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 Status
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 4/09/2026. Claims 1-5 were canceled. Claims 6-10 were newly added. Likewise claims 6-10.are pending for examination.
Title 35, U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for lack of written description and/or lack of enablement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims attempt to cover a complex authentication protocol involving ECC, PUFs, fuzzy extractors, biometric keys, RSU-to-RSU message propagation, and TCU service completion. However, the specification does not clearly and consistently describe the claimed combinations with sufficient precision to show possession of the full scope of the claims.
For example, the specification does not clearly describe:
the exact encryption scheme used in the various Enc/Dec operations,
the specific implementation of the PUFs,
the implementation details of the fuzzy extractor,
the message formats and sequencing constraints,
the mechanism by which a “nearest RSU” is determined,
or the protocol behavior under failure, replay, or loss conditions.
The disclosure does not appear to teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
In particular:
The cryptographic formulas are inconsistent and sometimes malformed.
The relationship between the stored values and recovered values is not always technically clear.
Several steps rely on unspecified algorithms or parameters.
The protocol appears to assume idealized coordination among EVs, RSUs, and TCUs without describing practical implementation details.
Accordingly, the claims are not enabled over their full scope.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims contain numerous terms, formulas, and relationships that are unclear, inconsistent, or internally contradictory.
Examples of Indefiniteness:
1. Inconsistent and unclear notation
The claims use multiple inconsistent symbols for apparently the same parameter, including:
• v_i, v_j
• PK_EVi, PKR S Uj, PK_RSUj
• skER, sκ_ER
• Cert_i, Certi
• PEV_i, PRV_i
It is unclear whether these terms refer to the same or different values.
2. Malformed mathematical expressions
Several formulas appear incomplete or syntactically ambiguous, such as:
• M2=Encr1⋅PKRSUj∥T1(r2∥Xi∥PKEVi∥PEVi∥M1∥m1∥T1)
• M3=hT1∥PEVi∥Xi∥PKEVi∥m1∥PKTA∥T1⋅vi+Certi
• M6=m2⊕hδt∥T3
• M7=hm2∥TIDt∥δt∥PEVi∥T3
It is unclear what the exact operations are, the order of operations, and whether encryption, hashing, or concatenation is intended.
3. Unclear claim language
Terms such as:
• “quickly pass through traffic lights”
• “target speed”
• “meeting the time requirement”
• “coverage area corresponding to the RSU”
• “nearest RSU”
• “appropriate measures”
• “service completion message”
are relative, result-oriented, or undefined, and do not provide clear boundaries for the claimed subject matter.
4. Ambiguous functional language
The claims recite many functional steps without clear structural or algorithmic support, including:
• “authenticating identity legitimacy”
• “evaluating the content”
• “generating feedback”
• “forwarding the vehicle information”
• “recovering the shared secret value”
• “storing the tuple”
It is unclear what exact operations are required and how they are performed.
5. Unclear antecedent basis
Several elements are introduced and reused inconsistently, making the scope of the claims unclear. For example:
• m1, m2, m2*
• r1, r2, r3
• T1 through T6
• δ_t, δ_t*
• u_j, u_j*
• skER, skER*
Because of these inconsistencies, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 6, as well as dependent claims 7–10, are directed to an authentication and message-handling scheme for emergency vehicles, roadside units, and traffic control units. The claims recite, in substance:
• receiving a request,
• authenticating identity legitimacy,
• generating and verifying cryptographic values,
• transmitting feedback messages,
• checking timestamps,
• storing shared keys,
• and forwarding messages to subsequent roadside units.
These limitations amount to data authentication, secure communication, and information processing, which are methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, or at least abstract ideas performed using generic computer/network components.
The claims further recite concepts of:
• authentication
• verification
• encryption/decryption
• timestamp checking
• message routing
• key generation and exchange
These are abstract concepts relating to information security and communication management.
Although the claims reference specific entities such as EVs, RSUs, and TCUs, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea in the context of vehicular infrastructure using conventional computing and cryptographic operations. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, network architecture, or another technology, but instead use generic cryptographic and message-exchange operations to achieve the abstract goal of authentication.
The recited use of elliptic curve cryptography, hashes, timestamps, pseudonyms, fuzzy extractors, and PUFs appears to be merely a collection of known tools used for their ordinary functions, without a clearly claimed technical improvement in the underlying operation of a computer, communication network, or traffic control system.
The claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The recited operations are conventional security and communication functions implemented at a high level of generality.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s prior art arguments to claims 1-5 have been fully considered but are moot because all claims presented were new claims submitted by the Applicant and include new features that were never previously presented. Therefore, the scope pertaining to claims 6-10 was changed. However, a new round of rejections was applied to reject the new claims.
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 MANCIL H LITTLEJOHN JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 (CST).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/MANCIL LITTLEJOHN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights