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 Objection
Claim 1 is objected as it recites “calculating, by one or more processors of an infrastructure system, a first checksum value based on an infrastructure-side secret key and encoded data associated with the automated vehicle located within a distance-related threshold from the infrastructure system;” as recited it is not clear how infrastructure system gets the data associated with the automated vehicle.
Claim 1 is objected as it recites “transmitting, to the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a second checksum value based on the first checksum value; receiving, from the automated vehicle, one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”. As recited the claim does not clarify whether automated vehicle receives transmuted second checksum and what is the function of second checksum. Also, the claim just recites “in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”, but does not clarify how this verification is done and what is its outcome.
Calim1 is further objected as it recites “transmitting, to the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a second checksum value based on the first checksum value; receiving, from the automated vehicle, one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”. As recited the claim does not clarify whether automated vehicle receives transmuted second checksum and what is the function of second checksum. Also, the claim just recites “in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”, but does not clarify how this verification is done and what is its outcome.
Claim 1 is further objected as it recites “decoding the one or more vehicle marshaling messages,”. As recited, there is seems to be a typo as the limitation uses “,” at the end instead of “;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected as it recites “receiving, at a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a first checksum value in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system.” The recitation “in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system”. As recited it is not clear how infrastructure system detects/sense the presence of the automated vehicle prior to sending the response.
Claim 11 is further objected as it recites “receiving, at a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a first checksum value in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system; verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages; calculating, by one or more processors of the vehicle processing system, a second checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages.” As recited the claim does not clarify whether automated vehicle receives transmitted second checksum and claim does not clarify use of second checksum. This claim also does not clarify how the automated verifies the infrastructure marshaling messages and what is the function of second checksum. Also, the claim just recites “in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”, but does not clarify how this verification is done and what is its outcome.
Claim 20 is objected as it recites “one or more processors of an infrastructure system configured to: calculate a first checksum value based on an infrastructure-side secret key and encoded data associated with the automated vehicle located within a distance-related threshold from the infrastructure system,
transmit one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a second checksum value based on the first checksum value, receive one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the vehicle verifying the second checksum value,
verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages;
and a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle configured to: receive the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages,
verify the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages,
calculate the third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages,
and transmit the one or more vehicle marshaling messages.” As recited limitations are separated by “,” instead of “;”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 20 is further objected as it recites “receive one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the vehicle verifying the second checksum value, verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages; As shown above claim 20 recites “in response to the vehicle verifying the second checksum value, verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages.”; it Is not clear how the system (automated vehicle) verifies second checksum and it is also not clear how system verifies vehicle marshaling messages and relevant paragraphs of specification also does not clarify how these verification are done.
Claim 20 is further objected as it recites “a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle configured to: receive the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, verify the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”; it is not clear it is also not clear how system verifies infrastructure marshaling messages. Moreover, why system has to check second checksum separately as system verifies the infrastructure marshaling messages as these messages also includes second checksum.
Claim 20 is further objected as it recites “calculate the third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”; and it is not clear what the system does Claim 20 is further objected as it recites with the calculated third checksum.
Claim 20 is further objected as it recites “transmit the one or more vehicle marshaling messages”, and as this limitation does not mention inclusion of third checksum.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 112b as it recites the limitations “calculating, by one or more processors of an infrastructure system, a first checksum value based on an infrastructure-side secret key and encoded data associated with the automated vehicle located within a distance-related threshold from the infrastructure system;” as recited it is not clear how infrastructure system gets the data associated with the automated vehicle.
Claim 1 is rejected under 112b as it recites the limitations “transmitting, to the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a second checksum value based on the first checksum value; receiving, from the automated vehicle, one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”. As recited the claim does not clarify whether automated vehicle receives transmuted second checksum and what is the function of second checksum. Also, the claim just recites “in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”, but does not clarify how this verification is done and what is its outcome.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 112b due to their dependencies on claim 1.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 112b as it recites “receiving, at a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a first checksum value in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system.” The recitation “in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system”. As recited it is not clear how infrastructure system detects/sense the presence of the automated vehicle prior to sending the response.
Claim 11 is further rejected under 112b as it recites “receiving, at a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a first checksum value in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system; verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages; calculating, by one or more processors of the vehicle processing system, a second checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages.” As recited the claim does not clarify whether automated vehicle receives transmitted second checksum and claim does not clarify use of second checksum. This claim also does not clarify how the automated verifies the infrastructure marshaling messages and what is the function of second checksum. Also, the claim just recites “in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”, but does not clarify how this verification is done and what is its outcome.
Claims 12-19 are also rejected under 112b due to their dependencies on claim 11.
Claim 20 is rejected under 112b as it recites “calculate a first checksum value based on an infrastructure-side secret key and encoded data associated with the automated vehicle located within a distance-related threshold from the infrastructure system”; as recited it is not clear how infrastructure system gets the data associated with the automated vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 112b as it recites “receive one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the vehicle verifying the second checksum value, verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages; As shown above claim 20 recites “in response to the vehicle verifying the second checksum value, verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages.”; it Is not clear how the system (automated vehicle) verifies second checksum and it is also not clear how system verifies vehicle marshaling messages and relevant paragraphs of specification also does not clarify how these verification are done.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 112b as it recites “a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle configured to: receive the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, verify the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”; it is not clear it is also not clear how system verifies infrastructure marshaling messages. Moreover, why system has to check second checksum separately as system verifies the infrastructure marshaling messages as these messages also includes second checksum.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 112b as it recites “calculate the third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages”; and it is not clear what the system does Claim 20 is further objected as it recites with the calculated third checksum.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 112b as it recites “transmit the one or more vehicle marshaling messages”, and as this limitation does not mention inclusion of the third checksum.
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
Claims 1, & 3-5, 10-11,13-15 & 20. are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jiping (LU507102B1-Original in English is attached) in view of Jung (US11405208B2)
Regarding claim 1, Jiping teaches a method for initiating autonomous control of an automated vehicle, the method comprising: calculating, by one or more processors of an infrastructure system, a first checksum value based on an infrastructure-side secret key and data associated with the automated vehicle located within a distance-related threshold from the infrastructure system; [please see page 08, paragraphs 4th-6th:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmitting, to the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a second checksum value based on the first checksum value; [please see page 10, first paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
]
receiving, from the automated vehicle, one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the automated vehicle verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages; and verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages, wherein the verification of the one or more vehicle marshaling messages includes: the one or more vehicle marshaling messages, calculating a fourth checksum value based on the vehicle-side secret key in response to the one or more vehicle marshaling messages, and determining whether the fourth checksum value corresponds to the third checksum value. [please see page 10, first and second paragraphs:
PNG
media_image3.png
412
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
]
Although, Jiping teaches checking checksum/timestamp, he does not teach explicitly, however, Jung (US11405208B2) teaches encoding and decoding of messages, [[Col 1 & 2, Lines 60-68 & 01-30 respectively]: The present disclosure provides a security communication method of a client electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes transmitting a first message generated based on a first random number generated by the client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with a server ECU, to the server ECU, receiving a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key in response to the first message, from the server ECU, when successfully verifying the second message, storing the second random number in a memory of the client ECU, transmitting a third message to the server ECU and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, and transmitting a fourth message encrypted using the session key to the server ECU. In another aspect of the present disclosure, a security communication method of a server electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes receiving a first message generated based on a first random number generated by a client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with the server ECU, from the client ECU, when successfully verifying the first message, storing the first random number, transmitting a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key, to the client ECU, and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, receiving a third message from the client EU in response to the second message, and after receiving the third message, when receiving a fourth message from the client ECU, decoding the fourth message based on the session key.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jiping with the disclosure of Jung. The motivation or suggestion would have been to implement a system that will provide efficient and improved techniques for secure communications between a vehicle and an infrastructure/server. (Col 01, lines 15-55, Jung)
Regarding claim 3, Jiping teaches calculating the second checksum value based on a transformation constant. [please see page 10, first paragraph:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
]
Regarding claim 4, Jiping teaches wherein the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages further includes the encoded data associated with the automated vehicle, a data length associated with the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, or a combination thereof. [please see page 10, first paragraph:
PNG
media_image5.png
284
959
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jiping does not teach explicitly, however, Jung teaches encoded data [[Col 1 & 2, Lines 60-68 & 01-30 respectively]: The present disclosure provides a security communication method of a client electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes transmitting a first message generated based on a first random number generated by the client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with a server ECU, to the server ECU, receiving a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key in response to the first message, from the server ECU, when successfully verifying the second message, storing the second random number in a memory of the client ECU, transmitting a third message to the server ECU and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, and transmitting a fourth message encrypted using the session key to the server ECU.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jiping with the disclosure of Jung. The motivation or suggestion would have been to implement a system that will provide efficient and improved techniques for secure communications between a vehicle and an infrastructure/server. (Col 01, lines 15-55, Jung)
Regarding claim 5, Jiping teaches wherein the one or more vehicle marshaling messages further includes the data associated with the automated vehicle, a data length associated with the one or more vehicle marshaling messages, or a combination thereof. [please see page 8, paragraph 5th:
PNG
media_image6.png
104
654
media_image6.png
Greyscale
]
Jiping does not teach explicitly, however, Jung teaches encoded data [[Col 1 & 2, Lines 60-68 & 01-30 respectively]: The present disclosure provides a security communication method of a client electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes transmitting a first message generated based on a first random number generated by the client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with a server ECU, to the server ECU, receiving a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key in response to the first message, from the server ECU, when successfully verifying the second message, storing the second random number in a memory of the client ECU, transmitting a third message to the server ECU and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, and transmitting a fourth message encrypted using the session key to the server ECU.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jiping with the disclosure of Jung. The motivation or suggestion would have been to implement a system that will provide efficient and improved techniques for secure communications between a vehicle and an infrastructure/server. (Col 01, lines 15-55, Jung)
Regarding claim 10, Jiping teaches establishing a communication link between the automated vehicle and the infrastructure system based on successfully determining that the fourth checksum value corresponds to the third checksum value. [pleases see page 10, paragraph 2nd:
PNG
media_image7.png
226
602
media_image7.png
Greyscale
]
Regarding claim 11, Jiping teaches:
a method for initiating autonomous control of an automated vehicle, the method comprising: receiving, at a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle, one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a first checksum value in response to the automated vehicle being located within a distance-related threshold from an infrastructure system; verifying the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages; calculating, by one or more processors of the vehicle processing system, a second checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages; [please see page 08, paragraphs 4th-6th:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmitting, to the infrastructure system, one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on the second checksum value; [please see page 10, first paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
]
wherein the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages includes: decoding the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, calculating a fourth checksum value based on the infrastructure-side secret key in response to decoding the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, and determining whether the fourth checksum value corresponds to the first checksum value. [please see page 10, first and second paragraphs:
PNG
media_image3.png
412
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
]
Regarding claim 13, Jiping teaches calculating the third checksum value based on a transformation constant. [please see page 10, first paragraph:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
]
Regarding claim 14, Jiping teaches wherein the one or more vehicle marshaling messages further includes the encoded data associated with the automated vehicle, a data length associated with the one or more vehicle marshaling messages, or a combination thereof. [please see page 10, first paragraph:
PNG
media_image5.png
284
959
media_image5.png
Greyscale
]
However, Jiping does not teach explicitly, however, Jung teaches encoded data [[Col 1 & 2, Lines 60-68 & 01-30 respectively]: The present disclosure provides a security communication method of a client electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes transmitting a first message generated based on a first random number generated by the client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with a server ECU, to the server ECU, receiving a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key in response to the first message, from the server ECU, when successfully verifying the second message, storing the second random number in a memory of the client ECU, transmitting a third message to the server ECU and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, and transmitting a fourth message encrypted using the session key to the server ECU.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jiping with the disclosure of Jung. The motivation or suggestion would have been to implement a system that will provide efficient and improved techniques for secure communications between a vehicle and an infrastructure/server. (Col 01, lines 15-55, Jung)
Regarding claim 15, Jiping wherein the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages further includes the encoded data associated with the automated vehicle, a data length associated with the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, or a combination thereof. [please see page 8, paragraph 5th:
PNG
media_image8.png
155
975
media_image8.png
Greyscale
]
Jiping does not teach explicitly, however, Jung teaches encoded data [[Col 1 & 2, Lines 60-68 & 01-30 respectively]: The present disclosure provides a security communication method of a client electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes transmitting a first message generated based on a first random number generated by the client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with a server ECU, to the server ECU, receiving a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key in response to the first message, from the server ECU, when successfully verifying the second message, storing the second random number in a memory of the client ECU, transmitting a third message to the server ECU and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, and transmitting a fourth message encrypted using the session key to the server ECU.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jiping with the disclosure of Jung. The motivation or suggestion would have been to implement a system that will provide efficient and improved techniques for secure communications between a vehicle and an infrastructure/server. (Col 01, lines 15-55, Jung
Regarding claim 20, Jiping teaches:
a system for initiating autonomous control of an automated vehicle, the system comprising: one or more processors of an infrastructure system configured to: calculate a first checksum value based on an infrastructure-side secret key and encoded data associated with the automated vehicle located within a distance-related threshold from the infrastructure system, [please see page 10, paras 4th-6th:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
]
transmit one or more infrastructure marshaling messages that includes a second checksum value based on the first checksum value, [please see page 10, first para:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
]
receive one or more vehicle marshaling messages that includes a third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key in response to the vehicle verifying the second checksum value, verifying the one or more vehicle marshaling messages; [please see page 10, first and second paragraphs:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
]
a vehicle processing system of the automated vehicle configured to: receive the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, verify the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, calculate the third checksum value based on a vehicle-side secret key and encoded data associated with the infrastructure system in response to the verification of the one or more infrastructure marshaling messages, and transmit the one or more vehicle marshaling messages. [please see page 10, first and second paragraphs:
PNG
media_image3.png
412
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although, Jiping teaches checking checksum/timestamp, he does not teach explicitly, however, Jung (US11405208B2) teaches encoding and decoding of messages, [[Col 1 & 2, Lines 60-68 & 01-30 respectively]: The present disclosure provides a security communication method of a client electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes transmitting a first message generated based on a first random number generated by the client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with a server ECU, to the server ECU, receiving a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key in response to the first message, from the server ECU, when successfully verifying the second message, storing the second random number in a memory of the client ECU, transmitting a third message to the server ECU and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, and transmitting a fourth message encrypted using the session key to the server ECU. In another aspect of the present disclosure, a security communication method of a server electronic control unit (ECU) included in a vehicle Ethernet network includes receiving a first message generated based on a first random number generated by a client ECU, first security version information of the client ECU, and a symmetric key pre-shared with the server ECU, from the client ECU, when successfully verifying the first message, storing the first random number, transmitting a second message generated based on a second random number generated by the server ECU, second security version information of the server ECU, and the symmetric key, to the client ECU, and generating a session key based on the first random number, the second random number, and the symmetric key, receiving a third message from the client EU in response to the second message, and after receiving the third message, when receiving a fourth message from the client ECU, decoding the fourth message based on the session key.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jiping with the disclosure of Jung. The motivation or suggestion would have been to implement a system that will provide efficient and improved techniques for secure communications between a vehicle and an infrastructure/server. (Col 01, lines 15-55, Jung)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 6-9, 12 & 16-19 are objected and would become allowable if their laminations are fully incorporated into their respective base claims (claim 1 & claim 11) and as well as their base claims are rewritten to overcome claim objections and rejects 112b issued for them in this instant office action without broadening their scope.
Reasons allowance will be provided when the Applicant responds officially and the response overcome all claim objections and rejections 112b and place these claims in allowable conditions.
Examiner’s Note: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant to applicant's disclosure are followings:
1. Song (CN 114339680 A-English translated copy and original attached), discloses the invention relates to vehicle network communication technology safety, claims a V2X system and a safety authentication method, wherein the safety certificate management module safety with the safety the safety data and corresponding operation function, the safety certificate management module performs data interaction with the safety service interface module, the safety service interface module stores the safety, safety and calculation function, the safety certificate management module safety the safety safety checking and updating the operation function; the safety data safety module invokes the encryption or decryption of the application message by the corresponding operation function of the safety safety The method realizes the safety authentication flow between the road side device and the vehicle-mounted device in the V2X system, the safety communication flow provides feasible actual operation method and safety for the safety communication of the V2X communication system.
2. Naim (US 20160330032 A1), teaches a method of transmitting data within a vehicle includes: storing two copies of a data message; constructing at an electronic control unit (ECU) a serial bus message that includes one copy of the data message and a message authentication code (MAC) created using a secret key stored at the ECU, a MAC algorithm, and a different copy of the data message; transmitting the serial bus message to a receiving ECU over a vehicle bus; authenticating the serial bus message at the receiving ECU using a copy of the key stored at the receiving ECU by creating a copy of the MAC from the data message included in the serial bus message and the copy of the key; comparing the MAC from the serial bus message with the copy of the MAC created at the receiving ECU; and rejecting or accepting the data message based on the comparison.
3. Bandi (US 20240182070 A1) describes a method includes calculating, by a vehicle system, a pose information for a vehicle having the vehicle system, determining, by the vehicle system, whether the calculated pose information matches that of a vehicle pose information received from an infrastructure system, updating, by the vehicle system, a current pose of the vehicle based on the calculated pose information, transmitting, by the vehicle system, a notification regarding the inaccurate pose information to the infrastructure system, and controlling, by the vehicle system, movement of the vehicle based on a stored marshaling route until a stop condition is satisfied.
4. Lim (US 20240051571 A1) narrates an embodiment system for verifying sensor data of an autonomous vehicle includes an autonomous driving sensor controller configured to generate a first message authentication code (MAC) of a sensor data packet by using a secret key and an autonomous driving controller configured to generate a second MAC of the sensor data packet by using the secret key and compare the first MAC of the sensor data packet received from the autonomous driving sensor controller with the second MAC of the sensor data packet generated by the autonomous driving controller to verify integrity of the sensor data packet.
5. Hess (US 20240386514 A1,) teaches a method for identifying a motor vehicle, in particular AVP motor vehicle. The method includes: agreeing on a common secret by an infrastructure-side system, in particular AVP system, of an infrastructure, in particular of a parking lot, with a motor-vehicle-side system, in particular AVP system, of the motor vehicle; ascertaining a first code on the basis of the common secret using a predetermined ascertainment rule by means of the infrastructure-side system; detecting a signal which was emitted from a motor vehicle located within the infrastructure and transmits a second code, by means of the infrastructure-side system; comparing the second code to the first code by means of the infrastructure-side system in order to identify the motor vehicle emitting the signal as the one motor vehicle with the motor-vehicle-side system of which the common secret has been agreed.
Special Note: Although few prior are mentioned above, in fact, the prior arts made of record and listed on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHER KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8574. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday-8:00am - 5:00pm (EST).If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHER A KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights