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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,352. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
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 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman et al hereafter Jayaraman (US pat. 10358116) and in view of Kowalewski (US pat. App. Pub. 20170092026).
4. As per claim 2, Jayaraman discloses an apparatus, comprising: a zonal computing system in a mobile unit, the zonal computing system comprising: a gateway processor coupled with a central processor and associated with a zone of a plurality of zones; a device coupled with the gateway processor, wherein the gateway processor is configured to route communications between the central processor and the device (Fig. 1, and 2, col. 2, lines 60-67, 3:1-25, 3:46-67, and 4:1-19; wherein it emphasizes the in-vehicle networks (zonal computing system) of a vehicle (mobile unit) comprises a gateway coupled with plurality zones like TCU, Radio receiver and a device (either mobile devices 104 or a key fob 105) through network bus 114 which facilitates the communication between TCU and CAN and the device); and a memory system coupled with one or both of the central processor and the gateway processor and configured to perform an authentication procedure on the device based at least in part on a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure of the mobile unit, wherein the authentication procedure is to enable the communications between the central processor and the device based at least in part on the authentication procedure (1:26-36, 6:38-67, 7:1-51, 9:1-10; wherein it elaborates that the storage module of the computing platform associated with processor and the gateway configured to perform an authentication procedure on the device by receiving the device identification on the initialization of powered on of the vehicle. The authentication process enables the communication between vehicle processor and device based on the successful authentication process), a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure of the mobile unit (1:26-35, 5:20-37, wherein it discusses after the initial power on of the vehicle (mobile unit) then authentication procedure will be performed on the vehicle) and
a power-on procedure of the zonal computing system, a power-on procedure of the device, or a combination thereof (3:26-45, 10:47-64, 12:1-8 wherein it describes then all the zonal computing system of the vehicle like vehicle ECUs, exterior lighting, interior lighting, and point of access status verification; a climate management controller, heating and cooling system components, and other local vehicle devices will be power on in sequence. The device will be power on as well). Although, Jayaraman discusses about a triggering event comprising a power-on procedure of the mobile unit, a power-on procedure of the zonal computing system, a power-on procedure of the device, or a combination thereof. He does not specifically mention that a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure, a second power-on procedure, and a third power-on procedure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski discloses a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure, a second power-on procedure, and a third power-on procedure (paragraphs: 7, 13-14, and 16-19, wherein it demonstrates that a subsequent powering up procedure will be performed in sequence during the authentication of the device to the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Kowalewski’s teachings of a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure, a second power-on procedure, and a third power-on procedure with the teachings of Jayaraman, for the purpose of effectively protecting the vehicle from full unauthorized access at once.
5. As per claim 3, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the memory system is configured to: perform a second authentication procedure to verify whether an update associated with the device is a trusted update, the update comprising a software update for the device, a firmware update for the device, or both; and enable the device to download and install the update based at least in part on the second authentication procedure (Jayaraman: 2:4-20, and 2:50-58; wherein it discusses authorizing the deauthorized device with trusted status to the vehicle. This authorization of the device comprises with device’s software and firmware update and the device is able to upload its id for second authentication procedure).
6. As per claim 4, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the memory system is configured to periodically perform the authentication procedure based at least in part on the triggering event (Jayaraman: 3:26-63, 4:20-39, wherein it discusses vehicle memory periodically performing the authentication procedure with the device based on power initialization).
7. As per claim 5, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the device is configurable to couple with a second memory system, the second memory system configured to perform a second authentication procedure to enable the communications between the central processor and the device based at least in part on the second authentication procedure (Jayaraman: 5:9-37, 5:49-67).
8. As per claim 6, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the gateway processor is configured to communicate with the central processor using a first communication protocol and communicate with the device using one or more different communication protocols, and the gateway processor is configured to translate information between the first communication protocol and the one or more different communication protocols (Jayaraman: 4:55-67, 5:1-35, wherein it emphasizes gateway establish connection with ECU and TCU through the communication bus and communicates with the device by using RF or wi-fi communication protocol. The gateway has ability to translate the different communication protocols).
9. As per claim 7, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein: the zonal computing system comprises a plurality of gateway processors associated with the zone, the plurality of gateway processors comprising the gateway processor, and the plurality of gateway processors are coupled with the central processor over a signal bus associated with the zone (Jayaraman: Fig.1 (elements: 118, and 120B-120E), 2: 60-67, and 3: 1-25).
10. As per claim 8, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the device comprises an actuator configured to control a subsystem of the mobile unit (Jayaraman: 6:20-55).
11. As per claim 9, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the device comprises a sensor configured to measure a physical property associated with the mobile unit or an environment associated with the mobile unit (Jayaraman: 10:14-45, 11:20-40).
12. As per claims 10, and 16, Jayaraman discloses an apparatus, and a method comprising: a gateway processor coupled with a central processor and configured to route communications between the central processor and a device of a mobile unit (Fig. 1, and 2, col. 2, lines 60-67, 3:1-25, 3:46-67, and 4:1-19; wherein it emphasizes a gateway of a vehicle (mobile unit) coupled with TCU and able to establish between TCU and an outside device); and a memory system coupled with one or both of the central processor and the gateway processor and configured to: perform an authentication procedure on the device based at least in part on a triggering event comprising a power-on procedure of the mobile unit and enable the communications between the central processor and the device based at least in part on the authentication procedure (1:26-36, 6:38-67, 7:1-51, 9:1-10; wherein it elaborates a storage device of the vehicle which couple with TCU and gateway configured to initiate an authentication between the mobile device and the vehicle’s processor at the power on of the vehicle); receive, as part of the authentication procedure, first identification information from the device via the gateway processor, the central processor, or both; compare, as part of the authentication procedure, the first identification information with second identification information stored at the memory system (7:33-52, 10:46-67, and 11:1-40; wherein it elaborates the gateway receives the identification information from the device and compares it with stored identification information); a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure of the mobile unit (1:26-35, 5:20-37, wherein it discusses after the initial power on of the vehicle (mobile unit) then authentication procedure will be performed on the vehicle) and a power-on procedure of the zonal computing system, a power-on procedure of the device, or a combination thereof (3:26-45, 10:47-64, 12:1-8 wherein it describes then all the zonal computing system of the vehicle like vehicle ECUs, exterior lighting, interior lighting, and point of access status verification; a climate management controller, heating and cooling system components, and other local vehicle devices will be power on in sequence. The device will be power on as well). Although, Jayaraman discusses about a triggering event comprising a power-on procedure of the mobile unit, a power-on procedure of the zonal computing system, a power-on procedure of the device, or a combination thereof. He does not specifically mention that a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure, a second power-on procedure, and a third power-on procedure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski discloses a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure, a second power-on procedure, and a third power-on procedure (paragraphs: 7, 13-14, and 16-19, wherein it demonstrates that a subsequent powering up procedure will be performed in sequence during the authentication of the device to the vehicle).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Kowalewski’s teachings of a triggering event comprising a first power-on procedure, a second power-on procedure, and a third power-on procedure with the teachings of Jayaraman, for the purpose of effectively protecting the vehicle from full unauthorized access at once.
13. As per claim 11, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the memory system is configured to: determine that the device is a trusted device based at least in part on the first identification information matching the second identification information; and enable the communications between the central processor and the device based least in part on determining that the device is the trusted device (Jayaraman: 3:15-44, 5:7-35).
14. As per claim 12, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the memory system is configured to: determine that the device is an untrusted device based at least in part on the first identification information being different from the second identification information; and restrict the communications between the central processor and the device based at least in part on determining that the device is the untrusted device (Jayaraman: 6:2-37, 7:5-31).
15. As per claim 13, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the memory system is configured to: generate the first identification information and the second identification information based at least in part on a software hash, a certificate associated with the software hash, a digital signature, or any combination thereof; and store at least the second identification information at one or more memory cells of the memory system (Jayaraman: 7:44-67, and 9:1-27).
16. As per claim 14, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, the memory system is configured to periodically perform the authentication procedure based at least in part on the triggering event (Jayaraman: 9:31-63).
17. As per claim 15, Jayaraman in view of Kowalewski discloses the apparatus, wherein the device comprises an actuator configured to control a subsystem of the mobile unit or a sensor configured to measure a physical property associated with the mobile unit or an environment associated with the mobile unit (Jayaraman: 10:14-45, 11:20-40).
18. Claims 17-21 are listed all the same elements of claims 11-15. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 11-15 apply equally as well to claims 17-21.
Citation of References
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Golgiri et al (US pat. app. Pub. 20220176999): discusses pertains to minimizing battery power consumption while employing local wireless communication to activate an operation of an autonomous vehicle. In an example implementation, a vehicle controller of an autonomous vehicle transitions to a powered-down state after the autonomous vehicle is parked at a parking spot that lacks cellular communication coverage. The vehicle controller may transition to a powered-up state at a scheduled time to execute an autonomous operation based on a directive stored in a cloud-based device. In no directive has been stored, the vehicle controller wakes up periodically in a partially powered-up state and transmits a query in a local wireless communications format to the cloud-based device to check for a directive. If no directive is present, the vehicle controller transitions back to the powered-down state. If a directive is present, the vehicle controller transitions to a fully powered-up state to execute the autonomous operation.
Kaster (US pat. App. Pub. 20220052854): elaborates that vehicles for verifying integrity of automotive software. In one implementation, an electronic processor is configured to receive a power-up signal and randomly select one of a plurality of fingerprints. The electronic processor is also configured to retrieve a set of data stored in the memory cells of the selected fingerprint. The electronic processor is further configured to calculate a pre-boot verification value for the selected fingerprint using a one-way cryptographic function with a secret key and the retrieved set of data. The electronic processor is also configured to compare the pre-boot verification value to a reference verification value for the selected fingerprint. The electronic processor is further configured to release a security halt on the software image when the pre-boot verification value matches the reference verification value for the selected fingerprint.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD W REZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407