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 .
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 12-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur et al. (US 2015/0379287), hereinafter referred to as Mathur in view of Storz (US 11,522,836), hereinafter referred to as Storz.
Referring to claim 12, Mathur teaches, as claimed, a computing system, comprising: a communication bus; one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (page 5, ¶49, lines 8-13), the one or more programs including instructions for: installing a first application corresponding to a first container of a plurality of containers (i.e.-storing application 431/520 in container 421/500, page 4, ¶40 and see figs. 4 and 5); installing a second application, different from the first application, corresponding to a second container of the plurality of containers (i.e.-storing application 432/521 in container 422/501, page 4, ¶40 and see figs. 4 & 5 ); detecting, from the first application, a first request to access the communication bus (i.e.-receiving a communication at a communication interface, page 3, ¶32, lines 1-6) of the vehicle system; in response to detecting the first request to access the communication bus of the computing system, permitting the first application access to the communication bus (i.e.-admitting/allowing the communication, page 3, ¶32, lines 14-16) based on a set of one or more permissions corresponding to the first container (page 3, ¶38, lines 16-21 and page 4, ¶40, lines 1-4 and 9-16); detecting, from the second application, a second request to access the communication bus of the vehicle system (i.e.-detecting a communication transferred from an unpermitted application, page 3, ¶36, lines 4-5); and in response to detecting the second request to access the communication bus of the vehicle system, denying the second application access to the communication bus of the vehicle system (i.e.-prevent the unpermitted application form communicating, page 3, ¶36, lines 10-11) based on a set of one or more permissions corresponding to the second container (i.e.-based on the security layer of the container, page 3, ¶38, lines 4-11).
However, Mathur does not teach the computing system being a vehicle system.
On the other hand, Storz discloses autonomous vehicle computing system comprised of containers containing one or more services/applications (col. 23, lines 11-20 and col. 24, lines 16-23).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mathur so that the computing system can also be adopted into vehicular system as taught by Storz. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement the secure application container systems in autonomous vehicles, thereby securing/protecting sensitive data from unauthorized users/systems.
As to claim 13, the modified Mathur in view of Storz teaches the vehicle system of claim 12, wherein the first container and the second container are the same (see Storz, col. 5, line 40).
As to claim 14, the modified Mathur in view of Storz teaches the vehicle system of claim 12, wherein the first container and the second container are different (see Storz, col. 5, lines 41-42).
As to claim 15, the modified Mathur innately teaches the vehicle system of claim 12, wherein the set of one or more permissions corresponding to the first container includes a first digital certificate, and wherein the set of one or more permissions corresponding to the second container includes a second digital certificate (page 4/5, ¶48 and page 2, ¶23, lines 1-4).
As to claim 17, the modified Mathur innately teaches the vehicle system of claim 12, wherein the first request to access the communication bus of the vehicle system and the second request to access the communication bus of the vehicle system are the same type of request (page 4, ¶47, 1-3 and 8-9).
Referring to claim 19, the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, hence the rejection of claim 12 is applied accordingly.
Referring to claim 20, the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, hence the rejection of claim 12 is applied accordingly.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vepa et al. (US 9,471,798), Quilan et al. (US 10,284,532), Yuen et al. (US 10,762,204), Yancey et al. (US 10,410,003) and Kudrin et al. (US 10,776,236) do teach system and method comprised of containerized applications with security layers.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184