8Notice 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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Objections
Applicant addressed the identified issues, and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment correct he antecedent basis issue, and thus the indefinite rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner agrees with the arguments presented and the amendments to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardelski US20180254903A in view of Fenner US20170302459A1 and Lipscomb (US20100042288A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bardelski teaches;
a processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the security circuit (taught as memory, element 118, which includes secure memory coupled to a secure processor or controller, paragraph 0023);
the processing circuitry configured to:
receive a secure access protocol and an encrypted electronic control unit (ECU) key [[from a diagnostic tool]] (taught as the diagnostic tool receiving authentication information to exchange tokens, paragraph 0028);
send an unauthorized diagnostic request to a vehicle ECU (taught as, to become authorized to diagnose the ECU, the diagnostic tool sends an access request to the ECU, paragraph 0029);
receive a security challenge from the vehicle ECU in response to the unauthorized diagnostic request (taught as the ECUs responding to the access request with seed values, paragraph 0029); and
in response to receiving the security challenge:
generate a security challenge response based on the decrypted ECU key and the secure access protocol (taught as the diagnostic tool generating the candidate unlock key, which is the result of the seed value and the current offline key, to send to the ECU, paragraph 0034); and
send the security challenge response to the vehicle ECU (taught as sending the candidate unlock key to the ECU, paragraph 0034).
However, Bardelski does not explicitly teach; A vehicle communication interface (VCI) device, comprising:
a security circuit comprising a secure memory; and
receive a secure access protocol and an encrypted electronic control unit (ECU) key from a diagnostic tool,
request the security circuit to decrypt the encrypted ECU key into a decrypted ECU key
Fenner teaches; a security circuit comprising a secure memory (taught as a trusted platform module [TPM], element 108, part of a client device that represents a protected area from general access [effectively a secure memory], paragraph 0042); and
a processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the security circuit (taught as a client device, element 102, which includes [i.e. couples to] a TPM, paragraph 0042);
request the security circuit to decrypt the encrypted ECU key into a decrypted ECU key (taught as a decryption request being sent to the TPM to obtain an encrypted key, S426-S430 in Fig 4, paragraph 0075; this specifically takes place in the security circuit, unlike in Bardelski)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the security circuit taught by Fenner and the accompanying security processes in the diagnostic system taught by Bardelski in order to improve security. As taught by Fenner, such a system allows for easy detection of tampering (paragraph 0012) and enables tamper proof storage of certificates (paragraph 0054).
However, Fenner does not explicitly teach; A vehicle communication interface (VCI) device. (as it’s directed to a generic security connection, not explicitly a vehicle centric one).
Lipscomb teaches; A vehicle communication interface (VCI) device (taught as a VCI, paragraph 0008).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a VCI as taught by Lipscomb in a diagnostic system taught by Bardelski as modified by Fenner in order to provide an interface between a tool and an ECU. As suggested by Lipscomb, such a system can connect the diagnostics of the vehicle and communicate with it to a scan, diagnostic tool or remote computing device (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Bardelski does not explicitly teach; wherein the security circuit is configured to:
decrypt the encrypted ECU key based on the encrypted ECU key; and
generate the security challenge response based on the decrypted ECU key and the secure access protocol.
Fenner teaches; wherein the security circuit is configured to:
decrypt the encrypted ECU key based on the encrypted ECU key (taught as the TPM decrypting the nonce, paragraph 0057); and
generate the security challenge response based on the decrypted ECU key and the secure access protocol (taught as, when the TPM decrypts the nonce, sending the decrypted nonce back, paragraph 0057).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the security circuit taught by Fenner and the accompanying security processes in the diagnostic system taught by Bardelski in order to improve security. As taught by Fenner, such a system allows for easy detection of tampering (paragraph 0012) and enables tamper proof storage of certificates (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 3, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bardelski further teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a second security challenge from the vehicle ECU in response to sending the security challenge response to the vehicle ECU (taught as, after the ECUs have been unlocked, exchanging diagnostic messages, paragraph 0035); and
in response to the second security challenge indicating authorization of the VCI device:
send a second diagnostic request based on the first diagnostic request to the vehicle ECU (taught as, after the ECUs have been unlocked, exchanging diagnostic messages and data, paragraph 0035).
While Bardelski does not explicitly teach a second security challenge, this appears to merely be repeating/duplicating an authentication step, which is an obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bardelski further teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a request from the diagnostic tool to store the encrypted ECU key (taught as a verification process with a diagnostic tool and the ECU, paragraph 0006); and
in response to receiving the request to store the encrypted ECU key, store the encrypted ECU key in a memory accessible by the processing circuitry (taught as, upon completion of a verification process, storing the offline [encryption] key by replacing an old key with a new one, e.g. paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 11, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bardelski further teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to establish a communication session with the diagnostic tool connected to the [[VCI device]] (taught as communicably connecting ECUs, on-board diagnostic port, paragraph 0017, the diagnostic tool, paragraph 0018, and the ESM, paragraph 0012);
the processing circuitry configured to receive the secure access protocol and the encrypted ECU key in the communication session (taught as the ESM sending candidate unlock keys via the network [communication] connection, e.g. paragraph 0012).
However, Bardelski does not explicitly teach; …connected to the VCI device.
Lipscomb teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to establish a communication session with the diagnostic tool connected to the VCI device (taught as the VCI is connected to and communicating with the diagnostic tool, paragraph 0008, 0027).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a VCI as taught by Lipscomb in a diagnostic system taught by Bardelski as modified by Fenner in order to provide an interface between a tool and an ECU. As suggested by Lipscomb, such a system can connect the diagnostics of the vehicle and communicate with it to a scan, diagnostic tool or remote computing device (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 12, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Bardelski further teaches;
the processing circuitry is configured to:
send the diagnostic request [[through the vehicle connector]] to the vehicle ECU (taught as, to become authorized to diagnose the ECU, the diagnostic tool sends an access request to the ECU, paragraph 0029);
receive the security challenge [[through the vehicle connector ]]from the vehicle ECU in response to the diagnostic request (taught as the ECUs responding to the access request with seed values, paragraph 0029); and
send the security challenge response [[through the vehicle connector]] to the vehicle ECU (taught as sending the candidate unlock key to the ECU, paragraph 0034).
However, Bardelski does not explicitly teach; further comprising a vehicle connector configured to be connected to a vehicle communication port communicatively coupled to the vehicle ECU, wherein:
the processing circuitry is communicatively coupled to the vehicle connector.
Lipscomb teaches; further comprising a vehicle connector configured to be connected to a vehicle communication port communicatively coupled to the vehicle ECU (taught as a first connector that connects toa data link connector on the vehicle to receive the vehicle diagnostic data, paragraph 0008; while only specifically reciting diagnostic data, any communicating data would reasonably flow thorough this connection), the processing circuitry is communicatively coupled to the vehicle connector (taught as a first connector that connects toa data link connector on the vehicle to receive the vehicle diagnostic data, paragraph 0008).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a VCI as taught by Lipscomb in a diagnostic system taught by Bardelski as modified by Fenner in order to provide an interface between a tool and an ECU. As suggested by Lipscomb, such a system can connect the diagnostics of the vehicle and communicate with it to a scan, diagnostic tool or remote computing device (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claims 13-15 and 19, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-3. Therefore, claims 13-17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationales as claims 1-3, wherein;
Claims 13 and 19 correspond to claim 1,
Claims 14-15 correspond to claims 2-3, respectively.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardelski (US20180254903A) as modified by Fenner US20170302459A1 and Lipscomb (US20100042288A1) and further in view of Morselli (US20150348346A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bardelski as modified by teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Yasmin does not explicitly teach;, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
detect if the diagnostic tool is not connected to the VCI device; and
in response to detecting the diagnostic tool not connected to the VCI device:
send the unauthorized diagnostic request to the vehicle ECU.
Morselli teaches; detect if the diagnostic tool is not connected to the VCI device (taught as detecting when a device is disconnected, paragraph 0043); and
in response to detecting the diagnostic tool not connected to the VCI device:
send the unauthorized diagnostic request [examiner interprets this to indicate a device is forgotten and authentication has to be redone] to the vehicle ECU (taught as, when a device is disconnected, forgetting the system/automatically removing it, paragraph 0043, which means the authentication (unauthorized diagnostic request) would have to be performed again).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to forget a device when disconnected as taught by Morselli in the system taught by Yasmin in order to improve security. As suggested by Morselli, such a system aids in preventing third parties from intercepting information being transferred (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 5, Bardelski as modified by Morselli teaches;
The VCI device of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). However, Yasmin does not explicitly teach; wherein the diagnostic request comprises a VCI device loss prevention command.
Morselli teaches; wherein the diagnostic request comprises a VCI device loss prevention command (taught as, when a device is disconnected, forgetting the system/automatically removing it, paragraph 0043, which corresponds to the idea presented in the specification such that an action occurs upon detection relating to the loss, left behind, or disconnected state of the device in paragraph 0047).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to forget a device when disconnected as taught by Morselli in the system taught by Yasmin in order to improve security. As suggested by Morselli, such a system aids in preventing third parties from intercepting information being transferred (paragraph 0004).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardelski US20180254903A in view of Fenner US20170302459A1 and Lipscomb (US20100042288A1) and further in view of Khan (US9918226B2).
Regarding claim 6, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Bardelski does not explicitly teach;, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a VCI device identification signature request from the diagnostic tool; and
in response to receiving the VCI device identification signature request, request the security circuit to sign a VCI device identification for the VCI device based on a VCI endorsement key.
Khan teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a VCI device identification signature request from the diagnostic tool (taught as receiving, from an electronic device, a request for a secure-element identifier of the secure element, column 15 lines 16-18); and
in response to receiving the VCI device identification signature request, request the security circuit to sign a VCI device identification for the VCI device based on a VCI endorsement key (taught as, after the request is received, the processor receives, from the secure element, the secure-element identifier, column 15 lines 19-22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a signature as taught by Khan in the system taught by Bardelski in order to improve security. The use of digital signatures can enable combination of secure identifiers, challenges, and other communications securely, as suggested in Khan (column 2 lines 10-19). It is also a general known feature of the art to improve security with authentication and the like.
Regarding claim 7, Bardelski as modified by Fenner, Lipscomb, and Khan teaches;
The VCI device of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). Bardelski further teaches; wherein the VCI device identification comprises a unique serial number of the VCI device (taught as using identified such as a serial number [of the ECU], paragraph 0031; this could obviously be extended to other components of the system, like a VCI as combined with Lipscomb, for identification and authentication purposes).
Regarding claim 16, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardelski US20180254903A in view of Fenner US20170302459A1 and Lipscomb (US20100042288A1) and further in view of Huang (US9460567B2).
Regarding claim 10, Bardelski as modified by Fenner and Lipscomb teaches;
The VCI device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive the security challenge comprising a seed from the vehicle ECU in response to sending the unauthorized diagnostic request to the vehicle ECU; and
in response to receiving the security challenge, request the security circuit to generate the security challenge response based on the seed, the decrypted ECU key, and the secure access protocol.
Huang teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive the security challenge comprising a seed from the vehicle ECU (taught as the ECU providing a seed/challenge to the tool. Column 6 lines 4-10) in response to sending the unauthorized diagnostic request to the vehicle ECU (taught as the vehicle diagnostic tool initiating a diagnostic session with the ECU, including a challenge, column 5 line 65-column 6 line 1); and
in response to receiving the security challenge, request the security circuit to generate the security challenge response based on the seed, the decrypted ECU key, and the secure access protocol (taught as the vehicle diagnostic tool determining a session key using the seed value, wherein the seed value and the unique inputs may be input to the KDF to generate the session key, column 6 lines 15-22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use seed based security challenges as taught by Huang in the system augh by Bardelski in order to improve security. Using seed and security challenges are indicated to authenticate devices in the system to establish a secure diagnostic session, as suggested by Huang (column 1 lines 38-51).
Regarding claim 17, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 10. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 and to overcome the 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites the idea of receiving a request to store the secure access memory, after receiving a request to store the encrypted ECU key. The use and storage of secure access protocols is well known in the art, for example, in Yasmin (paragraph 0129), Bardelski (paragraph 0026). This applies to general secure communications as well, such as https. However, it is not apparent that this storage of a secure access protocol occurs AFTER the storage of the encryption ECU key. It is normal that key generation, verification and exchange occurs according to a protocol, which would imply that the protocol is already stored. However, as presented in claim 9, this would occur AFTER the encryption ECU key has been stored. It would thus not make sense for the relevant prior art to perform a key verification/exchange according to a protocol before said protocol is stored.
Response to Arguments
Examiner agrees that the claims overcome the 101 rejection.
Examiner agrees with the arguments presented such that Yasmin does not sufficiently teach the recited claims (especially in regards to receiving an encrypted key, rather than encrypting a key), and thus withdraws the previous rejection. A new non-final rejection is presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further encryption/verification protocols ; US20230087521A1, US20170324558A1
For further vehicle diagnostic security; US20210075783A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights