DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 2/17/2026.
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 1, 5–8, 10, 12, 14, and 15. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant rewrites previously indicated objected dependent claims into independent form, placing claims 5 and 8 in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 12, and 15 are sufficient to overcome the previously cited combination of references serving as the basis for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, requiring a new search. As a result, a new reference was identified and a new combination of references is presented as the basis for a rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 15. All arguments have been fully considered.
The Examiner agrees that the previous combination of reference does not teach each and every limitation in the newly amended independent claims. In light of the change in scope, a new basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented below.
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.
Claims 1, 11–12, 15 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).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, 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: request information including specific information and a certificate signing request; issues a certificate that is the specific information affixed with the signature; a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit through wireless communication, the certificate to the first mover that has requested the certificate signing, the certificate being a certificate for verifying a legitimacy of information that is transmitted by the first mover.
However, Lee does disclose: request information including specific information and a certificate signing request (receiving a CSR generated according to the response data from the DCM and verifying the received CSR. Lee ¶ 10.); issues a certificate that is the specific information affixed with the signature (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.); a response information transmission section that is configured to transmit through wireless communication, the certificate to the first mover that has requested the certificate signing, the certificate being a certificate for verifying a legitimacy of information that is transmitted by the first mover (transmitting the response data for the CSR (which, as indicated previously amounts to enrollment certificate and infrastructure certificate for use in secure transmission of data between entities involved in certification in the SCMS) to the DCM over the wireless network. Lee ¶¶ 3 and 15–17.).
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 ensuring secure communications based upon certificates. Lee ¶ 5.
Regarding claim 11, Haga in view of Karmoose discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein each of the first mover and the second mover is a working machine (Haga Figure 1 and ¶ 53.).
Claims 2, 9–10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga in view of Lee in view of Karmoose (US 2019/0044728 A1, published Feb. 7, 2019).
Regarding claim 2, Haga in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1. Haga in view of Lee does not disclose: wherein the second mover includes a storage part that stores information about the signature, and the signing part and the storage part are disposed in a tamper resistance region having tamper resistance.
However, Karmoose does disclose: wherein the second mover includes a storage part that stores information about the signature, and the signing part and the storage part are disposed in a tamper resistance region having tamper resistance (the components of the secured communication system can be carried out by a detachable IC card that is tamper-resistant. Karmoose ¶ 199.).
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 storing credentials in tamper resistant space based upon the teachings of Karmoose. The motivation being to verify the integrity of the inter-vehicular transmissions. Karmoose ¶ 76.
Regarding claim 9, Haga in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1. Haga in view of Lee does not disclose: further comprising a relative position notification section that gives a notification of information about relative positions of the first mover and the second mover.
However, Karmoose does disclose: further comprising a relative position notification section that gives a notification of information about relative positions of the first mover and the second mover (position, speed, velocity, acceleration, heading, and other status information is collected and shared as payload of the data packet. Karmoose Figure 1C and ¶ 56.).
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 transmitting relational information based upon the teachings of Karmoose. The motivation being to verify the integrity of the inter-vehicular transmissions. Karmoose ¶ 76.
Regarding claim 10, Haga in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1. Haga in view of Lee does not disclose: comprising a mover that is available as the second mover, wherein the mover is switchable between a mode of serving as the second mover to exert a function of the signing part, and a mode of not serving as the second mover without exerting the function of the signing part.
However, Karmoose does disclose: comprising a mover that is available as the second mover, wherein the mover is switchable between a mode of serving as the second mover to exert a function of the signing part, and a mode of not serving as the second mover without exerting the function of the signing part (vehicle positions in the organized group, or platoon, can change such that the leader vehicle can switch or a vehicle leaves the group. Karmoose ¶ 73.).
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 interchanging roles and mode in the network based upon the teachings of Karmoose. The motivation being to verify the integrity of the inter-vehicular transmissions. Karmoose ¶ 76.
Claims 3–4, 6–7, 13–14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga in view of Lee in view of Hashimoto (US 2023/0114690 A1, published Apr. 13, 2023).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Haga in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively. 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 at least a portion of the first mover moves.
However, Hashimoto 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 at least a portion of the first mover moves (retransmitting request to vehicle in response to failing to receive confirmation of receipt from the vehicle. Hashimoto ¶ 27.).
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 retransmitting a request upon receiving no response to a request to a vehicle based upon the teachings of Hashimoto. The motivation being to handle variation in wireless network communication logistics. Hashimoto ¶ 27.
Regarding claim 4, Haga in view of Lee in view of Hashimoto discloses the limitations of claim 3, wherein, in the 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 (retransmitting request to vehicle in response to failing to receive confirmation of receipt from the vehicle. Hashimoto ¶ 27.).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Haga in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively. Haga in view of Lee does not disclose: wherein at least a portion of the second mover moves when a second mover movement condition including a condition of nonreceipt of the request information from the first mover is satisfied.
However, Hashimoto does disclose: wherein at least a portion of the second mover moves when a second mover movement condition including a condition of nonreceipt of the request information from the first mover is satisfied (retransmitting request to vehicle in response to failing to receive confirmation of receipt from the vehicle. Hashimoto ¶ 27.).
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 retransmitting a request upon receiving no response to a request to a vehicle based upon the teachings of Hashimoto. The motivation being to handle variation in wireless network communication logistics. Hashimoto ¶ 27.
Regarding claim 7, Haga in view of Lee in view of Hashimoto discloses the limitations of claim 6, wherein the second mover travels on a traveling surface when the second mover movement condition including the condition of nonreceipt of the request information from the first mover is satisfied (retransmitting request to vehicle in response to failing to receive confirmation of receipt from the vehicle. Hashimoto ¶ 27.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 allowed.
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 VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached 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 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494