Ip.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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 05/30/2024 and 09/24/2025 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 02/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20150113638-A1 to Valasek et. al. (“Valasek”) in view of US-20190306180-A1 to Dyakin et. al. (“Dyakin”), further in view of CN-105389235-A (“Liao”) and US-20030200344-A1 (“Fukushima”).
Regarding claim 10, Valasek teaches a device for detection and mitigation of diagnostic attacks on machines comprising a vehicular communication bus (Valasek [0019] “detect makicious attacks on the CAN of the automobile…” and [0024] “OBD”), comprising at least one processing circuitry configured to (Valasek Claim 17 “An attack monitoring apparatus for detecting threats or attacks on an automobile network of an automobile, the automobile network connected to a plurality of electronic components, the attack monitoring apparatus comprising: a processor”):
receive a table of function identifiers (Valasek Fig. 4 and [0020]) and associated valid vehicle states (Valasek [0025]);
and in response to a request to a first electronic control unit (ECU) (Valasek [0026] “CAN messages 402 and 404 being transmitted from one or more electronic components, such as the steering ECU 104 and the engine ECU 106”) detected on the vehicular communication bus (Valasek [0024] and [0026] “The CAN messages 402 and 404 are received in the memory 204 of the attack monitoring unit 118.”):
extract a function identifier from the diagnostic request (Valasek [0026] “The attack monitoring unit 118 can then compare the received CAN messages 402 and 404 with the stored CAN IDs 406, 408, and 410”);
and when the vehicle state of the machine is not compatible with the associated valid vehicle states of the function identifier (Valasek Fig. 3 ref 316 [0025], and [0039]), initiate, at a second ECU, an interfering request (Valasek [0024] and [0038]) sent to the first ECU (Valasek [0026] “Any number of messages can be sent by any kind/type of ECU or other device on the CAN BUS 102. The CAN messages 402 and 404 are received in the memory 204 of the attack monitoring unit 118.”).
While Valasek does imply that the types of request/threat messages and their corresponding identifiers can be diagnostic (Valasek [0021] & [0024]), it doesn’t explicitly state that they are. However, Dyakin discloses that the types of requests/threat messages and their corresponding identifiers can be diagnostic (Dyakin [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Valasek to incorporate the teachings of Dyakin such that the types of requests/threat messages and their corresponding identifiers can be diagnostic. Doing so would allow for the device to deal with diagnostic attacks, as these types of messages can occur (Dyakin [0061]).
Valasek as modified by Dyakin does not teach that the diagnostic function identifiers indicate sub-functions of diagnostic commands. However, Liao teaches that the diagnostic function identifiers indicate sub-functions of diagnostic commands (Liao Description “receiving a diagnostic command, and according to the identification information of the diagnostic processing function to the diagnostic command, searching the position of the diagnosis processing function corresponding to the identification information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Liao to Valasek as modified by Dyakin such that the diagnostic function identifiers indicate sub-functions of diagnostic commands. Doing so would allow for control of the extracting of information from the obtained logs (Liao Description).
Valasek as modified by Dyakin and Liao does not teach extracting a diagnostic function identifier from the diagnostic request by partitioning an ISO-TP message comprising the diagnostic request. However, Fukushima teaches extracting a diagnostic function identifier from the diagnostic request by partitioning an ISO-TP message comprising the diagnostic request (Fukushima Fig. 4, [0044] “At Step 305, a CAN message is generated in a format compliant with ISO 15765-2.”, and [0049] “When the response datum written in the buffer 13 is read out, the response datum can be read out every portion from a plurality of portions divided from the response datum.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Fukushima to Valasek as modified by Dyakin and Liao such that the circuitry is configured to extract a diagnostic function identifier from the diagnostic request by partitioning an ISO-TP message comprising the diagnostic request. Doing so would allow for efficient execution of request and transmission of response with an external tool (Fukushima [0007]).
With respect to claim 1, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claim 10. The device taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform the method of claim 1. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claim 10, except for the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions. However, the non-transitory computer readable medium is disclosed in Valasek (Valasek claim 9). The device taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform the remaining limitations of the product of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valasek in view of Dyakin, further in view of Liao, Fukushima, and US-20160197932-A1 to Hoffman et. al. (“Hoffman”).
Regarding claim 11, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, and Fukushima teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Valasek further discloses that the vehicular communication bus supports a controller area network protocol (Valasek [0004]). Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, and Fukushima does not teach that the diagnostic function identifier of the interfering diagnostic request is defaultSession. However, Hoffman teaches that the diagnostic function identifier of the interfering diagnostic request is defaultSession. (Hoffman [0025] “default session message 110, 110′, 110″, 110′″ may look like $address, 02 10 01 00 00 00 00 00 if formatted according to the defaultSession subfunction where the first byte is the length of the diagnostic message, the 10 shows its type as DiagnosticSessionControl and the 01 is the sub type indicating the defaultSession.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Hoffman to Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, and Fukushima such that the diagnostic function identifier of the interfering diagnostic request is defaultSession. Doing so would allow for only authorized inviduals preventing problematic effects on servers (Hoffman [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Hoffman teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Hoffman further discloses that the interfering diagnostic request is sent in response to a positive response of the first electronic control unit to a first diagnostic request whose diagnostic function identifier is other than defaultSession (Hoffman Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Hoffman to Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Hoffman such that the interfering diagnostic request is sent in response to a positive response of the first electronic control unit to a first diagnostic request whose diagnostic function identifier is other than defaultSession. Doing so would allow for only authorized inviduals preventing problematic effects on servers (Hoffman [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Hoffman teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Valasek further discloses that the device includes the second electronic control unit (ECU) and is applied by connecting the second ECU to the communication bus (Valasek Fig. 1 and [0026]).
With respect to claims 2-4, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claims 11-13. The device taught/disclosed in claims 11-13 can clearly perform the method of claims 2-4. Therefore claims 2-4 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valasek in view of Dyakin, further in view of Liao, Fukushima, and US-20200309254-A1 to Yamauchi et. al. (“Yamauchi”).
Regarding claim 14, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, and Fukushima teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. While Valasek does talk about vehicle states, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, and Fukushima does not explicitly teach that the vehicle states differ between running and power off. However, Yamauchi teaches that the vehicle states differ between running and power off (Yamauchi [0039] “OFF state is a power source state for disabling vehicle running… IG-ON state is a state in which the vehicle running can be controlled and includes a READY-ON state in which the vehicle 10 can start and run when an accelerator is turned on”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Yamauci to Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, and Fukushima such that the vehicle states differ between running and power off. Doing so would allow the device to know what operation state the vehicle is in.
Regarding claim 15, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Yamauchi further discloses that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent to power off (Yamauchi [0039] “OFF state is a power source state for disabling vehicle running…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Yamauci to Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi such that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent to power off. Doing so would allow the device to know that the vehicle is in a state where running is disabled (Yamauchi [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Yamauchi further discloses that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent to switch on without ignition (Yamauchi [0039] “For example, the ACC state is a power source state for turning off a combination meter (not shown) and disabling the vehicle running while enabling the portion of functions not related to the vehicle running.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Yamauci to Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi such that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent to switch on without ignition. Doing so would allow the device to know that the vehicle is in a state where the vehicle can’t run but other functions are on (Yamauchi [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Valasek further discloses that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent stationary with engine on (Valasek [0025] “when the automobile is not in park”).
Regarding claim 18, Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Yamauchi further discloses that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent to running (Yamauchi [0039] “IG-ON state is a state in which the vehicle running can be controlled and includes a READY-ON state in which the vehicle 10 can start and run when an accelerator is turned on”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Yamauci to Valasek as modified by Dyakin, Liao, Fukushima, and Yamauchi such that the vehicle states comprise a state, equivalent to running. Doing so would allow the device to know that the vehicle is in a state where the vehicle is running (Yamauchi [0039]).
With respect to claims 5-9, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claims 14-18. The device taught/disclosed in claims 14-18 can clearly perform the method of claims 5-9. Therefore claims 5-9 are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/05/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using some of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Moreover, Valasek does not disclose initiating an interfering request when the vehicle state is not compatible with the valid vehicle states of the extracted diagnostic function identifier. In fact, the closest example provided by Valasek to the claimed procedure is identifying "a particular CAN ID seen during a particular environmental condition" (see paragraph [0025] of Valasek), such as a message with a specific CAN ID seen when the automobile is not in park. However, this example correlates identification data to environmental conditions, rather than sub-functions of diagnostic commands to vehicle states. Thus, Valasek is silent as to initiating an interfering message according to the sub-function of a request.
Office response:
Vehicle states can be anything. An automobile not in park is a state of the vehicle. Sub-functions of diagnostic commands is disclosed in a different prior art above.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights