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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim benefits of a Provisional Application. S/N. 63, 546, 520 filed on 10/30/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 has been considered by the Examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim benefits of a Provisional Application. S/N. 63, 546, 520 filed on 10/30/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a discrete computational element…”, “a zonal network …”, and “a second discrete computational element…” in claims 1 and 21.
The limitations “a discrete computational element…”, “a zonal network …”, and “a second discrete computational element…” are being treated as a 112f limitation, because it meets the 3-prong test to determine when a limitation is a 112f limitation. First, the terms “a discrete computational element”, “a zonal network …”, and “a second discrete computational element…” are a substitute or placeholder for “means”. Second, they are modified by functional language, “a discrete computational element that is coupled to the sensor to receive…”, “a zonal network providing communicative coupling…”, and “a second discrete computational element, that is coupled to the actuator, and that is programmed to: (i) receive…”. Third, they are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
Similarly, the limitations “a first root of trust module…”, “a second root of trust module…”, “a microcontroller unit…”, “an Ethernet module…”, and “a first root of trust module…” in claims 6 and 7.
These limitations “a first root of trust module…”, “a second root of trust module…”, “a microcontroller unit…”, “an Ethernet module…”, and “a first root of trust module…” are being treated as a 112f limitation, because it meets the 3-prong test to determine when a limitation is a 112f limitation. First, the terms “a first root of trust module…”, “a second root of trust module…”, “a microcontroller unit…”, “an Ethernet module…”, and “a first root of trust module…” are a substitute or placeholder for “means”. Second, they are modified by functional language, “a first root of trust module used to encrypt packets…”, “a second root of trust module to decrypt the packets…”, “a microcontroller unit for processing the sensor data…”, “an Ethernet module for packaging the command…”, and “a first root of trust module encrypt packets sent on the zonal network…” Third, they are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
Because these claims 1 and 21 limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that (Fig. 2 and Para. [0035], [0042] & [0054]) appear to be the corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, -3, 8-11, 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0192867 A1, (hereinafter Fang) in view of Kurokawa et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0274542 A1, (hereinafter Kurokawa).
Regarding claim 1. Fang teaches an automotive computing architecture comprising:
a set of zones (Fang teaches in Figs. 1& 5 and Para. [0084] and [0087] a plurality of (seven in the present embodiment) zones);
a zonal network providing communicative coupling between the zones in the set of zones (Fang teaches in Fig 147 and Para. [0643] apparatus 14700 further includes a converged network device (CND) (i.e., note that here CND and/or converged network device is a zonal network) structured to regulate communications between a first network zone having a first network endpoint and a second network zone having a second network endpoint and including the network zone of the vehicle. See also, Para. [0018], [0642] and [0685]);
a sensor in a first zone of the set of zones (Fang teaches in Para. [0677] a converged network device (CND) 16126, as described in other portions of this disclosure, that regulates communications between a first network zone and a second network zones. See also, Para. [0685] and [0688]-[0689]);
an actuator in a second zone of the set of zones (Fang teaches in Fig. 147 and Para. [0643] a second network zone having a second network endpoint and including the network zone of the vehicle…; and wherein the second network endpoint includes an actuator responsive to the actuator command value 14726);
a discrete computational element, in the first zone of the set of zones, that is coupled to the sensor to receive sensor data according to a legacy protocol (Fang teaches in Para. [0861] about a vehicle discrete event which is included in the trigger evaluation data or identified vehicle and further, Fang teaches in Par. [0890] the vehicle operator is sensing excessive vibrations on the steering wheel. The field support team may then transmit an on-demand policy to get selected data, e.g., data from various sensors affiliated with the vehicle's steering system and further, Fang teaches in Para. [0875] that the end point is communicatively coupled to a plurality of networks configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols (i.e., legacy protocol) and the end point captures a plurality of trigger evaluation data streams from the plurality of networks in response to the data collection policy), and that is programmed to: (i) process the sensor data to produce a command therefrom, the command being in the legacy protocol (Fang teaches in Para. [0861] the trigger evaluation data or the identified vehicle data includes a virtual sensor value derived from a plurality of vehicle data values and further, Fang teaches in Para.[0875] the end point is communicatively coupled to a plurality of networks configured to communicate using a plurality of communication protocols); and (ii) package the command for the zonal network, the command being packaged as an Ethernet packet (Fang teaches in Figs. 170 & 171 and Para. [0688] as shown in FIG. 170, the apparatus 17000 includes a converged network device (CND) 17010 which, as described herein and in other portions of this disclosure, may be structured to regulate communications between a first network zone having a first network endpoint and further, Fang teaches in Para. [0690] the first network zone may include a controller area network (CAN), an Ethernet based network,…); and
a second discrete computational element, in the second zone of the set of zones, that is coupled to the actuator, and that is programmed to: (i) receive the Ethernet packet with the command (Fang teaches in Para. [0861] the trigger evaluation data or identified vehicle data includes at least one of a vehicle state,…, a vehicle discrete event (i.e., a second discrete computational element), the plurality of trigger evaluation data or the identified vehicle data corresponds to a plurality of data types, including at least two of a controller area network (CAN) message, a CAN signal, an ethernet packet,...).
Fang does not explicitly teach a second discrete computational element (ii) unpack the command into the legacy protocol, and (iii) provide the command, unpacked into the legacy protocol, to the actuator.
However, Kurokawa teaches a second discrete computational element (ii) unpack the command into the legacy protocol, and (iii) provide the command, unpacked into the legacy protocol, to the actuator (Kurokawa teaches in Para. [0051] a device connected to the own ECU from the Ethernet signal input from the central processing unit 10. The network management unit 123 determines whether the data for the own ECU is data for a device connected to the protocol conversion (i.e., legacy protocol) unit 140 or data for a device connected to the signal conversion unit 150, and distributes the data to each of the units…, in the signal conversion unit 150, when data for controlling the actuator 168 connected to the communication port 118 is received from the network management unit 123, the control output circuit 154 generates, for example, an analog control signal of the actuator 163 according to a control value received from the central processing unit 10, and outputs the analog control signal to the communication port 118…, and further teaches in Para. [0052] protocol conversion (i.e., legacy protocol) time includes a time for protocol conversion between communication schemes in the protocol conversion unit 140. The processing delay time includes a processing delay time in the smart ECU 161 or the smart actuators 162 and 163).
Therefore, Fang and Kurokawa are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed for evaluation data or the identified vehicle data includes a virtual sensor value derived from a plurality of vehicle data values and a protocol conversion (i.e., legacy protocol) time includes a time for protocol conversion between communication schemes in the protocol conversion unit and the processing delay time includes a processing delay time in the smart ECU or the smart actuators in an efficient manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using a device connected to the own ECU from the Ethernet signal input from the central processing unit and using a protocol conversion (i.e., legacy protocol) time includes a time for protocol conversion between communication schemes in the protocol conversion unit. The processing delay time includes a processing delay time in the smart ECU ([0051] and [0052]) as taught, by Kurokawa into Fang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the control function of the actuator can be incorporated into the CPU. The communication delay time with the CPU can be estimated for each communication port in a stage before the on-vehicle device is connected to each communication port of the zone ECU, so as to relatively easily set the connection location of the on-vehicle device and/or to configure daisy chain network path without complicated arithmetic process. The design efficiency can be enhanced and high-speed processing can be performed.
Regarding claim 2.
Fang teaches wherein: the discrete computational element is a packaged computational element (Fang teaches in Para. [0554] the vehicle status data adjustment circuit 6602 determines the vehicle status data collection change value 6604 in response to a vehicle operating condition 6606 (i.e., note that here collection data value includes packaged computational element). An example vehicle operating condition 6606 may be a categorical and/or discrete value, such as a state condition (e.g., shutdown, moving, startup, idle, high load operation, low load operation, etc.); and
the discrete computational element includes a microcontroller unit for processing the sensor data to produce a command therefrom
(Fang teaches in Para. [0554] the vehicle status data adjustment circuit 6602 determines the vehicle status data collection change value 6604 in response to a vehicle operating condition 6606 (i.e., note that here collection data value includes packaged computational element) and further, Fang teaches in Para. [0861] a vehicle discrete event. In certain embodiments, the plurality of trigger evaluation data or the identified vehicle data corresponds to a plurality of data types, including at least two of a controller area network (CAN) message, a CAN signal, an ethernet packet…, and evaluation data or the identified vehicle data includes a virtual sensor value derived from a plurality of vehicle data values).
Regarding claim 3.
Fang teaches wherein: the microcontroller unit is a chiplet (i.e., Note that a chiplet has been interpreted in light of the Applicabt’s disclosure Para. [0056] as “microcontroller unit”and/or in light of one of ordinary skill in the art as a tiny, modular integrated circuit (die) that performs a specific function (like memory, I/O, or processing) and thus, Fang teaches in Para. [0924] one or more microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory…).
Regarding claim 8.
Fang teaches wherein: the command goes from the first zone to the second zone without additional computational processing such as by an engine control unit (Fang teaches in Para. [0521] apparatus 2700 includes a policy execution circuit 2708 structured to collect vehicle data 2722 from one or more end points 2716 of at least one network zone (e.g., first network zone 2718 and second network zone 2720 in the example of FIG. 27) of a vehicle in response to the parsed policy data).
Regarding claims 9, 17 and 21.
Claims 9, 17 and 21 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a computer program product and a system form and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a sensors, controllers and/or actuators, the prior art of record Fang teaches in Para. [0224].
Regarding claim 10.
Claim 10 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 2 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11.
Claim 1 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 3 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16.
Claim 16 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 8 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Kurokawa further in view of Ranganathan U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0185382 A1, (hereinafter Ranganathan).
Regarding claim 4. Fang in view of Kurokawa teaches the automotive computing architecture of claim 1.
Fang further teaches wherein: the discrete computational element is a packaged computational element (Fang teaches in Para. [0554] the vehicle status data adjustment circuit 6602 determines the vehicle status data collection change value 6604 in response to a vehicle operating condition 6606. An example vehicle operating condition 6606 may be a categorical and/or discrete value, such as a state condition (e.g., shutdown, moving, startup, idle, high load operation, low load operation, etc.).
Fang in view of Kurokawa does not explicitly teach the discrete computational element includes a microcontroller unit with an operating system and an open source software stack that is compatible with the operating system and the legacy protocol.
However, Ranganathan teaches the discrete computational element includes a microcontroller unit with an operating system and an open source software stack that is compatible with the operating system and the legacy protocol (Ranganathan teaches in Para. [0020] the user requirements may include requirements specified by the user, functionalities of the software stack, and category of recommended products, the user requirements may just include functionalities of the software stack as requested by the user and further, Ranganathan teaches in Para. [0018] the stack integration system 102 may communicate to the open source product repository 104,..., which represents an association of the different types of networks that use a variety of protocols, for example, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), etc., to communicate with each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using the user requirements may include requirements specified by the user, functionalities of the software stack and which represents an association of the different types of networks that use a variety of protocols ([0020] and [0018]) as taught, by Ranganathan into Fang in view of Kurokawa invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the product strength value is determined for each product present in the list of product based on strength parameters received from data sources, thus improves the agility in rolling out and adoption of open source platform in an enterprise by providing the ability to make informed decision on the stack components that suites the enterprise need and ensures that stack is quickly integrated to create the technical platform needed for implementing the business solution.
Regarding claim 5.
Fang in view of a set of Kurokawa teaches additional sensors in the first zone of the set of zones; wherein: (i) the discrete computational element is coupled to the set of additional sensors to receive sensor data according to a set of legacy protocols (Fang teaches in Para. [0677] the first network zone may have a first vehicle sensor of the one or more vehicle sensors (i.e., additional sensors ) from which the vehicle data 16120 is collected and further, Kurokawa teaches in Para. [0041] first zone ECU 21 includes communication ports 111 to 118 as communication ports connected to the device-side network…, and further, Kurokawa teaches in Para. [0047] the protocol conversion unit 140 is connected to the network management unit 123, and performs protocol conversion according to each of “(a) relay function”, “(b) distribution function”, and “(c) integration function” of the network management unit 123 described above). Fang in view of Kurokawa does not explicitly teach (ii) the microcontroller unit includes a set of open source software stacks that are compatible with the operating system and the set of legacy protocols.
However, Ranganathan teaches ii) the microcontroller unit includes a set of open source software stacks that are compatible with the operating system and the set of legacy protocols (Ranganathan teaches in Para. [0020] the user requirements may include requirements specified by the user, functionalities of the software stack, and category of recommended products, the user requirements may just include functionalities of the software stack as requested by the user and further, Ranganathan teaches in Para. [0018] the stack integration system 102 may communicate to the open source product repository 104, the data source(s) 106,... The network may either be a dedicated network or a shared network, which represents an association of the different types of networks that use a variety of protocols,…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using the user requirements may include requirements specified by the user, functionalities of the software stack and which represents an association of the different types of networks that use a variety of protocols ([0020] and [0018]) as taught, by Ranganathan into Fang in view of Kurokawa invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the product strength value is determined for each product present in the list of product based on strength parameters received from data sources, thus improves the agility in rolling out and adoption of open source platform in an enterprise by providing the ability to make informed decision on the stack components that suites the enterprise need and ensures that stack is quickly integrated to create the technical platform needed for implementing the business solution.
Regarding claims 12 and 18.
Claims 12 and 18 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 4 in a computer program product and a system form and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a sensors, controllers and/or actuators, the prior art of record Fang teaches in Para. [0224].
Regarding claims 13 and 19.
Claims 13 and 19 incorporate substantively all the limitation of claim 5 in a computer program product and a system form and are rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a sensors, controllers and/or actuators, the prior art of record Fang teaches in Para. [0224].
Regarding claim 20.
Fang teaches wherein: the microcontroller unit is a chiplet (i.e., Note that a chiplet has been interpreted in light of the Applicabt’s disclosure Para. [0056] as “microcontroller unit”and/or in light of one of ordinary skill in the art as a tiny, modular integrated circuit (die) that performs a specific function (like memory, I/O, or processing) and thus, Fang teaches in Para. [0924] one or more microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory…).
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Kurokawa further in view of Gulati U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0039795 A1, (hereinafter Gulati).
Regarding claim 6. Fang in view of Kurokawa teaches the automotive computing architecture of claim 1.
Fang further teaches wherein the packets sent on the zonal network include the Ethernet packet (Fang teaches in Para. [0861] a vehicle discrete event, the plurality of trigger evaluation data or the identified vehicle data corresponds to a plurality of data types, including at least two of a controller area network (CAN) message, a CAN signal, an ethernet packet). Fang in view of Kurokawa does not explicitly teach a first root of trust module used by the discrete computational element to encrypt packets sent on the zonal network,; and a second root of trust module used by the second discrete computational element to decrypt the packets sent on the zonal network.
However, Gulati teaches a first root of trust module used by the discrete computational element to encrypt packets sent on the zonal network, wherein the packets sent on the zonal network include the Ethernet packet (Gulati teaches in Para. [0228]-[0229] the root of trust and further, Gulati teaches in Para. [0098] the trusted devices 130 is that the trusted devices 130 can identify and authenticate the security information internally to increase the level of security, Further, Gulati teaches in Para. [0100] the trusted devices 130 can be able to securely encrypt and decrypt information. The trusted devices 130 can be able to authenticate trusted code. The trusted devices 130 can have secure storage and execution capability. Also, see Para. [0095]-[0099] and [0101]); and
a second root of trust module used by the second discrete computational element to decrypt the packets sent on the zonal network (Gulati teaches in Para. [0112] the incoming root of trust 504 (i.e., a second root of trust) can provide a decryption seed, compatibility range of peripheral components, compatibility device type,…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using incoming root of trust and trusted devices ([0228]-[0229], [0098] and [0112]) as taught, by Gulati into Fang in view of Kurokawa invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the apparatus allows an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) security boot loader to create device identity, create ability to accept an encrypted data stream and de-crypt on-device and initialize a secure run time environment on the device, so that firmware can run securely on the device.
Regarding claim 7. Fang in view of Kurokawa teaches the automotive computing architecture of claim 1.
Fang further teaches a microcontroller unit for processing the sensor data to produce a command therefrom (Fang teaches in Para. [0861] the trigger evaluation data or the identified vehicle data includes a virtual sensor value derived from a plurality of vehicle data values);
an Ethernet module for packaging the command as the Ethernet packet (Fang teaches in Figs. 6, 8, 10 &15 and in Para. [0861] a vehicle discrete event, the plurality of trigger evaluation data or the identified vehicle data corresponds to a plurality of data types, including at least two of a controller area network (CAN) message, a CAN signal, an ethernet packet) ; and
wherein the discrete computational element is a packaged computational element (Fang teaches in Para. [0554] the vehicle status data adjustment circuit 6602 determines the vehicle status data collection change value 6604 in response to a vehicle operating condition 6606. An example vehicle operating condition 6606 may be a categorical and/or discrete value).
Fang in view of Kurokawa does not explicitly teach a first root of trust module used by the discrete computational element to encrypt packets sent on the zonal network, wherein the packets sent on the zonal network include the Ethernet packet.
However, Gulati teaches a first root of trust module used by the discrete computational element to encrypt packets sent on the zonal network, wherein the packets sent on the zonal network include the Ethernet packet (in Para. [0228-0229] the root of trust and further, Gulati teaches in Para. [0098] the trusted devices 130 is that the trusted devices 130 can identify and authenticate the security information internally to increase the level of security, Further, Gulati teaches in Para. [0100] the trusted devices 130 can be able to securely encrypt and decrypt information. The trusted devices 130 can be able to authenticate trusted code. The trusted devices 130 can have secure storage and execution capability. Also, see Para. [0095]-[0099] and [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using incoming root of trust and trusted devices ([0228]-[0229], [0098] and [0112]) as taught, by Gulati into Fang in view of Kurokawa invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the apparatus simplifies elimination of data breach using the code signing module with multiple levels of protection to improve information security or data confidentiality.
Regarding claim 14.
Claim 14 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 6 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a sensors, controllers and/or actuators, the prior art of record Fang teaches in Para. [0224].
Regarding claim 15.
Claim 15 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 7 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a sensors, controllers and/or actuators, the prior art of record Fang teaches in Para. [0224].
Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/ 0069745 A1, hereinafter Wang) which discloses in Para. [0011] a base station sensor module comprising a sensor device for collecting the sensor data; an Ethernet communication module comprising an Ethernet communication chip and an Ethernet interface, for communicating with devices in Ethernet via Ethernet standard communication protocols).
Yasay et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0144207 A1, hereinafter Yasay) which discloses in Para. [0025] about each ECU 32 (sometimes referred to as a “zone ECU”) is connected to the sensors installed in a respective zone of the vehicle.
Sikand et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0378707 A1, hereinafter Sikand) which discloses in Para. [0045] and [0056] about the trusted zones and sensors and a security layer to provide at least one trust zone 516; an encryption/decryption channel to transmit and receive data and controls over a secure vehicle control network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights