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 .
This is in reply to papers filed on 8/23/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1,9, and 13 is/are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed 8/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4,12 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities below. Appropriate correction is required.
Amend claims 4,12 and 16 to read, in part: “compare the decrypted cyphertext …”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6,9,13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pham et al. US. publication 20220157088 (hereinafter “Pham”).
As per claim 1, Pham discloses
A verification system comprising: a memory storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: project known data using a projector within a field-of-view (FOV) of multiple sensors [Pham, par 0041, “The system 10 additionally includes one or more projectors 36 for projecting an image, a sequence of images, a video, etc., on a projection surface adjacent the vehicle 14. The projector(s) 36 may be arranged and configured to project images onto the ground adjacent the vehicle 14 (e.g., a horizontal surface), or onto a screen (e.g., a vertical surface) adjacent the vehicle 14, such as in front of the vehicle or behind the vehicle. “]; acquire information within an overlapping FOV that includes the known data [Pham par 0054, “Indeed, some vehicle systems combine information from multiple sensors, a process referred to as sensor fusion, to obtain a more accurate understanding of what is happening in and around the vehicle. Accordingly, various aspects of the present disclosure are directed toward calibrating not only the selected ADAS sensor(s) 12, but also another ADAS sensor 12 that may be operatively associated with the selected ADAS sensor to facilitate a prescribed functionality. A secondary ADAS sensor 12 operatively associated with the selected ADAS sensor 12 may be identified and vehicle data associated with the secondary ADAS sensor may be analyzed to determine whether the secondary ADAS sensor meets a predetermined calibration parameter to determine whether calibration of the secondary ADAS sensor is required.”], [Pham par 0036, “Referring now to FIG. 1, there is depicted a schematic view of a system 10 for calibrating an ADAS sensor 12 on a vehicle 14. The word sensor, as used herein, may refer broadly to any hardware that may obtain information about the environment around the vehicle 14, as well as information about the vehicle 14 itself. In this regard, the word sensor may refer to, but is not limited to, cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors, and steering sensors.”]. and upon detection of the known data, indicate a verification for one of the multiple sensors and communicate the information to execute a downstream task. [Pham, par 0052, “Referring now specifically to FIGS. 5-7, there is shown an exemplary depiction of a vehicle 14 undergoing calibration of a front ADAS sensor 12a. In this example, a projector 36 is projecting an image onto a screen 38 positioned in front of the vehicle 14. The image projected onto the screen 38 includes a pair of narrow quadrangular shapes on either side of a larger, central quadrangular shape. Each narrow quadrangle includes a single array of circles, while the central quadrangle includes four arrays of circles with a smaller quadrangle extending horizontally at the center of the larger quadrangle.”].
The limitations of claims 9 and 13 correspond to the features of claim 1 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Pham discloses the verification system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to indicate the verification further include instructions to: estimate that the one of the multiple sensors is verified from a successful comparison of the known data within the overlapping FOV. [Pham, par 0052,” Referring now specifically to FIGS. 5-7, there is shown an exemplary depiction of a vehicle 14 undergoing calibration of a front ADAS sensor 12a. In this example, a projector 36 is projecting an image onto a screen 38 positioned in front of the vehicle 14.”]
The limitations of claim 18 correspond to the features of claim 6 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
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) 2,7,10,14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (US 20220157088 A1, published May. 19, 2022) in view of Goldman (US 20200094847 A1 published Mar.26, 2020).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Pham discloses, and wherein the multiple sensors include a radar sensor and a camera [Pham, par 0036, “The word sensor, as used herein, may refer broadly to any hardware that may obtain information about the environment around the vehicle 14, as well as information about the vehicle 14 itself. In this regard, the word sensor may refer to, but is not limited to, cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors, and steering sensors.”]
Pham does not disclose, but Goldman discloses the verification system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to indicate the verification further include instructions to: estimate that another one of the multiple sensors is unverified from a failed comparison of the known data [Goldman, par 0035, “The sensor information includes the traffic information that is sensed by the sensors in sensor group 100A. Based on the sensor information, the attack detection means 116 can categorize the one or more sensor data into 3 groups: abnormal, normal, and inconsistent. An abnormal sensor data is a sensor data that fails to capture the surrounding traffic information. For example, a camera returns all black pixels (or just noise). A normal sensor data is a sensor data that provides a valid data that may show an empty road or objects. An inconsistent sensor data is a sensor data that provides different traffic information compared to other sensor data. “], wherein the failed comparison indicates one of a sensor malfunction and a spoofing attack [Goldman, par 0010, “A spoofing attempt is determined based on a determination that at least one inconsistent sensor data is identified. The inconsistent sensor data provides different traffic information compared to other sensor data of the one or more sensor data generated by the one or more sensors. Via the interface circuitry, the vehicle is informed to ignore a portion of the sensor information that is associated with the spoofing attempt when the spoofing attempt is identified. “]. [Goldman, par 0035, “Based on the sensor information, the attack detection means 116 can categorize the one or more sensor data into 3 groups: abnormal, normal, and inconsistent. An abnormal sensor data is a sensor data that fails to capture the surrounding traffic information. For example, a camera returns all black pixels (or just noise). A normal sensor data is a sensor data that provides a valid data that may show an empty road or objects. An inconsistent sensor data is a sensor data that provides different traffic information compared to other sensor data.”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham such that system has more instructions regarding the verification of multiple sensors if they are unverified along with the failed comparison of the known data as taught by Goldman. The failed comparison may indicate a sensor malfunction leading to a possible spoofing attack and the sensors may include a radar sensor and a camera as taught by Goldman. One would have been motivated to do so to create a more secure and reliable vehicle sensor system, allowing the system to safely disable faulty sensors or ignore incorrect data when a possible spoofing attack is detected.
The limitations of claims 10 and 14 correspond to the features of claim 2 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Pham discloses wherein the multiple sensors include a radar sensor and a camera and the projector emits an image as the known data [Pham, par 0036, “The word sensor, as used herein, may refer broadly to any hardware that may obtain information about the environment around the vehicle 14, as well as information about the vehicle 14 itself. In this regard, the word sensor may refer to, but is not limited to, cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors, and steering sensors.”], [Pham, par 0053, “Referring now specifically to FIG. 8, there is shown an exemplary depiction of a vehicle undergoing calibration of side ADAS sensors 12b, 12c. In this example, a projector 36 is projecting an image onto the ground on either side of the vehicle 14.”].
Pham does not disclose, but Goldman discloses the verification system of claim 1 further including instructions to: estimate that another one of the multiple sensors is unverified when misidentifying the known data. [Goldman, par 0035, “An abnormal sensor data is a sensor data that fails to capture the surrounding traffic information. For example, a camera returns all black pixels (or just noise). A normal sensor data is a sensor data that provides a valid data that may show an empty road or objects. An inconsistent sensor data is a sensor data that provides different traffic information compared to other sensor data.”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham so that such that system has more instructions regarding the verification of multiple sensors if they are unverified along with the misidentification of the known data as taught by Goldman. One would have been motivated to do so to create a more secure and reliable vehicle sensor system, resulting in reliable system operation.
The limitations of claim 19 correspond to the features of claim 7 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3,4,5,11,12,15,16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (US 20220157088 A1, published May. 19, 2022) in view of Evans (US 20190075456 A1 published Mar.7, 2019) further in view of Spencer (US 20150278805 A1 published Oct.1, 2015), further in view of Sly (US 20220337418 A1 published Oct.20, 2022).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Pham discloses wherein the projector is disposed on a vehicle [Pham par 0017, “The computer executable instructions additionally configure the handheld automotive diagnostic device to display calibration instructions associated with the selected ADAS sensor in response to receiving the user input, generate a command signal for a projector to project an image onto a projection surface adjacent the vehicle, with the projected image being associated with calibrating the selected ADAS sensor. “].
Pham does not disclose, but Evans discloses the verification system of claim 1, the public key associated with the one of the multiple sensors [Evans, par 0025, “More particularly, a QR code 34 contains a public key and pairing parameters. The QR code 34 is associated with a server 10 and is detected by a client 32. The server 10 comprises a private key 12, a public key 14, and data 16. The server has an encrypt/decrypt module 20 that receives network pairing parameter information 24 from the client 32 and sends out encrypted data 26, once paired with the client. “]; and sense by a camera from the multiple sensors the QR code [Evans, par 0019, “The wireless device is configured to run a QR recognition program 2 remotely or on-board the wireless access device. The wireless access device 4 detects a QR code 6 within its field of view. The QR code is associated with a wireless sensor or server node 8.”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham so that public key is associated with the one of the sensors and the qr code being sensed by multiple sensors as taught by Evans. One would have been motivated to do so to securely verify the sensors.
Pham and Evans do not disclose, but Sly discloses wherein the instructions to project the known data further include instructions to: encrypt random text using a public key within a quick response (QR) code [Sly, par 0077, “Asymmetric encryption uses a public key of the recipient to encrypt the data”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham in view of Evans by encrypting the data using a public key as taught by Sly. One would have been motivated to do so because applying the public key encryption into the data stream would secure the transmission of system data before projecting it into the field of view.
Furthermore, Pham and Evans in view of Sly do not disclose, but Spencer discloses emit by the projector the QR code into the FOV [Spencer, par 0185, “The QR code is projected on a display screen as the users enter the meeting room or class. “].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham in view of Evans and Sly by projecting the QR code as taught by Spencer. One would have been motivated to do so to project the scannable code onto a display anywhere around the vehicle.
The limitations of claims 11 and 15 correspond to the features of claim 3 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
Pham does not disclose, but Sly discloses the verification system of claim 3, wherein the instructions to indicate the verification further include instructions to: decrypt cyphertext from the QR code using a private key associated with the one of the multiple sensors [Sly, par 0110, “Upon scanning the scannable code, the verification device 114 sends a “validateQRCodeData” message to the registration server 111 and passes the UUID of the validator along with the scannable code data. The scannable code data can include a nonce code (or success code) and hash, encrypted using the public encryption key of the registration server 111 (435). The registration server can decrypt the message using private key and validate the nonce code and hash by matching the nonce and hash in the database 158 (437). If the nonce code and hash are valid, the two data elements match the triplet of success nonce, hash and photo identifier saved in the database 158 during the generation of the scannable code for the worker (439). If the nonce and hash do not match a triplet stored in the database, then the registration server can send an error message to the verification device (447).”]; and compare the cyphertext with the random text for a match [Sly, par 0093, “The message can include the device ID, UUID, public key of the worker's device referred to as “client_pub” or “A” and a hash of the shared key referred to as “hash(shared_key)”. The registration server computes shared key and compares it with the hash of shared key received from the worker's device (549). The registration server sends a message 551 to the worker's device. The message includes the generator (g), the prime number (p), public computed key of server (server_pub or B) and a hash of the shared key generated by the registration server. The worker's device can send an acknowledgement (or ACK) message to registration server with hash of shared key and disconnect the session (553).”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham so that the instructions include decrypting cyphertext from the qr code using a private key associated with one of the sensors and compare the cyphertext with random text for a match as taught by Sly. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure data integrity and verify the authenticity of the sensor data before processing it.
The limitations of claims 12 and 16 correspond to the features of claim 4 is/are rejected for the same reasons
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Pham does not disclose but Sly discloses the verification system of claim 4, wherein the QR code includes a hash of the random text and a nonce and the QR code is associated with an[Sly, par 0112, “An example QR code data message is presented that includes the nonce code and hash”] expiration time that is limited [Sly, par 0052, “A time stamp, a nonce code and, optionally location information, can be embedded in the scannable code to make replay detectable.”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham so that the qr code includes a hash of the random text and a nonce along with an expiration time that is limited as taught by Sly. One would have been motivated to do so that it prevents threat actors from executing replay attacks against the vehicle’s sensors.
The limitations of claim 17 correspond to the features of claim 5 is/are rejected for the same reasons
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (US 20220157088 A1, published May. 19, 2022) in view of Vardaro (US 20190391581 A1 published Dec.26, 2019).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Pham does not disclose, but Vardaro discloses the verification system of claim 1 further including instructions to: estimate operator health within a vehicle by comparing the information, wherein the multiple sensors include a cabin camera and a sensor for body temperature within the vehicle [Vardaro, par 0025, “In particular, aspects of the present disclosure include a computing system (e.g., a vehicle computing system including one or more computing devices that can be configured to monitor a vehicle passenger compartment and control one or more vehicle systems) that can receive sensor data associated with the state of a vehicle's passenger compartment, determine passenger states (e.g., passenger heart rate, respiratory rate, and/or movement profile) of passengers in the passenger compartment that are associated with health conditions (e.g., cardiac arrest, stroke, or other health conditions that reduce or eliminate a passenger's ability to self-report their health condition including self-reporting through words, gestures, or interactions with an interface of the vehicle), determine actions for the vehicle to perform based on the health conditions, and generate control signals so that the vehicle can perform the actions (e.g., send a request for emergency medical services when the passenger state is associated with a health condition corresponding to cardiac arrest).”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pham so that the system has instructions to estimate the operator health within the vehicle by comparing the information with multiple sensors that include a cabin camera and a sensor for the body temperature within the vehicle as taught by Vardaro. One would have been motivated to do so to make sure the driver is in a safe condition to operate the vehicle.
The limitations of claim 20 correspond to the features of claim 8 is/are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAIPRATAP PREM whose telephone number is (571)270-0894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. -4 p.m..
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, Kim Jung can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/SAIPRATAP PREM/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/JUNG W KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights