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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 7, 13, the phrase “a machine learning model to detect a second set of one or events” seems to be missing, “more’ and probably should be “one or more events”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadry et al., (US Publication No. 2023/0122334), hereinafter “Kadry”, and further in view of Curtis et al., (US Publication No. 2017/0072850), hereinafter “Curtis”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, Kadry discloses
a telematic device connected to an on-board diagnostic port of a vehicle, comprising:
one or more processors [Kadry, paragraphs 19, 25]; and
memory storing one or more programs [Kadry, paragraphs 19, 25] configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving, via the on-board diagnostic port of the vehicle, one or more messages transmitted via a controller area network (CAN) bus [Kadry, paragraphs 22-25];
processing the one or more messages to detect whether one or more anomalies are present [Kadry, paragraphs 34-39], including:
retrieving data from a database updated using a Kadry, paragraphs 34-39, figures 2-3, 6]; and
using the one or more messages and the data from the database to identify whether one or more anomalies are present [Kadry, paragraphs 34-39, figures 2-3, 6]; and
in response to a determination that an anomaly is detected, sending, to the vehicle, an alert based on the anomaly, wherein the alert causes the vehicle to perform an action in response to the anomaly [Kadry, paragraphs 54-55, figures 2-3, 6].
Kadry does not specifically disclose, however Curtis teaches
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to detect a first set of one or more events [Curtis, paragraphs 13, 38-40, figures 1, 5-6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the use of a Convolutional Neural Network for machine learning in order to provide for an efficient way of determining possibles issues and provide a secure way of alerting the user of the issues. It would have been obvious to combine Curtis with Kadry as both arts relate to vehicle notification of possible events.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14, Kadry-Curtis further discloses
wherein the database is pre-loaded on the telematic device [Kadry, paragraph 22].
Regarding claims 4, 10, 16, Kadry-Curtis further discloses
wherein the CNN was trained using one or more datasets constructed from CAN bus data logs collected during simulated attacks [Curtis, paragraphs 45, 72].
Regarding claims 5, 11, 17, Kadry-Curtis further discloses
wherein the machine learning model was trained with images [Curtis, paragraphs 13, 36-40, 45, 72, figures 1, 5-6].
Regarding claims 6, 12, 18, Kadry-Curtis further discloses
wherein the machine learning model was trained using CAN bus data collected from a plurality of vehicles, and wherein the CAN bus data collected from the plurality of vehicles does not include malicious data [Curtis, paragraphs 14, 72, figures 1, 5-6].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433