DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2 and 6 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 are moot based on new grounds of rejection where Feng (WO2022067704A1) discloses the claimed features of the independent claims 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10, 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng (US20100214149A1).
Regarding claim 1 Feng discloses: A method comprising (Page 1: “The present invention generally relates to the field of laser radar, and more particularly relates to a firmware upgrade method, ranging device and storage medium of a laser radar.”): receiving, at each of a plurality of radar sensors, a corresponding application image distributed from a host over a communication link of a motor vehicle (Page 2: “The present invention has been made to solve at least one of the above-mentioned problems. A first aspect of the present invention provides a firmware upgrade method for a laser radar. The laser radar includes a storage device, and the storage device at least includes an application program image area and a boot loading image area, and the application program image area is used to store applications. A program image, the boot loading image area is used to store the boot loading image, the lidar is communicatively connected to the host, and the firmware upgrade method includes”); and booting the plurality of radar sensors disposed in the motor vehicle in response to each radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors receiving the corresponding application image (Page 1 Abstract: “A laser radar firmware upgrade method, a distance measurement apparatus, and a storage medium. The method comprises: booting an application image in a laser radar, the laser radar comprising a memory device, the memory device at least comprising an application image region and a bootloader image region, the application image region being used for storing application images, the bootloader image region being used for storing bootloader images, and the laser radar being communicationally connected to a host end”).
Claim 6 and 16 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 6 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Feng further teaches: wherein receiving comprises each of the plurality of radar sensors receiving at least one of a host image, a common distribution application image, and a device specific application image (Page 5: “Step S1: The lidar includes a storage device, and the storage device includes at least an application program image area and a boot loading image area, the application program image area is used for storing the application program image, and the boot loading image area is used for storing the boot Load the image, the lidar is communicated with the host, and start the application image in the lidar Step S2: Detecting whether the lidar has an upgrade instruction or a request response
Step S3: when detecting that there is an upgrade instruction or a request response, the host side downloads the application firmware;
Step S4: the host side sends the application firmware to the application mirroring area, and the application mirroring area of the lidar receives the application firmware, and the application firmware includes an application mirroring and boot loader an image package, the boot-loading image package includes an original boot-loading image, and the boot-loading image and the original boot-loading image are backups of each other;“).
Regarding claim 4 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Feng further teaches: wherein booting the plurality of radar sensors comprises: booting the plurality of radar sensors serially in response to receipt of the corresponding application image over the communication link (Page 5: “Step S4: the host side sends the application firmware to the application mirroring area, and the application mirroring area of the lidar receives the application firmware, and the application firmware includes an application mirroring and boot loader an image package, the boot-loading image package includes an original boot-loading image, and the boot-loading image and the original boot-loading image are backups of each other;
Step S5: Read the data of the application firmware from the application image area, so as to complete the upgrade of the application image in the application image area.
).
Claim 10 and 17 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 4, therefore claims 10 and 17 rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Feng further teaches: wherein a first application image for a first of the plurality of radar sensors is stored by the host, and a second application image for at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors is stored by the host (Page 2: “The laser radar includes a storage device, and the storage device at least includes an application program image area and a boot loading image area, and the application program image area is used to store applications. A program image, the boot loading image area is used to store the boot loading image, the lidar is communicatively connected to the host,”).
Regarding claim 13 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Feng further teaches: wherein the first application image has a different configuration than the second application image (Page 9: “After the application firmware of the lidar receives the application firmware, it further includes verifying whether the signature of the application firmware is correct; only after the signature verification of the application firmware is passed, can the application firmware be sent to the The application firmware is written in the application image area, so as to prevent the wrong application firmware from being written. If the signature verification of the application firmware fails, the firmware upgrade fails, and the upgrade process ends.”).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (WO2022067704A1) in view of Robinson (US11222121B2).
Regarding claim 3 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Feng does not teach “performing device specific security provisioning for a radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors based on a configuration of the radar sensor sensors”.
However, Robinson in the analogous arts teaches: performing device specific security provisioning for a radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors based on a configuration of the radar sensor sensors (Description 116: “In an embodiment, the server 1336 digitally signs each boot file using cryptographic authentication keys, and includes the digital signature with the corresponding boot file in the respective docker container. Each processor authenticates the digital signature for a boot file before executing the boot file. In an embodiment, the server 1336 uses different authentication keys for signing boot files for different processors. For example, server 1336 can use a first authentication key for signing boot files for the processor 1346a, a different authentication key for signing boot files for the processor 1346b, and another third authentication key for signing boot files for the processor 1346c.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with Robinson to incorporate the feature of: performing device specific security provisioning for a radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors based on a configuration of the radar sensor sensors. Feng and Robinson are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for software installation is radar sensors. However, Feng fails to disclose a feature of using different authentication methods. This feature is disclosed by Robinson. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with Robinson to incorporate the feature of: performing device specific security provisioning for a radar sensor of the plurality of radar sensors based on a configuration of the radar sensor sensors as such a feature would improve the security of the system, thus increase its efficiency.
Claims 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (WO2022067704A1) in view of Griffin (US20230342162A1).
Regarding claim 5 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Feng does not teach “wherein booting the plurality of radar sensors comprises: booting the plurality of radar sensors in parallel in response to receipt of the corresponding application image over the communication link“.
However, Griffin in analogous arts teaches: wherein booting the plurality of radar sensors comprises: booting the plurality of radar sensors in parallel in response to receipt of the corresponding application image over the communication link (Para 0044: “At block 320, processing logic can boot, in parallel to booting the primary OS, a secondary OS using a secondary operating system image residing in a second disk partition. The secondary OS can include a copy of the primary OS bootable image. The secondary OS can provide the first service and a second service. To provide the second service, processing logic can identify the OS layer corresponding to the second service, and install the identified OS layer over the primary OS bootable image”).
Claim 11 and 18 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 5, therefore claim 11 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (WO2022067704A1) in view of Clarke (US11729143B2).
Regarding claim 7 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Feng does not teach “wherein the application image is authenticated and encrypted prior to being received from the host “.
However, Clarke in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the application image is authenticated and encrypted prior to being received from the host (Para 476: “Certain embodiments may provide, for example, a secure method for a first computing device to update resident software, comprising: receiving, from a predetermined, authenticated, authorized client executing on a second computing device, an encrypted non-executable payload noticing availability of updated software. In certain further embodiments, for example, the receiving may be followed by establishing a unidirectional encrypted network tunnel with a predetermined server executing on a third computing device. In certain further embodiments, for example, the establishing may comprise exchanging and authenticating encrypted device identifiers between the first computing device and the third computing device, and verifying that the second computing device and the third computing device are different devices. In certain further embodiments, for example, the method may further comprise downloading the updated software over the unidirectional encrypted network tunnel.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with Clarke to incorporate the feature of: wherein the application image is authenticated and encrypted prior to being received from the host. Feng and Clarke are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for software installation is radar sensors. However, Feng fails to disclose a feature of secure software installation. This feature is disclosed by Clarke. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with Clarke to incorporate the feature of: wherein the application image is authenticated and encrypted prior to being received from the host as such a feature would improve the security of the system, thus increase its efficiency.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Feng and Clarke discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Clarke further teaches: wherein at least one of authentication and encryption applied to a first application image for a first of the plurality of radar sensors differs from at least one of authentication and encryption applied to a second application image for at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors based on the first application image and the second application image being common distribution application images that are converted to device specific application images after receipt by the first and the second of the plurality of radar sensors (Para 629: “Certain embodiments may provide, for example, a distributed system, comprising: i) N plural computing devices, which N is an integer (for example N may be at least 2, at least 3, at least 4, at least 6, at least 10, at least 15, at least 20, at least 50, at least 100, at least 250, at least 1000, at least 10,000, at least 100,000, or N may be at least 1,000,000); ii) N plural network security files containing plural parameters, each one of the N plural computing devices having a different one of the N plural network security files resident thereon; iii) N copies of a network security software, each of the N plural computing devices having one of the N copies of network security software installed thereon and configured to operating in a kernel thereof; iv) dedicated port-to-port encrypted communication pathways among the N copies of network security software, a first copy of the N copies configured to receive first codes from a second copy of the N copies and to compare first codes with first parameters of the plural parameters, to verify that the first copy is authorized to send information to and/or receive information from a user-process via one of the dedicated port-to-port encrypted communication pathways, a second copy of the N copies configured to receive second codes from the first copy and to compare the second codes with second parameters of the plural parameters, to verify that the user-process is authorized to send information to and/or receive information from the first copy via the one of the dedicated port-to-port encrypted communication pathways, the first codes present on at most two of the N plural computing devices, the second codes present only on the at most two of the N plural computing devices, the first parameters present only on the at most two of the N plural computing devices, and the second parameters present only on the at most two of the N plural computing devices.”).
The reason for combining Feng with Clarke is the same as the one given in claim 8 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (WO2022067704A1) in view of Clarke (US11729143B2) and further in view of Robinson (US11222121B2).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Feng and Clarke discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Feng does not teach “wherein the authentication applied to the first of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the first of the plurality of radar sensors, and the authentication applied to the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors “.
However, Robinson in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the authentication applied to the first of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the first of the plurality of radar sensors, and the authentication applied to the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors (Description 116: “In an embodiment, the server 1336 digitally signs each boot file using cryptographic authentication keys, and includes the digital signature with the corresponding boot file in the respective docker container. Each processor authenticates the digital signature for a boot file before executing the boot file. In an embodiment, the server 1336 uses different authentication keys for signing boot files for different processors. For example, server 1336 can use a first authentication key for signing boot files for the processor 1346a, a different authentication key for signing boot files for the processor 1346b, and another third authentication key for signing boot files for the processor 1346c.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with Robinson to incorporate the feature of: wherein the authentication applied to the first of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the first of the plurality of radar sensors, and the authentication applied to the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors. Feng and Robinson are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for software installation is radar sensors. However, Feng fails to disclose a feature of using different authentication methods. This feature is disclosed by Robinson. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with Robinson to incorporate the feature of: wherein the authentication applied to the first of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the first of the plurality of radar sensors, and the authentication applied to the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors is based on properties of the at least one second of the plurality of radar sensors. Such a feature would improve the security of the system, thus increase its efficiency.
Claims 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (WO2022067704A1) in view of Kuhn (US20100214149A1).
Regarding claim 14 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Feng does not teach “wherein the host is at least one of a network switch and a local host that shares a radar sensor module that includes the plurality of radar sensors “.
However, Kuhn in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the host is at least one of a network switch and a local host that shares a radar sensor module that includes the plurality of radar sensors (Para 0122:” Thus, the detector 20 may not only transmit information to the server 300 and/or the web server 400, but it may also receive data at the embedded modem 200 from the server computer 300 and/or the web server computer 400 from the remote database 72. This data may communicate the location of false alerts or speed traps and/or threats that other detector users have observed and reported. By broadcasting the GPS coordinates through Internet communication network 70 and/or telephone communication network 68 to the modem 200 of the detector 20, the server computer 300 and/or the web server computer 400 containing the remote database 72 is able to send information to the detector 20 and others within the radius. This information may include the GPS coordinates of false alert designations and/or threat designations indicated by other detector users such that the information that is more pertinent to a driver is received at their corresponding detector. This feature can provide real time data to detector users and alert them to proceed with ease or proceed with caution. Similarly, the server computer 300 and/or the web server computer 400 may transmit software updates to the radar detectors.”).
Claim 19 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 14, therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15 Feng discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Feng does not teach “wherein the host is a remote host disposed on a host module separate from a radar sensor module that includes the plurality of radar sensors“.
However, Kuhn in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the host is a remote host disposed on a host module separate from a radar sensor module that includes the plurality of radar sensors (Para 0143: “ In particular, the software update may be transmitted from the remote database of the server, under control of the processor of the server 614, to each radar detector in communication with the server computer 708, and if a radar detector is turned off, for example, the update may be transmitted once that radar detector is turned on and communicating with the server computer 708. Next, the software update is received from the server computer 710 by the embedded modem within each of detected 700, 702, 704, 706, specifically, received at block 712 of detector 700, block 714 of detector 702, block 716 of detector 704, and block 718 of detector 706. The updates may be stored in the flash memory of slot 50 (FIG. 9) or even the EEPROM 36 (FIG. 9) of each detector. Each modem is under control of the processor of the detector to receive the software updates, and the processors implement the updates.”).
Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 15, therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights