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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 101:
Applicant’s claim amendment is considered to have overcome the applied rejection. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, in view of the amended claim language, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Angus (US 2016/0294829 A1).
Regarding double patenting:
Applicant’s claim amendment is considered to have overcome the applied rejection(s). As such, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasbornig (US 2023/0020730 A1) in view of Angus (US 2016/0294829 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rasbornig discloses: A method comprising: performing, by a computing system (e.g., ECU in Rasbornig), a plurality of initialization operations with respect to initializing a sensor (e.g., IC/Sensor as in [0019] of Rasbornig); and
Refer to at least [0026] of Rasbornig with respect to IC startup and transmitting cryptographic information from the ECU to the IC (as per [0047 of the instant specification, “the initialization operations 110 may include the communication of data between the computing system 104 and the device 102 to configure the device 102 in a certain manner”).
performing, by the computing system, one or more authentication operations with respect to authenticating the sensor after the sensor is initialized.
Refer to at least the abstract, [0020]-[0021], [0039], and [0059] of Rasbornig with respect to the IC using the exchanged cryptographic information to generate authentication tags for the ECU to authenticate sensor measurement data.
Rasbornig does not fully specify: the plurality of initialization operations including one or more configuration commands that configure the sensor to operate in a particular manner and that are communicated prior to performance of one or more authentication operations with respect to authenticating the sensor, the one or more configuration commands including one or more write operations that write data to the sensor. However, Rasbornig in view of Angus discloses: the plurality of initialization operations including one or more configuration commands that configure the sensor to operate in a particular manner and that are communicated prior to performance of one or more authentication operations with respect to authenticating the sensor, the one or more configuration commands including one or more write operations that write data to the sensor.
Refer to at least FIG. 9, [0104], and [0061], [0044] of Angus with respect to a manufacturer writing configuration information such as a MAC address and public key to a sensor. In an embodiment, the configuration information may be encoded in an accessible QR code or RFID.
The teachings of both Rasbornig and Angus concern provisioning and authenticating sensors, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such. Further, Rasbornig also considers a manufacturer writing certain information to the sensor (e.g., [0025] and [0036] of Rasbornig)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Rasbornig to include writing sensor configuration information to the sensor during an initialization at the manufacturer because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., the citations; the ECU authenticating that the sensor has correctly exchanged cryptographic information such that the authentication tags are valid).
Regarding claim 3, Rasbornig-Angus discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the verifying of the initialization of the sensor is based at least on one or more first tracking codes maintained by the sensor during initialization.
Refer to at least [0021], [0050], and [0067]-[0068] of Rasbornig with respect to the IC maintaining authentication tag generation information (e.g., random value, key).
Regarding claim 4, Rasbornig-Angus discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein the verifying of the sensor initialization is further based at least on a comparison between a first tracking code value (e.g. received authentication tag) corresponding to a particular first tracking code of the one or more first tracking codes (e.g., authentication tag generation information on the IC and ECU symmetrically) and a second tracking code value (e.g., locally derived authentication tag) that is an expected tracking code value of the particular first tracking code (e.g., authentication tag generation information on the IC and ECU symmetrically).
Refer to at least [0056], [0059], and [0064] of Rasbornig with respect to the ECU comparing a received authentication tag value to a locally derived expected authentication tag value.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1 and 4 above (e.g., [0026] and [0050] of Rasbornig).
Regarding claim 9, Rasbornig-Angus discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of initialization operations includes one or more of: one or more write operations in which the computing system directs that data is written to the sensor; or one or more read operations in which the computing system directs that data is read from the sensor.
Refer to at least [0036] and [0025]-[0026] of Rasbornig with respect to reading and/or writing the cryptographic information from / to the IC.
Regarding independent claim 11, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected. With respect to “peripheral device,” this can be a sensor as per at least [0008] of the instant specification: “peripheral devices of a computing system—e.g., sensors, such as camera sensors”).
Regarding claims 12-15, they are substantially similar to claims 2-5 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 16, Rasbornig-Angus discloses: The computing system of claim 11, wherein the peripheral device includes a sensor corresponding to an ego-machine (as defined in [0026] of the instant specification, “ego-machines may include, but are not limited to, vehicles (land, sea, space, and/or air), robots, robotic platforms, etc”).
Refer to at least [0019] of Rasbornig with respect to the IC/Sensor corresponding to the automotive industry; [0002] of Rasbornig with respect to the ECU, which is an embedded system in automotive electronics.
Regarding independent claim 18, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 above, and is therefore likewise rejected (“non-secure” initialization operations including those of Angus’ writing configuration information to be publicly accessible).
Regarding claims 19-20, they are substantially similar to claims 4-5 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasbornig-Angus as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Kilbride (US 12,380,226 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Rasbornig-Angus discloses generating authentication tags via encryption, but does not specify: wherein the first tracking code value is communicated to the computing system by the sensor via a secure communication. However, Rasbornig-Angus in view of Kilbride discloses: wherein the first tracking code value is communicated to the computing system by the sensor via a secure communication.
Refer to at least FIG. 5, 806-810 in FIG. 8, and Col. 11, Ll. 17-22 of Kilbride with respect to establishing a secure communication session with a sensor before receiving messages from the sensor (e.g., Col. 17, LL. 61-65 of Kilbride concerning a message including a packet and a tag).
The teachings of Rasbornig-Angus and Kilbride both concern determining the validity of sensor messages, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Rasbornig-Angus to further implement establishing a secure communication session for sending the authentication tags for at least the purpose of improving security from eavesdropping (e.g., if the authentication tag algorithm is weak, then the symmetric key materials could be obtained by an eavesdropper through cryptanalysis).
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6 above (e.g., “[a] number of sensor validation processes can be performed to ensure the authenticity and legitimacy of the sensor component […] prior to establishing secure communication sessions” in Col. 17, Ll. 61-65 of Kilbride).
Regarding claim 10, Rasbornig-Angus-Kilbride discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor includes a camera.
Refer to at least Col. 3, Ll. 9-10 of Kilbride with respect to cameras as example sensors.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another (i.e., the sensor type from among known sensor types) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (authentication tags for sensor data of a given sensor type).
Regarding claim 17, Rasbornig-Angus-Kilbride discloses: The computing system of claim 11, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system implementing one or more multi-modal language models; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Refer to at least the abstract of Kilbride with respect to the sensor belonging to a sensing system of an autonomous vehicle.
The claim would have been obvious because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation (securing autonomous vehicle sensors so that autonomous vehicles may be implemented safely), and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (i.e., focusing on a particular known sensor and particular known sensor environment).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasbornig-Angus as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of McGrotty (US 2022/0256348 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rasbornig-Angus does not disclose: wherein the first tracking code includes one or more of: a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code; or a message counter. However, Rasbornig-Angus in view of McGrotty discloses: wherein the first tracking code includes one or more of: a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code; or a message counter.
Refer to at least [0078] and [0081] of McGrotty with respect to a CRC and a signature over the CRC. It is noted that McGrotty also concerns a message counter as in, e.g., [0080].
The teachings of Rasbornig-Angus and McGrotty both concern determining the validity of sensor messages, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Rasbornig-Angus to further implement a CRC code as a cryptographic value for authentication code generation because the substitution of one known element for another (hash/signature input values for verifying integrity) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time (verifying integrity using those particular input values).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights