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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhn (US20100214149A1)
Regarding claim 1 Kuhn discloses: A method comprising (Figure 15, element 710): 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 (Para 0094: “Those of ordinary skill in the art may appreciate that by embedding the modem 200 in the detector 20, data may be continuously transmitted from the radar detector to a server, analyzed at the server, and pooled into a master remote database on the server. In turn, the radar detector may receive pertinent updated data on coordinates, designations of coordinates (e.g., as a threat or false alert), software updates, among other data, from the remote database on the server, all in real-time, and potentially without any human interaction after the initial installation of the radar detector in the vehicle.”; Para 0143: “As such, software updates or other types of updates (e.g., firmware upgrades) may be automatically transmitted, in real-time, from the server computer 708 to each of detectors 700, 702, 704, 706 without any user intervention. For example, the user may have his or her detector automatically updated without having to manually remove the radar detector from the vehicle and manually connect it to a computer (e.g., via USB), which may be cumbersome and/or impractical for some users (e.g., elderly users), and without having to manually insert software updates in any manner. Thus, instead of forgoing software updates due to the inconvenience or difficulties that may arise with manual updates, the routine 701 may be utilized to automatically update the radar detectors in real-time as often as needed without user intervention.”; [Examiner’s interpretation: The broadest reasonable interpretation of an application image is that is a software therefore a distribution of an application image is interpretated as being similar to a distribution of software.] ); and booting the plurality of radar sensors disposed in the motor vehicle in response to each the plurality of radar receivers receiving the corresponding application image (Para 0143: “Turning to the exemplary update routine 701 of FIG. 15, this routine illustrates the same four radar detectors labeled as detectors 700, 702, 704, 706, akin to the radar detectors 500, 502, 504, 506 of FIG. 13 and the radar detectors 600, 602, 604, 606 of FIG. 14, respectively, and the same server computer labeled as server computer 708, akin to the server computer 514 of FIG. 13 and the server computer 614 of FIG. 14. Specifically, the server computer 708 may transmit a software update to the radar detectors 700, 702, 704, 706 at block 710. 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 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 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kuhn 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 (Para 0114: “In addition, various program code described hereinafter may be identified based upon the application within which it is implemented in a specific embodiment of the invention. However, it should be appreciated that any particular program nomenclature that is used herein is merely for convenience, and thus the invention should not be limited to use solely in any specific application identified and/or implied by such nomenclature. Furthermore, given the typically endless number of manners in which computer programs may be organized into routines, procedures, methods, modules, objects, and the like, as well as the various manners in which program functionality may be allocated among various software layers that are resident within a typical computer (e.g., operating systems, libraries, API's, applications, applets, etc.), it should be appreciated that the invention is not limited to the specific organization and allocation of program functionality described herein.”).
Regarding claim 4 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kuhn 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 (Para 0143: “Turning to the exemplary update routine 701 of FIG. 15, this routine illustrates the same four radar detectors labeled as detectors 700, 702, 704, 706, akin to the radar detectors 500, 502, 504, 506 of FIG. 13 and the radar detectors 600, 602, 604, 606 of FIG. 14, respectively, and the same server computer labeled as server computer 708, akin to the server computer 514 of FIG. 13 and the server computer 614 of FIG. 14. Specifically, the server computer 708 may transmit a software update to the radar detectors 700, 702, 704, 706 at block 710.”).
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 5 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kuhn further 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 0143: “Turning to the exemplary update routine 701 of FIG. 15, this routine illustrates the same four radar detectors labeled as detectors 700, 702, 704, 706, akin to the radar detectors 500, 502, 504, 506 of FIG. 13 and the radar detectors 600, 602, 604, 606 of FIG. 14, respectively, and the same server computer labeled as server computer 708, akin to the server computer 514 of FIG. 13 and the server computer 614 of FIG. 14. Specifically, the server computer 708 may transmit a software update to the radar detectors 700, 702, 704, 706 at block 710.”).
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.
Regarding claim 12 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Kuhn 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 (Para 0094: “Those of ordinary skill in the art may appreciate that by embedding the modem 200 in the detector 20, data may be continuously transmitted from the radar detector to a server, analyzed at the server, and pooled into a master remote database on the server. In turn, the radar detector may receive pertinent updated data on coordinates, designations of coordinates (e.g., as a threat or false alert), software updates, among other data, from the remote database on the server, all in real-time, and potentially without any human interaction after the initial installation of the radar detector in the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 13 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Kuhn further teaches: wherein the first application image has a different configuration than the second application image (Para 0094: “Those of ordinary skill in the art may appreciate that by embedding the modem 200 in the detector 20, data may be continuously transmitted from the radar detector to a server, analyzed at the server, and pooled into a master remote database on the server. In turn, the radar detector may receive pertinent updated data on coordinates, designations of coordinates (e.g., as a threat or false alert), software updates, among other data, from the remote database on the server, all in real-time, and potentially without any human interaction after the initial installation of the radar detector in the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 14 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Kuhn further 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 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Kuhn further 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.
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 Kuhn (US20100214149A1) in view of Robinson (US11222121B2).
Regarding claim 3 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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. Kuhn and Robinson are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for software installation is radar sensors. However, Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn (US20100214149A1) in view of Clarke (US11729143B2).
Regarding claim 7 Kuhn discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Kuhn 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 Kuhn with Clarke to incorporate the feature of: wherein the application image is authenticated and encrypted prior to being received from the host. Kuhn and Clarke are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for software installation is radar sensors. However, Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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 Kuhn (US20100214149A1) in view of Clarke (US11729143B2) and further in view of Robinson (US11222121B2).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Kuhn and Clarke discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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. Kuhn and Robinson are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for software installation is radar sensors. However, Kuhn 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 Kuhn 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.
Conclusion
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 Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648