, [0038]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Canavor to have a digital signature based on the ID portion (indicative of a function code or a message) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety measures of the system by authenticating the ID code portion and verifying that it came from a trusted source by its associated with the digital signature (Canavor, [0025]).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess and Waraksa in view of Canavor as applied above, and further in view of Gulati.
Regarding claim 6, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 5 as stated above.
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the public key of the keyless-entry device is stored in a write-protected memory of the vehicle.
Gulati, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the public key of the keyless-entry device is stored in a write-protected memory ("The device birth certificate 504…may be stored in secure non-volatile memory areas of the programmable devices 128 with a variety of features…the features may include…write protected memory, cryptographically controlled memory access areas (e.g., Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB), etc.", [0120]) of the vehicle ("the SDM architecture may include processes for a job creation, a job execution, a device identification, a device authentication, a device cryptography, etc., to securely and reliably program the programmable devices 128…The SDM architecture may include…automotive electronics, computers, etc.", [0088]-[0089]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Gulati to store data in a write-protected memory with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a tamper-resistant and secure storage area that prevents unauthorized modification of credentials (Gulati, [0185]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 11 as stated above.
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the private key of the vehicle is stored in a Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) of the keyless-entry device.
Gulati, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the private key of the vehicle is stored in a Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) ("The device birth certificate 504…may be stored in secure non-volatile memory areas of the programmable devices 128 with a variety of features…the features may include…write protected memory, cryptographically controlled memory access areas (e.g., Replay Protected Memory Block (RPMB), etc.", [0120]) of the keyless-entry device ("the SDM architecture may include processes for a job creation, a job execution, a device identification, a device authentication, a device cryptography, etc., to securely and reliably program the programmable devices 128…The SDM architecture may include…automotive electronics, computers, etc.", [0088]-[0089]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Gulati to store data in a Relay Protected Memory Block (RPMB) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase security measures in the system by preventing illegal data copy or access (Gulati, [0184]).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess in view of Waraksa as applied above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US20190068361A1), hereinafter Ye.
Regarding claim 15, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, specifically, wherein the security codes are assigned to both the keyless-entry device and the vehicle ("The shared security code is then security stored both in the vehicle based secure storage and in the embedded security element 112", [0021]).
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding with a plurality of functionalities of the vehicle are generated by a true random number generator (TRNG) for the vehicle.
Waraksa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding with a plurality of functionalities of the vehicle ("The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1).
However, Waraksa does not teach of wherein the codes are generated by a true random number generator (TRNG) for the vehicle.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that security keys are generated by a true random number generator (TRNG) for the vehicle ("a hardware security module (HSM) 114 including a true random number generator for use in the generation of security keys", [0025]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Spiess with the teaching of Waraksa to include a plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding to vehicle functions and the teaching of Ye to generate secure keys using a true random number generator (TRNG) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system functionality and user convenience by enabling selective control of multiple vehicle operations (Waraksa, Col. 4 lines 24-27), and enhance system security by utilizing physical processes in its random number generation for secure keys, which further lowers its predictability (Ye, [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, Spiess teaches of a vehicular keyless entry system ("Near field Communication (NFC) in a mobile device or a wearable device such as mobile device accessory watches, activity tracking systems, etc. to enable such devices to be used as electronic keys", [0008]), comprising: a vehicle ("programming instructions to operate a vehicle via Near Field Communication (NFC)", [0009]); and a keyless-entry device of the vehicle ("Near field Communication (NFC) in a mobile device or a wearable device such as mobile device accessory watches, activity tracking systems, etc. to enable such devices to be used as electronic keys", [0008]), wherein the keyless-entry device includes a first radio-frequency (RF) circuitry ("Embodiments described herein address the use of the Near Field Communication (NFC)", [0008]) and one or more first processors having executable instructions stored in a first non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the one or more first processors to ("The device includes a processor and a memory. The memory is coupled to the processor and having programming instructions to operate a vehicle via Near Field Communication (NFC). The memory is coupled to the processor and having programming instructions to operate a vehicle via Near Field Communication (NFC)”, [0009]): detect a request for a functionality of a plurality of functionalities of the vehicle ("one or more of the mobile device buttons (e.g., volume buttons, home button, etc.) may be mapped to perform pre-selected PKE operations through the PKE controller 106", [0017], "the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]); encrypt the function code using a public key of the vehicle ("The data communication between the vehicle based PKE controller and the mobile device 100 is then encrypted using the destination's public key", [0014], "…control commands embedded in the received communication", [0015], all communication including control commands (function code) are encrypted (same as ID code)); and transmit, via the first RF circuitry, a keyless-entry transmission, wherein an ID code portion carried by the keyless-entry transmission contains the encrypted function code, ("The data communication between the vehicle based PKE controller and the mobile device 100 is then encrypted using the destination's public key", [0014], "…control commands embedded in the received communication", [0015], all communication including control commands (function code) are encrypted (same as ID code)); receive, via the second RF circuitry, the keyless-entry transmission ("the vehicle based PKE controller may unlock a vehicle door or allow vehicle start when the passive NFC tag 118 is brought near a NFC reader installed in the vehicle", [0019]); and decrypt the ID code portion carried by the keyless-entry transmission using a private key of the vehicle ("The destination (e.g., the vehicle based PKE controller or the mobile device 100 depending on the direction in which the data is being sent) can use its own private key to decrypt the data", [0014]).
However, Spiess does not teach of identify a function code corresponding with the requested functionality of the vehicle, the function code being one of a plurality of function codes respectively corresponding with the plurality of functionalities; wherein the vehicle includes a second RF circuitry and one or more second processors having executable instructions stored in a second non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the one or more second processors; detect whether the decrypted ID code portion matches any of the plurality of function codes of the vehicle; and execute the functionality of the vehicle corresponding with the function code of the vehicle that matches the decrypted ID code portion.
Waraksa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of identify a function code corresponding with the requested functionality of the vehicle, the function code being one of a plurality of function codes respectively corresponding with the plurality of functionalities ("The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1, "The microcomputer is programmed to decode the Miller encoded signal received from the digital data detection circuit 106 and compare the resulting bit patterns with the data previously stored in a non-volatile memory 120", Col. 11 lines 45-50); detect whether the decrypted ID code portion matches any of the plurality of function codes of the vehicle ("The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1, "The microcomputer is programmed to decode the Miller encoded signal received from the digital data detection circuit 106 and compare the resulting bit patterns with the data previously stored in a non-volatile memory 120", Col. 11 lines 45-50); and execute the functionality of the vehicle corresponding with the function code of the vehicle that matches the decrypted ID code portion ("If the transmission is determined to be a valid beacon code, the receiver/controller 100 further performs the instructed function corresponding to the function code in the received transmission", Col. 10 lines 64-68, "The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1).
However, Waraksa does not teach of wherein the vehicle includes a second RF circuitry and one or more second processors having executable instructions stored in a second non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the one or more second processors.
Waraksa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the vehicle includes a second RF circuitry and one or more second processors having executable instructions stored in a second non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the one or more second processors (“The ECUs 104 may accordingly, include one or more processors (e.g., microprocessors) (not shown) configured to execute firmware or software programs stored on one or more storage devices (not shown) of the ECUs 104”, [0015], “Computing devices described herein, such as the ECUs 104…generally include computer executable instructions where the instructions may be executable…In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, e.g., from a memory, a computer-readable medium, etc., and executes these instructions”, [0062]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Spiess with the teaching of Waraksa to include a plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding to vehicle functions and the teaching of Ye to have a second RF circuitry, processor, and memory within the vehicle with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system functionality and user convenience by enabling selective control of multiple vehicle operations (Waraksa, Col. 4 lines 24-27), and enable the vehicle to independently receive, process, and authenticate incoming data (Ye, [0023]).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess and Waraksa in view of Canavor and further in view of Ye.
Regarding claim 7, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 5 as stated above, specifically, wherein the security codes are assigned to both the vehicle and the keyless-entry device ("The shared security code is then security stored both in the vehicle based secure storage and in the embedded security element 112", [0021]).
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding with a plurality of functionalities of the vehicle are generated by a true random number generator (TRNG) for the vehicle.
Waraksa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding with a plurality of functionalities of the vehicle ("The 4-bit FUNCTION code, as previously noted, provides up to sixteen different FUNCTION codes to selectively control the activation of additional functions as desired, such as trunk unlock, unlock all doors, turn on interior lights, etc.", Col. 5 line 62 - Col. 6 line 1).
However, Waraksa does not teach of wherein the codes are generated by a true random number generator (TRNG) for the vehicle.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that security keys are generated by a true random number generator (TRNG) for the vehicle ("a hardware security module (HSM) 114 including a true random number generator for use in the generation of security keys", [0025]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Spiess with the teaching of Waraksa to include a plurality of predetermined function codes corresponding to vehicle functions and the teaching of Ye to generate secure keys using a true random number generator (TRNG) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system functionality and user convenience by enabling selective control of multiple vehicle operations (Waraksa, Col. 4 lines 24-27), and enhance system security by utilizing physical processes in its random number generation for secure keys, which further lowers its predictability (Ye, [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 18 as stated above, additionally, wherein the keyless-entry transmission carries a digital signature portion ("a public-private-key mechanism (e.g., public key infrastructure or PKI) may also be used based instead of using the shared security or encryption key. In a PKI based security mechanism, the vehicle based PKE controller includes a digital certificate having a private and a public key", [0014]); wherein the executable instructions stored in the first non-transitory memory (“The memory includes programming instructions to provision the device to be used as a key to operate the vehicle”, [0009]), when executed, further cause the one or more first processors ("The device includes a processor and a memory. The memory is coupled to the processor and having programming instructions to operate a vehicle via Near Field Communication (NFC). The memory is coupled to the processor and having programming instructions to operate a vehicle via Near Field Communication (NFC)”, [0009]); and to verify the digital signature portion based on the decrypted ID code portion and a public key of the keyless-entry device ("The public key of the mobile device 100 is provided to the vehicle based PKE controller", [0014], Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) implies signature verification).
However, modified Spiess does not teach of to generate the digital signature portion based on the encrypted function code and a private key of the keyless-entry device; and wherein the executable instructions stored in the second non-transitory memory, when executed, further cause the one or more second processors.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the executable instructions stored in the second non-transitory memory, when executed, further cause the one or more second processors (“The ECUs 104 may accordingly, include one or more processors (e.g., microprocessors) (not shown) configured to execute firmware or software programs stored on one or more storage devices (not shown) of the ECUs 104”, [0015], “Computing devices described herein, such as the ECUs 104…generally include computer executable instructions where the instructions may be executable…In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, e.g., from a memory, a computer-readable medium, etc., and executes these instructions”, [0062]).
However, Ye does not teach of to generate the digital signature portion based on the encrypted function code and a private key of the keyless-entry device.
Canavor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to generate the digital signature portion based on the encrypted function code and a private key of the keyless-entry device (“a digital signature for a message is information generated using a secret credential (e.g., private cryptographic key) that is cryptographically verifiable as cryptographically bound to the message”, [0038]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Spiess with the teaching of Ye to have a second RF circuitry, processor, and memory within the vehicle and the teaching of Canavor to have a digital signature based on the ID portion (indicative of a function code or a message) with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the vehicle to independently receive, process, and authenticate incoming data (Ye, [0023]), and improve the safety measures of the system by authenticating the ID code portion and verifying that it came from a trusted source by its associated with the digital signature (Canavor, [0025]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess and Waraksa in view of Ye as applied above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US200060173595A1), hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claim 20, modified Spiess teaches of all limitations of claim 18 as stated above.
However, modified Spiess does not teach of wherein the vehicle includes a secondary power source coupled to the second RF circuitry, the second non-transitory memory, and the one or more second processors, the secondary power source providing power at least when power is not available from a primary power source of the vehicle.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of coupled to the second RF circuitry, the second non-transitory memory, and the one or more second processors (“The ECUs 104 may accordingly, include one or more processors (e.g., microprocessors) (not shown) configured to execute firmware or software programs stored on one or more storage devices (not shown) of the ECUs 104”, [0015], “Computing devices described herein, such as the ECUs 104…generally include computer executable instructions where the instructions may be executable…In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, e.g., from a memory, a computer-readable medium, etc., and executes these instructions”, [0062]).
However, Ye does not teach of the vehicle includes a secondary power source; and the secondary power source providing power at least when power is not available from a primary power source of the vehicle.
Ma, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle includes a secondary power source (“The secondary battery 43 supplies the power to the TCU separately with the main battery 33”, [0063]); and the secondary power source providing power at least when power is not available from a primary power source of the vehicle (“In addition, even though the main battery 33 is discharged due to carelessness of a user or the termination of battery life, it is possible to drive the TCU 44 by using the secondary battery 43”, [0069]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Spiess with the teaching of Ye to to have a second RF circuitry, processor, and memory within the vehicle and the teaching of Ma to have a secondary power source for the vehicle electrical components with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the vehicle to independently receive, process, and authenticate incoming data (Ye, [0023]), and maintain system uptime by providing continued stable power if a primary power source fails (Ma, [0096]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657