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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/10/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 12 and 14 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2023 131 071.2, filed on 11/09/2023. Foreign priority information is presented in the application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “an input unit configured to detect a user input… and to produce input data…” and “a program generating unit configured … to generate at least one part of a program code of a computer program…” in claim 12.
The term(s) “input unit” and “program generating unit” are generic placeholders coupled to the functional language “detect a user input which characterizes the user-specific functionality, and to produce input data depending on the user input” and “depending on the input data, to generate at least one part of a program code of a computer program which provides the user-specific functionality when the computer program is executed on a control unit of the vehicle” respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “detecting a user input which characterizes the user-specific functionality, and producing input data depending on the user input;” and “depending on the input data, generating at least one part of a program code of a computer program which computer program provides the user-specific functionality when the computer program is executed on a control unit of the vehicle” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element a “method for producing a user-specific functionality of a vehicle,”
generally, links the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “providing the computer program for execution on the control unit of the vehicle in order to provide the user-specific functionality” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting and displaying data/information. See MPEP2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a “method for producing a user-specific functionality of a vehicle,” generally links the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As for the additional element “providing the computer program for execution on the control unit of the vehicle in order to provide the user-specific functionality” the courts have identified merely transmitting and displaying data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, additional elements do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regrading claims 2 and 3, the additional elements “the program code is produced using a generative pretrained transformer” and “taking account of at least one driving situation, a state of a vehicle occupant, and/or a state of the vehicle, and using the generative pretrained transformer, producing an output in order to assist the user in producing the user input” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 2 and 3 are neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “depending on the input data [], determining whether and which data, databases, libraries, interfaces, and/or drivers are required for providing the user-specific functionality, and producing the program code taking account of the result of the determining” recite additional mental process under Prong 1. The additional element “using the generative pretrained transformer” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform/apply the abstract idea, which is neither a practical application under Prong 1, nor amount significantly more under Step 2B.
Regrading claims 6 and 7, the limitations “the program code is produced such that the computer program has access only to predefined resources of the control unit” and “the program code is produced such that the computer program’s access to predefined vehicle functionalities is limited when the computer program is executed on the control unit” recite additional mental process under Prong 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the additional elements “the control unit comprises an at least partly isolated runtime environment, and the program code is executed within the at least partly isolated runtime environment in order to provide the user-specific functionality” and “the control unit comprising the at least partly isolated runtime environment is a hypervisor, a virtual machine or a trusted computing base”
generally, link the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which is neither a practical application under Prong 1, nor amount significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the limitations “the program code is produced such that: results of the execution of the user-specific functionality which correspond to specific first features are prohibited, and/or exclusively results of the execution of the user-specific functionality which correspond to specific second features are enabled when the computer program is executed on the control unit” and “the specific first features are first value ranges and/or first patterns, and/or the specific second features are second value ranges and/or second patterns” recite additional mental process under Prong 1.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “detect a user input which characterizes the user-specific functionality, and to produce input data depending on the user input;” and “depending on the input data, to generate at least one part of a program code of a computer program which provides the user-specific functionality when the computer program is executed on a control unit of the vehicle,” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “producing a user-specific functionality of a vehicle,” generally links the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements “an input unit configured to” and “a program generating unit configured” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “producing a user-specific functionality of a vehicle,” generally links the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the additional elements “an input unit configured to” and “a program generating unit configured” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, thus, do not amount to significantly more, or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thurimella (EP 3608773 A1), hereinafter “Thurimella”.
With regard to claim 1, Thurimella teaches:
A method for producing a user-specific functionality of a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting a user input which characterizes the user-specific functionality, and producing input data depending on the user input (Paragraph 30, “the requirements 21 may be listed by a respective user of the at least one vehicle 12, e.g. in a natural language text 22 that a user may provide as a spoken message or as a written message with the backend server system 10. In a step S10 a digital module generation engine 23 may generate a functionality model 24 of the functionality F on the basis of the requirement data 20 that describes that at least one requirement 21 that is to be fulfilled by the new functionality F.” Detecting a user input which characterizes the user-specific functionality, correlates to the requirements may be listed by a respective user of the at least one vehicle that a user may provide as a spoken message or as a written message. Producing input data depending on the user input, correlating to digital module generation engine may generate a functionality model of the functionality on the basis of the requirement data).
depending on the input data, generating at least one part of a program code of a computer program, which computer program provides the user-specific functionality when the computer program is executed on a control unit of the vehicle (Paragraph 22, “the software code, that is generated from the functionality model, is designed to implement the new functionality on the basis of independent function modules that are installed in the at least one vehicle independently” Depending on the input data, generating at least one part of a program code of a computer program, correlates to the software code, that is generated from the functionality model as the functionality model is generated on the basis of requirement data provided from the user according to claim 1 of Thurimella. Which computer program provides the user-specific functionality when the computer program is executed on a control unit of the vehicle, correlates to [the code] designed to implement the new functionality on the basis of independent function modules that are installed in the least one vehicle independently. “User-specific functionality” is defined in the applicant’s specification in paragraph 7 as being “a functionality of the vehicle, which is specific, in particular individual, to one or more specific users.”).
providing the computer program for execution on the control unit of the vehicle in order to provide the user-specific functionality. (Paragraph 29, “Each vehicle 12 may comprise an electronic control unit 17 that may be designed to execute software code 18 which may provide a functionality F in vehicle 12 when executed by the control unit 17.” computer program for execution on the control unit of the vehicle, correlates with software code which may provide a functionality F in vehicle when executed by the control unit. provide the user-specific functionality, correlates to functionality F as Paragraph 33 of Thurimella shows “An end-user of vehicle 12 may specify and/or order a new functionality F”).
With regard to Claim 12 and 14, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the device and product of Claims 12 and 14 respectively. Claims 12 and 14 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, Thurimella teaches: the input unit is configured to receive the user input in text form, in the form of a voice input, and/or in the form of a user interaction with a graphical user interface (Paragraph [0020], “In one embodiment, the at least one requirement for the new functionality is extracted from the natural language text by a speech recognizer and/or a language translator and/or a machine learning engine. If a speech recognizer is used, the natural language text may even be entered verbally by the user, i.e. the user may speak the natural language text and thus state the at least one requirement.”)
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 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurimella in view of Rahmani et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20230176829 A1), hereinafter “Rahmani.”
With regard to claim 2, Thurimella does not explicitly teach:
wherein the program code is produced using a generative pretrained transformer.
However, Rahmani teaches:
wherein the program code is produced using a generative pretrained transformer (Paragraphs 81 and 92, teaching that GPT-3 is a “generative pre-trained transformer” and that GPT-3 is a pre-trained model capable of performing code generation from natural language. Thus, GPT-3 being a generative pre-trained transformer capable of generating code from natural language correlates to the program code being produced using a generative pretrained transformer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thurimella with wherein the program code is produced using a generative pretrained transformer as taught by Rahmani because Thurimella teaches a digital model transformation engine based on a machine learning engine that transforms a functionality model generated from natural language into software code (Thurimella: paragraph 17), while Rahmani teaches that GPT-3 is a generative pretrained transformer capable of generating software code from natural language (Rahmani: paragraphs 81 and 92). Substituting the machine learning engine of Thurimella with the GPT-3 generative pretrained transformer taught by Rahmani would have been a simple substitution of one known machine-learning code-generation technique for another to obtain the predictable result of generating software code from natural-language input.
With regard to Claim 15, the method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 15. Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurimella in view of Rahmani and Powell et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 20180304906 A1), hereinafter “Powell.”
With regard to claim 3, Thurimella in view of Rahmani does not explicitly teach:
taking account of at least one driving situation, a state of a vehicle occupant, and/or a state of the vehicle, and using the generative pretrained transformer, producing an output in order to assist the user in producing the user input.
However, Powell teaches:
taking account of at least one driving situation (Paragraph 56, “The vehicle status module may be further configured to monitor one or more physical parameters relating to the terrain over which the vehicle is traversing. The terrain monitor is able to distinguish between different types of terrain, such as sand, snow, mud, rock and tarmac.” The monitoring of physical parameters relating to the terrain over which the vehicle is traversing correlates to taking account of at least one driving situation),
a state of a vehicle occupant (Paragraph 55, “The vehicle status module may receive further sensor data from other on-vehicle sensors, e.g. passenger status data via passenger seat sensors.” Passenger status data correlates to the state of a vehicle occupant),
a state of the vehicle (Paragraph 55, “the vehicle status module receives data regarding the steering wheel position, the vehicle speed and the position of the accelerator and brake pedals.” The vehicle speed and other vehicle operating parameters correlate to the state of the vehicle),
producing an output in order to assist the user in producing the user input (Paragraph 68, “The suggestion module reads the suggestion policy in order to generate a specific notification, comprising a suggested user command, which is likely to be of use to the user.” Generating a notification correlates to producing an output and providing a suggested user command correlates to assisting the user in producing the user input).
Rahmani further teaches:
using the generative pretrained transformer to produce responsive text (Paragraph 81, teaching that GPT-3 is a generative pre-trained transformer that can operate as an intelligent conversation completion engine in which, given text in a prompt, the model predicts text that follows the prompt).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thurimella in view of Rahmani with taking account of at least one driving situation, a state of a vehicle occupant, and/or a state of the vehicle, and producing an output in order to assist the user in producing the user input as taught by Powell because Powell teaches that providing a suggested user command based on vehicle and user information encourages the user to activate a vehicle feature at a time when the feature is likely to be of benefit to the user (Powell: paragraph 11).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to use the generative pretrained transformer taught by Rahmani to produce the suggested output of Powell because Rahmani teaches that GPT-3 generates responsive text from a supplied prompt (Rahmani: paragraph 81). Using Rahmani’s generative pretrained transformer to implement Powell’s suggestion-generation function would have been the application of a known text-generation technique to Powell’s context-based user advice system to obtain the predictable result of generating a suggested user command based on the driving situation, occupant state, and/or vehicle state, thereby assisting the user in producing the user input.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurimella in view of Rahmani in view of Konarski et al. (“Creating your whole codebase at once using LLMs – how long until AI replaces human developers?”), hereinafter “Konarski.”
With regard to claim 4, Thurimella in view of Rahmani does not explicitly teach:
Depending on the input data and using the generative pretrained transformer, determining whether and which data, databases, libraries, interfaces, and/or drivers are required for providing user-specific functionality, and producing the program code taking account of the result of the determining.
However, Konarski teaches:
depending on the input data and using the generative pretrained transformer, determining whether and which data, databases, libraries, interfaces, and/or drivers are required for providing the user-specific functionality (Section 5, GPT Engineer, “The user provides the main objective. The GPT Engineer asks clarifying questions about the target, focusing on the technical aspects of the solution (e.g., data format, preference for the model used). The user can answer or can leave it to the model to decide by itself. The agent prepares the ‘Core Classes, Functions, and Methods’ section, which lists technical details of the solution… Once the code is generated, the agent gives us the option to install the necessary libraries (from the requirements.txt file) and launch his creation.” The user-provided objective correlates with the input data. The GPT Engineer determining technical aspects of the solution and identifying necessary libraries correlates to using the generative pretrained transformer to determine which libraries are required for providing the functionality specified by the user),
producing the program code taking account of the result of the determining (Section 5, GPT Engineer, “Based on the code functionalities described above, the GPT Engineer starts to create code, one element after another.” The GPT Engineer generating code based on the previously determined technical details and code functionalities correlates to producing the program code taking account of the result of the determining).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thurimella in view of Rahmani with depending on the input data and using the generative pretrained transformer, determining whether and which data, databases, libraries, interfaces, and/or drivers are required for providing the user-specific functionality, and producing the program code taking account of the result of the determining as taught by Konarski because applying Konarski’s known code-generation workflow to the generative pretrained transformer of Thurimella in view of Rahmani would have yielded the predictable result of generating program code consistent with the user-specified functionality while accounting for the technical details and dependencies required to provide that functionality (Konarski: Section 5, GPT Engineer).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurimella in view of Fang et al. (WO 2021178979 A1), hereinafter “Fang.”
With regard to claim 5, Thurimella teaches the method of claim 1 above. Thurimella does not explicitly teach: wherein the program code is produced such that the computer program’s access to resources of the control unit is limited when the computer program is executed on the control unit.
However, Fang teaches: the computer program’s access to resources of the control unit is limited when the computer program is executed on the control unit (Paragraph 485, “each feature container can associate a container manifest, which is defined and controlled by the OEM. The manifest dictates how much resources (e.g., CPU/memory) should be allocated to the container, as well as determining the container privilege level.” The container manifest limiting the CPU/memory resources allocated to an application container and determining the container privilege level correlates to limiting the computer program’s access to resources of the control unit when the computer program is executed on the control unit.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thurimella’s generated program to execute subject to Fang’s resource-allocation controls because Fang teaches limiting CPU, memory, and privilege levels to prevent a program from exceeding its allocated resources. Applying Fang’s known resource-isolation technique to Thurimella’s generated vehicle software would have predictably limited the program’s access to resources of the control unit.
With regard to claim 6, Thurimella, in view of Fang, teaches the method of claim 5 above. Fang further teaches: the computer program has access only to predefined resources of the control unit (Paragraph 485, “each feature container can associate a container manifest, which is defined and controlled by the OEM. The manifest dictates how much resources (e.g., CPU/memory) should be allocated to the container, as well as determining the container privilege level.” The container manifest being defined in advance by the OEM and specifying the CPU/memory resources allocated to the container correlates to the computer program having access only to predefined resources of the control unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fang’s predefined resource-allocation technique to Thurimella’s generated program because Fang teaches assigning container resources in advance through an OEM-defined manifest. Such a modification would have predictably restricted Thurimella’s generated program to only the predefined resources assigned to it.
With regard to claim 7, Thurimella teaches the method of claim 1 above. Thurimella does not explicitly teach: The program code is produced such that the computer program’s access to predefined vehicle functionalities is limited when the computer program is executed on the control unit.
However, Fang further teaches: The program code is produced such that the computer program’s access to predefined vehicle functionalities is limited when the computer program is executed on the control unit (Paragraph [0358] “In certain embodiments, interactions with certain actuators (e.g., a direct vehicle start command) may be disallowed and/or require additional authorization or permission… the automation manager limits configuration of the customized operation based on permissions and/or authorizations of the configuring entity (e.g., owner, operator, manufacturer, 3rd party application provider, etc.)” Disallowing a programs access to certain vehicle actuators corresponds to access to predefined vehicle functionalities is limited)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to apply Fang’s permission-based vehicle-function restrictions to Thurimella’s generated program because Fang teaches limiting access to vehicle actuators to protect vehicle security and mission integrity. Applying this known access-control technique would have predictably limited Thurimella’s generated program to authorized vehicle functionalities.
With regard to claim 8, Thurimella teaches the method of claim 1 above. Thurimella does not explicitly teach: the control unit comprises an at least partly isolated runtime environment, and the program code is executed within the at least partly isolated runtime environment in order to provide the user-specific functionality.
However, Fang teaches: The control unit comprises an at least partly isolated runtime environment, (Paragraph [0507] “The Container Manager implements OS level isolation features (e.g., namespaces) and manages policies.”) And that the program code is executed within the at least partly isolated runtime environment in order to provide the user-specific functionality. (Paragraph [0460]; “An example implementation includes an operation to deploy a containerized application to support specific features for a particular user.” Specific features for a particular user correspond to user-specific functionality; see also paragraph [0454]; “Container Security Controller: this module enforces the access control, authorization, and accounting of the container execution. The container has to pass the access control and authorization check in order to be eligible to the container runtime.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Thurimella with Fang’s isolated runtime environment. Fang’s OS-level isolation and access control mechanisms would isolate the generated program from other software providing the predictable benefits associated with container isolation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurimella in view of Fang in view of Noam Mizrahi (US 20230118187 A1), hereinafter “Mizrahi.”
Thurimella in view of Fang does not explicitly teach: wherein the control unit comprising the at least partly isolated runtime environment is a hypervisor, a virtual machine or a trusted computing base.
However, Mizrahi teaches: wherein the control unit comprising the at least partly isolated runtime environment is a hypervisor, a virtual machine or a trusted computing base. (Paragraph [0023], “the guest applications are implemented as VMs. The gateway further runs a virtualization software layer, referred to as a hypervisor, which allocates resources (e.g., processing, memory, storage and/or networking resources) to the VMs. Among other tasks, the hypervisor enforces a security policy that specifies permitted and/or forbidden interactions between the guest applications and the subsystems of the vehicle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thurimella in view of Fang with wherein the control unit comprising the at least partly isolated runtime environment is a hypervisor, a virtual machine or a trusted computing base. as taught by Mizrahi because it is desirable for vehicle users to be able to install third party applications, but these programs can expose the driver to more dangers without the proper security measures (Mizrahi: [0017], [0018], [0019]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurimella view of Jochen Ulrich Haenger et al. (US 9710290 B2), hereinafter “Haenger.”
Per claim 10, Thurimella does not explicitly teach: wherein the program code is produced such that: results of the execution of the user-specific functionality which correspond to specific first features are prohibited, and/or exclusively results of the execution of the user-specific functionality which correspond to specific second features are enabled when the computer program is executed on the control unit.
However, Haenger teaches: results of the execution of the user-specific functionality which correspond to specific first features are prohibited (Paragraph [0016], “a further especially simple implementation of the coupling device may provide that no setting command is transmitted to the implementation unit, if the assessment says that the implementation of the setting command transfers the motor vehicle into a dangerous state.” Not transmitting a command corresponds to the specific first features are prohibited). And exclusively results of the execution of the user-specific functionality which correspond to specific second features are enabled (Paragraph [0012], “the coupling device is designed to transmit the monitored setting command unaltered to the implementation unit, if the assessment says that the implementation of the setting command will not transfer the motor vehicle into a dangerous state, i.e. the monitored setting command is equal to the original setting command.” Transmitting the setting command based on the outcome of a program execution corresponds to enabling the specific second feature based exclusively on the results of the execution.)
Per claim 11, Thurimella does not explicitly teach: wherein the specific first features are first value ranges and/or first patterns, and/or the specific second features are second value ranges and/or second patterns.
However, Haenger further teaches: wherein the specific first features are first value ranges and/or first patterns and/or the specific second features are second value ranges and/or second patterns. (Paragraph [0015], “a particularly simple generation of the substitute setting command by a limitation of the setting command, i.e. a numerical value of the setting command is limited to a value range less than a maximum value and/or greater than a minimum value.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haenger’s command-assessment and gating technique into Thurimella’s generated vehicle functionality because Haenger teaches preventing commands that would place the vehicle in a dangerous state. Applying this known vehicle-safety technique would have predictably prohibited unsafe execution results while permitting execution results determined to be safe. Similarly, applying Haenger’s limiting setting commands according to predetermined minimum and maximum values would have predictably permitted or prohibited execution results according to predefined value ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Thomson whose telephone number is 571-272-0511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/LUKE THOMSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights