DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
The IDS filed 4/24/2024 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are those that use the form “…unit that…” in claims 1-21.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As such, the term “unit” is being interpreted as hardware executing software as described in paragraph 37 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moulin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0295020), hereinafter referred to as Moulin.
Regarding claim 1, Moulin discloses a prover device that places software in a memory and executes the software, the prover device comprising: a placement position determination unit that determines placement information indicating a position in the memory at which the software is placed (paragraph 77, memory addresses indicate position); a reference position correction unit that corrects a reference position included in the software based on the placement information (paragraph 84, relative position with respect to origin of target file); a launch processing unit that places the software, in which the reference position has been corrected, at a position in the memory based on the placement information, and executes the software (paragraph 52, layout has stored target file which corresponds to reference file); a placement information transmission unit that transmits the placement information to a verifier device (paragraph 63, returns identifier for reference file to computer 20); a measurement instruction reception unit that receives a measurement instruction from the verifier device (paragraph 92, receives request sent from computer 20); a measurement unit that reads the software placed in the memory and calculates a hash value, based on the measurement instruction (paragraph 91, calculates second digital imprint using hash function); and a measurement result transmission unit that transmits the hash value to the verifier device (paragraph 97, relays value of second digital imprint to computer 20).
Regarding claim 3, Moulin discloses wherein the placement information transmission unit transmits the placement information to the verifier device prior to a calculation of the hash value by the measurement unit (paragraph 63, returns identifier for reference file to computer 20, and paragraph 91, calculates second digital imprint when testing particular file).
Regarding claim 5, Moulin discloses wherein the placement information transmission unit transmits the placement information to the verifier device when the measurement instruction reception unit receives the measurement instruction (paragraph 92, receives request sent from computer 20).
Regarding claim 6, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction includes measurement region information indicating a region to be measured in the software, and the measurement unit reads the software in a portion indicated by the measurement region information and calculates the hash value (paragraph 92, request contains attributes of area to be tested).
Regarding claim 7, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction includes a plurality of pieces of the measurement region information and measurement order information indicating an order in which a plurality of pieces of the measurement region information are to be processed (paragraph 104, fourth area to be tested over different portion of target file).
Regarding claim 8, Moulin discloses wherein the placement information transmission unit transmits, in addition to the placement information, a trust chain value that is a hash value of a program executed in a boot sequence of the prover device and a referenced setting file (paragraph 66, digital signature is hash of file prior to its installation as reference file).
Regarding claim 10, Moulin discloses a verifier device that verifies integrity of software executed by a prover device, the verifier device comprising: a placement information reception unit that receives, from the prover device, placement information indicating a position in a memory of the prover device at which the software is placed (paragraph 63, receives identifier for reference file from computer 30); a storage unit that stores the placement information received (paragraph 30, acquires reference file with identifier); a measurement instruction generation unit that generates a measurement instruction to instruct calculation of a hash value of the software executed by the prover device (paragraph 75, defines area to be tested of target file); a measurement instruction transmission unit that transmits the measurement instruction to the prover device (paragraph 92, sends request to computer 30); a measurement result reception unit that receives a first hash value that is a response to the measurement instruction (paragraph 97, receives value of second digital imprint from computer 30); a reference position correction unit that reads master software stored in the storage unit and corrects a reference position included in the master software based on the placement information (paragraph 83, relative position in reference file); a measurement unit that calculates a second hash value of the master software in which the reference position has been corrected (paragraph 90, calculates first digital imprint using hash function); and a verification unit that verifies whether the first hash value matches the second hash value (paragraph 98, compares values of first and second digital imprints).
Regarding claim 11, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction includes measurement region information indicating a region to be measured in the software (paragraph 92, request contains attributes of area to be tested).
Regarding claim 12, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction includes a plurality of pieces of the measurement region information and measurement order information indicating an order in which the plurality of pieces of the measurement region information are to be processed (paragraph 104, fourth area to be tested over different portion of target file).
Regarding claim 13, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement region information included in the measurement instruction is changed periodically or non-periodically in a position, size, or order of a region to be measured (paragraph 104, fourth area to be tested over different portion of target file).
Regarding claim 14, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction includes a nonce that is used by the measurement unit and a measurement unit of the prover device (paragraph 75, random variable).
Regarding claim 15, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction generation unit generates the measurement instruction when the placement information is received from the prover device or when the placement information is stored in the storage unit (paragraph 75, defines area to be tested of target file).
Regarding claim 16, Moulin discloses wherein the measurement instruction generation unit generates the measurement instruction in at least one of the following cases: when an abnormality caused by a cyberattack is determined in a vehicle security operation center; when a product security incident response team determines that verification of integrity is necessary (paragraph 41, verifies embedded software); when a security sensor detects an abnormality; when in-vehicle SIEM finishes selecting an abnormality to be examined; when an ignition power supply is turned off; and when a power supply is turned off in an electric control unit (ECU) of a specific group.
Regarding claim 17, Moulin discloses wherein the placement information reception unit receives, in addition to the placement information, a trust chain value that is a hash value of a program executed in a boot sequence of the prover device and a referenced setting file (paragraph 66, digital signature is hash of file prior to its installation as reference file).
Regarding claim 18, Moulin discloses wherein the placement information reception unit determines whether to store the placement information received, in the storage unit based on the trust chain value (paragraph 72, reference file authenticated).
Regarding claim 21, Moulin discloses a remote attestation system comprising a prover device and a verifier device, wherein the prover device is a prover device that places software in a memory and executes the software, the prover device including a placement position determination unit that determines placement information indicating a position in the memory at which the software is placed (paragraph 77, memory addresses indicate position), a reference position correction unit that corrects a reference position included in the software based on the placement information (paragraph 84, relative position with respect to origin of target file), a launch processing unit that places the software, in which the reference position has been corrected, at a position in the memory based on the placement information, and executes the software (paragraph 52, layout has stored target file which corresponds to reference file), a placement information transmission unit that transmits the placement information to a verifier device (paragraph 63, returns identifier for reference file to computer 20), a measurement instruction reception unit that receives a measurement instruction from the verifier device (paragraph 92, receives request sent from computer 20), a measurement unit that reads the software placed in the memory and calculates a first hash value, based on the measurement instruction (paragraph 91, calculates second digital imprint using hash function), and a measurement result transmission unit that transmits the first hash value to the verifier device (paragraph 97, relays value of second digital imprint to computer 20), and the verifier device is a verifier device that verifies integrity of software executed on the prover device, the verifier device including a placement information reception unit that receives the placement information from the prover device (paragraph 63, receives identifier for reference file from computer 30), a storage unit that stores the received placement information (paragraph 30, acquires reference file with identifier), a measurement instruction generation unit that generates the measurement instruction (paragraph 75, defines area to be tested of target file), a measurement instruction transmission unit that transmits the measurement instruction to the prover device (paragraph 92, sends request to computer 30), a measurement result reception unit that receives the first hash value (paragraph 97, receives value of second digital imprint from computer 30), a reference position correction unit that reads master software stored in the storage unit and corrects a reference position included in the master software based on the placement information (paragraph 83, relative position in reference file), a measurement unit that calculates a second hash value of the master software in which the reference position has been corrected (paragraph 90, calculates first digital imprint using hash function), and a verification unit that verifies whether the first hash value matches the second hash value (paragraph 98, compares values of first and second digital imprints).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin in view of Loreskar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0155743), hereinafter referred to as Loreskar.
Moulin disclosed techniques for verifying a computer file using a hash function. In an analogous art, Loreskar disclosed techniques for performing an address layout varying process for software stored on an electronic device. Both systems are directed toward the verification of software stored on an electronic device.
Regarding claim 2, Moulin does not explicitly state wherein the placement position determination unit randomly determines the position in the memory. However, performing an address layout varying process in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Loreskar. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moulin by adding the ability that the placement position determination unit randomly determines the position in the memory as provided by Loreskar (see paragraph 37, address layout varying process uses random number). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that address layout varying would assist in defending the system against the consequences of attack (see Loreskar, paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 4, Moulin does not explicitly state wherein the placement information transmission unit transmits the placement information to the verifier device in at least one of following cases: when the software is launched; when a security sensor connected to the prover device detects an abnormality; when security information and event management (SIEM) connected to the prover device detects a cyberattack; and when a power supply is turned off in devices or a system including the prover device. However, performing an address layout varying process in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Loreskar. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moulin by adding the ability that the placement information transmission unit transmits the placement information to the verifier device when the software is launched as provided by Loreskar (see paragraph 28, updates address references, and paragraph 42, software checked on secure boot process). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that address layout varying would assist in defending the system against the consequences of attack (see Loreskar, paragraph 41).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0138188), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Moulin disclosed techniques for verifying a computer file using a hash function. In an analogous art, Lee disclosed techniques for verifying a software platform of a vehicle. Both systems are directed toward the verification of software stored on an electronic device.
Regarding claim 9, Moulin does not explicitly state wherein the prover device is an electronic control device mounted in a moving object. However, performing software integrity verification in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Lee. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moulin by adding the ability that the prover device is an electronic control device mounted in a moving object as provided by Lee (see figure 1, item 30, and paragraph 28, ECU). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that verifying a software platform of a vehicle would assist in prevention of abnormal operation of ECUs (see Lee, paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 20, Moulin does not explicitly state wherein the verifier device is a server device installed outside a moving object. However, performing software integrity verification in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Lee. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moulin by adding the ability that the verifier device is a server device installed outside a moving object as provided by Lee (see figure 1, item 20, and paragraph 27, system for verifying). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that verifying a software platform of a vehicle would assist in prevention of abnormal operation of ECUs (see Lee, paragraph 61).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin in view of Kishikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0086541), hereinafter referred to as Kishikawa.
Moulin disclosed techniques for verifying a computer file using a hash function. In an analogous art, Kishikawa disclosed techniques for verifying the integrity of software in a vehicle. Both systems are directed toward the verification of software stored on an electronic device.
Regarding claim 19, Moulin does not explicitly state wherein the verifier device is an electronic control device mounted in a moving object. However, performing software integrity verification in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Kishikawa. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moulin by adding the ability that the verifier device is an electronic control device mounted in a moving object as provided by Kishikawa (see paragraph 62, domain controller in in-vehicle network). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that verifying software in a vehicle in this way would assist in determining in an adaptive manner the software to be verified (see Kishikawa, paragraph 54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaster (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0134987) disclosed techniques for performing vehicle software attestation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Victor Lesniewski whose telephone number is (571)272-2812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Victor Lesniewski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493