DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0211301, hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Kennedy et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0026678, hereinafter “Kennedy”) further in view Parfitt et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0032552, hereinafter ‘Parfitt”).
4. As per claim 1, Zhang teaches a connection simulator system (figures 1 – 4 and 8) for simulating a connection between a vehicle (100, figure 1) and an accessory system (420b, figure 4, expanded to 810/820/830/840/850, figure 8), comprising: a vehicle bus connector (442 a/b, figure 4) configured to connect with the accessory system (interfacing the connected devices, paragraph 70); a plurality of transceivers (transceivers, paragraph 130) configured to transmit and receive signals (comm interface, 403, figure 4, paragraphs 66 and 67 for transmission and receipt of signals); one or more microprocessors (MCUs) (420, figure 4, which relates to the plurality of MCU’s seen in the communication mapping of figure 8) electrically connected to the vehicle bus connector and the plurality of transceivers (connectivity to the bus seen in figure 4) and configured to: transmit, via one or more transceivers of the plurality of transceivers, signals communicating with and/or from the accessory system (paragraphs 69 and 69, the communication data transmitted between the elements are the security keys), and receive, via another one or more transceivers of the plurality of transceivers and from the one or more transceivers, the signals communicating with and/or from the accessory system (paragraph 69, security keys received by the components); and a connector, when attached to the vehicle bus connector prevents the accessory system from being connected to the vehicle bus connector (paragraph 38, upon connection of an accessory system ECU, the vehicle security key acts as a void seal in authenticating the accessory system with additional teachings seen in the flow of figure 7), and when detached from the vehicle bus connector, the one or more MCUs stop transmitting the signals communicating with and/or from the accessory system (disabling of the ECU acts as a unauthorized hardware prevention mechanism, paragraphs 93 and 94).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose the signals being communicated are simulating communication comprising: transmit, signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system, and receive the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system; and a void seal when detached from the vehicle bus connector, the one or more MCUs stop transmitting the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system.
However, Kennedy discloses a system to transmit, signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system, and receive the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system; and when detached from the vehicle bus connector, the one or more MCUs stop transmitting the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system (bus exerciser utilizes simulation test signal data traffic to analyze accessory system data integrity, paragraphs 26 – 28).
Zhang and Kennedy are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of handling data on a bus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Zhang and Kennedy before him or her, to modify the signal handling of Zhang to include the enhanced mechanism of Kennedy because it would allow for robust analysis of compatibility.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance efficiency in a data handling system (paragraphs 2 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kennedy with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Zhang/Kennedy does not appear to explicitly disclose a void seal.
However, Parfitt discloses a void seal (paragraphs 4, 17, 39, tamper seals seen in vehicles and figure 9 shows a void seal that has a functional mechanism to show it has been tampered with).
Zhang/Kennedy and Parfitt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of handling connector functionality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Parfitt and Zhang/Kennedy before him or her, to modify the structure of Zhang/Kennedy to include the enhanced mechanism of Parfitt because it would allow for enhanced security.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance integrity of the physical structure (paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Parfitt with Zhang/Kennedy to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Examiner notes that the body of the claims do not include limitations of simulation and the void seal appears to be a generic term in light of the claim limitations however to enhance compact prosecution the Examiner has cited a tamper void seal that can be utilized in vehicles.
5. As per claim 11, Zhang teaches a connection simulator system (figures 1 – 4 and 8) for simulating a connection between a vehicle (100, figure 1) and an accessory system (420b, figure 4, expanded to 810/820/830/840/850, figure 8), comprising: a controller area network (CAN) bus connector (CAN 442 a/b, figure 4) configured to connect with the accessory system (interfacing the connected devices, paragraph 70); an electronic control unit (ECU) (special ECU - ADC 420a, figures 4 and 8, paragraph 65) electrically connected to the CAN bus connector and including: a plurality of transceivers (transceivers, paragraph 130) configured to transmit and receive CAN signals (comm interface, 403, figure 4, paragraphs 66 and 67 for transmission and receipt of signals), and one or more microprocessors (MCUs) (420, figure 4, which relates to the plurality of MCU’s seen in the communication mapping of figure 8) electrically connected to the plurality of transceivers (connectivity to the bus seen in figure 4) and configured to: transmit, via one or more transceivers of the plurality of transceivers, CAN signals communicating with and/or from the accessory system (paragraphs 69 and 69, the communication data transmitted between the elements are the security keys), and receive, via another one or more transceivers of the plurality of transceivers, the CAN signals communicating with and/or from the accessory system (paragraph 69, security keys received by the components); and a connection, when attached to the CAN bus connector prevents the accessory system from being connected to the CAN bus connector, and when detached from the CAN bus connector (paragraph 38, upon connection of an accessory system ECU, the vehicle security key acts as a void seal in authenticating the accessory system with additional teachings seen in the flow of figure 7), the one or more MCUs stop transmitting the CAN signals communicating with and/or from the accessory system (disabling of the ECU acts as a unauthorized hardware prevention mechanism, paragraphs 93 and 94).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose the signals being communicated are simulating communication comprising: transmit, signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system, and receive the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system; and a void seal when detached from the vehicle bus connector, the one or more MCUs stop transmitting the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system.
However, Kennedy discloses a system to transmit, signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system, and receive the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system; and a connector when detached from the vehicle bus connector, the one or more MCUs stop transmitting the signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system (bus exerciser utilizes simulation test signal data traffic to analyze accessory system data integrity, paragraphs 26 – 28).
Zhang and Kennedy are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of handling data on a bus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Zhang and Kennedy before him or her, to modify the signal handling of Zhang to include the enhanced mechanism of Kennedy because it would allow for robust analysis of compatibility.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance efficiency in a data handling system (paragraphs 2 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kennedy with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Zhang/Kennedy does not appear to explicitly disclose a void seal.
However, Parfitt discloses a void seal (paragraphs 4, 17, 39, tamper seals seen in vehicles and figure 9 shows a void seal that has a functional mechanism to show it has been tampered with).
Zhang/Kennedy and Parfitt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of handling connector functionality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Parfitt and Zhang/Kennedy before him or her, to modify the structure of Zhang/Kennedy to include the enhanced mechanism of Parfitt because it would allow for enhanced security.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance integrity of the physical structure (paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Parfitt with Zhang/Kennedy to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Examiner notes that the body of the claims do not include limitations of simulation and the void seal appears to be a generic term in light of the claim limitations however to enhance compact prosecution the Examiner has cited a tamper void seal that can be utilized in vehicles.
6. Zhang modified by the teachings of Kennedy/Parfitt as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 2 and 15, Kennedy teaches a system, wherein the one or more MCUs are further configured to generate the CAN signals simulating communication with and/or from the accessory system (bus exerciser utilizes simulation test signal data traffic to analyze accessory system data integrity, paragraphs 26 – 28).
7. Zhang modified by the teachings of Kennedy/Parfitt as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 7 and 19, Zhang teaches a system, wherein the void seal is configured to at least partially cover the CAN bus connector when attached to the CAN bus connector to prevent the accessory system from being connected to the CAN bus connector (at least partially cover is understood to be fully covered and a full proper connection wherein a seal is interpreted as the physical enclosure of a connector, paragraph 69, security keys received by the components).
8. Zhang modified by the teachings of Kennedy/Parfitt as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 10 and 18, Zhang teaches a system, further comprising: the accessory system having an accessory bus connector configured to connect with the vehicle bus connector; and wherein the accessory system is an autonomous driving kit (ADK) configured to control one or more operations of the vehicle for autonomous driving (autonomous driving 100, figure 1, paragraphs 32 – 35).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 – 14, 16, 17, and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art Parfitt et al. does not teach a void seal correlated to the MCU, signal or simulating communication.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner relied upon the combination of references for the teachings of the claims as a whole and Parfitt was merely relied upon for a tampering void concept for completeness of rejection with noting that the word void does not carry weight beyond a generic term as the claims recite two instances of “void” per se.
Additionally, the Examiner previously noted that the void seal as claimed functions as a generic two-fold prevention element that will prevent one type of signal when attached and another type of signal when detached. In particular the simulating signals are not positively recited with a result as the claims list a MCU that is merely “configured to” handling simulating signals. A few elements in the dependent claims were cited as containing allowable and the Examiner invites the Applicant to a quick phone call which would serve to enhance compact prosecution by discussing the void seal limitations, positive recitation of signals simulating, and lastly the “with and/or” statements in the claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ante/Bert/Flick/Hagenmaier/Hirano/Lindow/Overby/Paryani/Zhang has teachings of verification in an autonomous vehicle environment the connectivity of added elements to simulate validity and compatibility for CAN bus.
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 AURANGZEB HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM to 3 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. 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.
AH
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184