DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
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
Applicant presents amendments to claims 2, 4, 6, 9–11, cancels claims 1, 3, 12–15, and introduces new claims 16–20. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–11, restructure the dependency of the claims to depend on the previously indicated allowable claims 5 and 8. The newly introduced claims also depend on these claims, placing claims 2, 4–11, and 18–20 in condition for allowance as presented.
Applicant’s new claims 16 and 17 contain significant previous subject matter. A new search was conducted, and additional relevant art was identified. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under a new combination of art, which has not previously been the basis for any previous rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to claim 16 and 17. All arguments have been fully considered.
Claims 16 and 17 are new claims, but Applicant’s arguments are relevant since the subject matter at issue existed in some form in previous versions of the claims.
Applicant argues that the secondary reference, Lee, teaches a data storage device and a memory unit and therefore does not correspond to a mover of the claimed invention. Further, Applicant asserts that such a feature is incapable of traveling and is impossible for a server to cause an attachment to move. Examiner responds: The subject matter at issue is the recited, “a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit a certificate including the specific information affixed with the signature to the first mover through wireless communication”. As mapped in the previous Office Action, the Examiner introduces the primary reference Haga as evidence of prior teaching of a secure inter-vehicle communications system using signatures to specific information in response to a request from other vehicles. In this reference, the platform and context of the Examiner’s rejection is founded on the interaction between two movable vehicles that communicate using very standard communication and authentication protocol. As the Examiner concedes, the primary reference fails to disclose a specific aspect of the claim invention, namely the subject matter described here as being at issue. Therefore, in view of the context of the primary reference’s disclosure of a communication architecture between two vehicles, the particular (and in the Examiner’s opinion, widely known) protocol of transmitting information including a certificate and information affixed with a signature is transmitted within a network is demonstrated by the secondary reference, Lee. The fact that the secondary reference does not describe a server that “travels” does not detract from the core concept upon which the Examiner’s rejection relies. Firstly, the secondary reference is not required to “travel” since the primary reference demonstrates the mobility of communications equipment. But also, it is well known that due to the size and portability of modern electronic devices, such devices are readily moveable and not inherently fixed to one location. Communications servers are well known to be embedded in not only vehicles but can also be incorporated into personal mobile devices. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument also includes a reference to the Hashimoto reference, which is no longer relied upon in any of the rejections of the current version of the claims. Therefore, the Examiner considers that aspect of Applicant’s argument as moot.
The Examiner points out that the final clause of both claim 16 and 17 includes a limitation that is not found in any of the previously cited prior art. A new search was conducted, and a new reference was identified. As mapped below, a new combination of prior art serves as the basis of a new rejection of the new claims.
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 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga (US 2016/0373449 A1, published Dec. 22, 2016) in view of Lee (US 2020/0169420 A1, published May 28, 2020) in view of Warner (US 2007/0037568 A1, published Feb. 15, 2007).
Regarding claim 16, Haga discloses: an authentication system, comprising: a first mover that is configured to travel (Haga Figure 1 and ¶ 53.); and a second mover that is configured to travel and independent of the first mover (Haga Figure 1 and ¶ 53.), wherein the first mover includes a request information transmission section that transmits, to the second mover through wireless communication, request information indicating a request for a signature to be affixed on specific information (the identification of an anomaly in the vehicle parameters alerts the other vehicles such that certificates are requested to be affixed to subsequent communication. Haga ¶¶ 125 and 145–147), and the second mover includes: a signing part that affixes the signature onto the specific information when the second mover receives the request information from the first mover (affixing an electronic signature to the inter-vehicle communication message. Haga ¶ 125.).
Haga does not disclose: a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit a certificate including the specific information affixed with the signature to the first mover through wireless communication, wherein in a case where the first mover receives no response to the transmitted request information from the second mover, the first mover retransmits the request information to the second mover after traveling on a traveling surface.
However, Lee does disclose: a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit a certificate including the specific information affixed with the signature to the first mover through wireless communication (receiving a CSR generated according to the response data from the DCM and verifying the received CSR. Lee ¶ 10. The CSR is used to request an enrollment certificate and an infrastructure certificate from the enrollment certificate authority for use in secure transmission of data between entities involved in certification in the SCMS. Lee ¶ 15.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secure inter-vehicle communications system using signatures to specific information in response to a request from other vehicles of Haga with prompting another vehicle to request a certificate in order to verify transmission authenticity in inter-vehicle communications based upon the teachings of Lee. The motivation being to ensure secure communications based upon certificates. Lee ¶ 5.
Haga in view of Lee does not disclose: wherein in a case where the first mover receives no response to the transmitted request information from the second mover, the first mover retransmits the request information to the second mover after traveling on a traveling surface (if any node fails to receive a response, having been completely disconnected such that communication with the other device is no longer possible, the disconnected node can be signaled to move to a predetermined physical location in order to retransmit and reconnect communication. Warner ¶ 24.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secure inter-vehicle communications system using signatures to specific information in response to a request from other vehicles of Haga with in the case where a vehicle loses communication with a connected neighbor on a network, instructions direct the vehicle to travel to a different location based upon the teachings of Warner. The motivation being if autonomous vehicles lose connection the vehicles are programmed to change positions in order to attempt to reacquire the communication signal from a more conducive location.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga in view of Lee in view of Kamimura (US 2021/0174660 A1, published Jun. 10, 2021) in view of Warner.
Regarding claim 17, Haga discloses: an authentication system, comprising: a first mover that is configured to travel (Haga Figure 1 and ¶ 53.); and a second mover that is configured to travel and independent of the first mover (Haga Figure 1 and ¶ 53.), wherein the first mover includes: [a first attachment that performs a work], and a request information transmission section that transmits, to the second mover through wireless communication, request information indicating a request for a signature to be affixed on specific information (the identification of an anomaly in the vehicle parameters alerts the other vehicles such that certificates are requested to be affixed to subsequent communication. Haga ¶¶ 125 and 145–147), and the second mover includes: a signing part that affixes the signature onto the specific information when the second mover receives the request information from the first mover (affixing an electronic signature to the inter-vehicle communication message. Haga ¶ 125.).
Haga does not disclose: a first attachment that performs a work; and a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit a certificate including the specific information affixed with the signature to the first mover through wireless communication, wherein in a case where the first mover receives no response to the transmitted request information from the second mover, the first mover retransmits the request information to the second mover after causing the first attachment to move.
However, Lee does disclose: a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit a certificate including the specific information affixed with the signature to the first mover through wireless communication (receiving a CSR generated according to the response data from the DCM and verifying the received CSR. Lee ¶ 10. The CSR is used to request an enrollment certificate and an infrastructure certificate from the enrollment certificate authority for use in secure transmission of data between entities involved in certification in the SCMS. Lee ¶ 15.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secure inter-vehicle communications system using signatures to specific information in response to a request from other vehicles of Haga with prompting another vehicle to request a certificate in order to verify transmission authenticity in inter-vehicle communications based upon the teachings of Lee. The motivation being to ensure secure communications based upon certificates. Lee ¶ 5.
Haga in view of Lee does not disclose: a first attachment that performs a work and wherein in a case where the first mover receives no response to the transmitted request information from the second mover, the first mover retransmits the request information to the second mover after causing the first attachment to move.
However, Kamimura does disclose: a first attachment that performs a work (moveable working device attached to a slewing body mounted on a traveling body. Kamimura ¶ 24.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secure inter-vehicle communications system using signatures to specific information in response to a request from other vehicles of Haga with a vehicle having an attachment that performs work based upon the teachings of Kamimura. The motivation being that vehicles are designed with a wide array of useful attachments.
Haga in view of Lee in view of Kamimura does not disclose: wherein in a case where the first mover receives no response to the transmitted request information from the second mover, the first mover retransmits the request information to the second mover after causing the first attachment to move.
However, Warner does disclose: wherein in a case where the first mover receives no response to the transmitted request information from the second mover, the first mover retransmits the request information to the second mover after causing the first attachment to move (if any node fails to receive a response, having been completely disconnected such that communication with the other device is no longer possible, the disconnected node can be signaled to move to a predetermined physical location in order to retransmit and reconnect communication. Warner ¶ 24.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secure inter-vehicle communications system using signatures to specific information in response to a request from other vehicles of Haga with in the case where a vehicle loses communication with a connected neighbor on a network, instructions direct the vehicle to travel to a different location based upon the teachings of Warner. The motivation being if autonomous vehicles lose connection the vehicles are programmed to change positions in order to attempt to reacquire the communication signal from a more conducive location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
