DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 11/14/2024. Claims 1-5 are pending. Independent claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims are directed towards a method for blockchain-based anonymous authentication for cross-trusted authority in Internet of Vehicles.
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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of the following acronyms is not expanded: [0051] PUF; the specification appears to be erroneously using the term “availability” (See [0011], [0013], [0037], [0041], and [0042]), and believes that it was meant to be “accuracy”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities, shown with suggested amendments: Claim 1 l. 2 “[[its]] features of the method include” for proper antecedent basis; Claim 1 l. 3 “[[the]] a system” as this is the first recitation; Claim 1 l. 4 “domain, and [[A]]a consortium blockchain” for grammar; Claim 1 l. 4, l. 9, l. 10, and l. 14 “Internet of Vehicle” should be “Internet of Vehicles”; Claim 1 l. 5 “[[the]] vehicles” as this is the first recitation; Claim 1 l. 6 “Registering [[the]] vehicles that have , and the roadside units in an onboard unit of the vehicle and [[the]]a roadside unit of the entered trusted authority domain generate corresponding authentication parameters and transmits [[them]] the authentication parameters to the consortium blockchain” for proper first recitation and antecedent basis; Claim 1 ll. 11-12 “The onboard unit and the roadside unit receive and verify the authenticated data, and [[U]]upon successful verification, the onboard unit calculates a session key” for grammar; Claim 1 l. 12 should end with an “; and” as it is the second to last element in a list; Claim 2 l. 2 “is characterized in that the step 2 involves” for grammar; Claim 2 l. 3 “, and [[U]]upon” for grammar; Claim 2 ll. 4-8 “”the respective trusted authority generates registration data for the respective roadside unit, including unique identity data and a private key of the respective roadside unitthe registration data is securely transmitted to the respective roadside unit through a secure channel, and [[U]]upon receiving the registration data, the respective roadside unit verifies the accuracy of the registration dataif verification is successful, the respective roadside unit protects and stores [[its]] secret parameters of the roadside unit based on a physical unclonable function, and completes registration” for proper antecedent basis in-line with 35 U.S.C. § 112 claim construal (see below), proper grammar, assumed misuse of the word “availability” instead of “accuracy”; Claim 3 ll. 2-9 “is characterized in that the step 2respective onboard unit sends [[its]] registration data of the respective onboard unit, including identity data and a first random number, to the respective trusted authority via a secure channel, [[T]]the respective trusted authority verifies the identity data, and generates verification data comprising a second random number and trusted authority signature data, and sends [[it]]the verification data back to the respective onboard unit for accuracy verification through a secure channel, and [[U]]upon successful verification, the respective onboard unit protects and stores the verification data and [[its]] secret parameters of the respective onboard unit based on biometric keys, completing [[the]] registration” for proper antecedent basis in-line with 35 U.S.C. § 112 claim construal (see below), proper grammar, assumed misuse of the word “availability” instead of “accuracy”; Claim 4 ll. 2-9 “in that the step 3 involves: [[The]]A user verifies the identity of the user to log into the onboard unit and retrieve stored secret parameters, [[U]]using the secret parameters, the onboard unit computes a first set of authentication parameters, [[T]]the roadside unit receives the first set of authentication parameters from the onboard unit and computes [[its]] a corresponding second set of authentication parameters, [[B]]both the first and second sets of authentication parameters are sent to the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles via smart contract invocation, and [[T]]the consortium blockchain verifies and signs the first and second sets of authentication parameters, producing authenticated data”, for grammar and proper antecedent basis; Claim 5 l. 2 “characterized in that the step 4 involves” for grammar; and Claim 5 ll. 4-5 “[[T]]the onboard unit verifies the timestamp” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
A determination of a failure to comply with the enablement requirement is made considering the undue experimentation factors set forth in MPEP § 2164.01(a). In the present application, the factors which appear to weigh most heavily are the breadth of the claims (MPEP § 2164.08), the amount of direction provided by the inventor (MPEP § 2164.03). Claim 2 recites “Upon receiving the registration data, the roadside unit verifies its availability”, and Claim 3 recites “generates verification data comprising a second random number and trusted authority signature data, and sends it back to the onboard unit for availability verification through a secure channel” in both cases is unclear what a verification of “availability” is, or the processes required for such verification. [0011], [0013], [0037], [0041], and [0042] are the only instances of the use of the term “availability” and do not provide clarity as they appear to be a form of grammatical error (i.e., use of the term “availability” instead of perhaps the term “accuracy”). The lack of details or examples in more clear detail suggests that there is little direction provided by the inventor. Combined with the broad scope of the claims, this suggests that the enablement of the description is not commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP § 2164.08) and that undue experimentation would be required to make or use the invention based on the disclosure (MPEP § 2164.06). Examiner notes, that should the Applicant amend to change “availability” to “accuracy” or something similar, this would not be considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 l. 3 recites the limitation “Initializing the system, where each trusted authority covers a trusted authority domain, A consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicle is constructed in each trusted authority domain” which is vague and indefinite as there is no prior recitation of a grouping of “trusted” authorities or “trusted authority” domains. For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “Initializing [[the]] a system to include a plurality of trusted authorities, where each trusted authority covers a trusted authority domain of a plurality of trusted authority domains, and [[A]]a consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicle is constructed in each trusted authority domain”.
Claim 1 l. 7 recites the limitation “When a vehicle enters a different trusted authority domain” which is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what makes the “trusted authority domain” “different” as there is no recitation of a prior trusted authority domain. For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “When a vehicle enters a
Claim 2 l. 3 recites the limitation “The roadside unit sends a registration request to the trusted authority” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear as to which “roadside unit” and “trusted authority” is being referenced (see step 2 and 3 for different elements). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “[[The]]A respective roadside unit sends a registration request to [[the]]a respective trusted authority”.
Claim 2 ll. 6-7 recites the limitation “the roadside unit verifies its availability” which is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the “availability” is to be verified, or what is being determined to be available. For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the roadside unit verifies the accuracy of the registration data
Claim 3 ll. 3-4 recites the limitation “The onboard unit sends its registration data, including identity data and a first random number, to the trusted authority” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear as to which “onboard unit” and “trusted authority” is being referenced (see step 2 and 3 for different elements). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “The respective onboard unit sends [[its]] registration data of the respective onboard unit, including identity data and a first random number, to the respective trusted authority”.
Claim 3 ll. 5-7 recites the limitation “generates verification data comprising a second random number and trusted authority signature data, and sends it back to the onboard unit for availability verification through a secure channel” which is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the “availability” is to be verified, or what is being determined to be available. For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “generates verification data comprising a second random number and trusted authority signature data, and sends [[it]]the verification data back to the respective onboard unit for accuracy verification through a secure channel”.
Claim 4 ll. 4-8 recite the limitation “the onboard unit computes authentication parameters, The roadside unit receives these parameters from the onboard unit and computes its corresponding authentication parameters, Both sets of authentication parameters are sent to the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles via smart contract invocation, The consortium blockchain verifies and signs the authentication parameters” of which the term “the authentication parameters” lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which declaration is being referenced (Claim 1 l. 8, Claim 4 l. 4 or Claim 4 l. 6). For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “the onboard unit computes a first set of authentication parameters, The roadside unit receives the first set of authentication parameters from the onboard unit and computes [[its]] a corresponding second set of authentication parameters, Both the first and second sets of authentication parameters are sent to the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles via smart contract invocation, The consortium blockchain verifies and signs the first and second sets of authentication parameters”.
Claim 5 incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, through dependency, and is therefore also rejected.
Examiner’s Note
For the rejections presented below, Examiner has relied upon foreign references that are not in English. In such cases, machine translations are being relied upon, and a copy of each machine translation has been provided along with the foreign reference.
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (CN 112929179B), published Mar. 4, 2022.
As to claim 1, Dong discloses a blockchain-based anonymous authentication method for cross-trusted authority in Internet of Vehicles (Dong [Abstract] Internet of Vehicles (IoV), pg. 6 ¶7 cross-domain authentication between different certificate authorities(CA)s), features of the method include the following steps: Step 1: Initializing a system to include a plurality of trusted authorities (Dong Fig. 2 showing CA1-5; pg. 3 (1) initialization of federation blockchain network for IoV with N CA(s)), where each trusted authority covers a trusted authority domain of a plurality of trusted authority domains (Dong pg. 2 ¶2 cross-domain authentication among different CAs of different manufacturers or organizations having different sets PKI key management systems), and a consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles is constructed in each trusted authority domain with trusted authorities, roadside units, and onboard units as nodes (Dong pg. 3 step (1) initialization of federation blockchain network for IoV with N CA(s) and vehicle networking equipment “Com”; pg. 6 ¶7 CAs as central nodes and vehicle networking equipment as common nodes; pg. 8 ¶2 vehicle networking equipment comprises a vehicle-mounted unit (OBU) and a roadside unit (RSU)); Step 2: Registering vehicles that have onboard units, the and roadside units in respective trusted authorities (Dong pg. 8 step 2 each common node is managed by a central CA node which distributes private key and public key certificates for the managed node); Step 3: When a vehicle enters a trusted authority domain (Dong pg. 9 “Step 3” beginning of common node Com(1,3) communicating with common node Com(4,1); Fig. 2 Com(1,3) and Com(4,1) in different CA domains – indicating cross-domain communication), both an onboard unit of the vehicle and a roadside unit of the entered trusted authority domain (Dong pg. 3 step (1) vehicle networking equipment “Com”; pg. 8 ¶2 vehicle networking equipment comprises a vehicle-mounted unit (OBU) and a roadside unit (RSU) – the communicating Coms can be an OBU and RSU from different CA domains communicating) generate corresponding authentication parameters and transmits the authentication parameters to the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles for signature verification, obtaining authenticated data signed by the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles (Dong pg. 9 step 3 detailing Com(1,3) sending request with signed random number and timestamp to Com(4,1); pg. 9-10 step 4 Com(4,1) verifies signature by checking with nearest CA which checks blockchain and relays hash, which Com(4,1) uses to verify Com(1,3) signature; pg. 12 steps 5-6c Com(4,1) sends similar signed data to Com(1,3) which also checks with nearest CA which checks blockchain and relays hash, which Com(1,3) uses to verify Com(4,1) signature); Step 4: The onboard unit and the roadside unit receive and verify the authenticated data, and upon successful verification (Dong pg. 9-10 step 4 Com(4,1) verifies signature by checking with nearest CA which checks blockchain and relays hash, which Com(4,1) uses to verify Com(1,3) signature; pg. 12 steps 5-6c Com(4,1) sends similar signed data to Com(1,3) which also checks with nearest CA which checks blockchain and relays hash, which Com(1,3) uses to verify Com(4,1) signature), the onboard unit calculates a session key (Dong pg. 12 step 7 Com(1,3) and Com(4,1) calculate common session key); and Step 5: The onboard unit uses the session key to sequentially transmit data with the roadside unit and the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles (Dong pg. 2 ¶1 security of the communication process between different pieces of car networking equipment).
As to claim 5, Dong discloses the invention as claimed as described in claim 1, including wherein step 4 involves: The roadside unit receives the authenticated data, performs timestamp and parameters verification, and sends the authenticated data to the onboard unit upon successful verification, the onboard unit verifies the timestamp and the authenticated data received from the roadside unit subsequently computing the session key (Dong pg. 9 step 3 timestamp is included in initial request by node; pg. 9 step 4a timestamp of request is verified by other node and all messages have validity period; pg. 12 step 5 other node does the same by sending timestamp which is verified in step 6a; pg. 12 step 7 Com(1,3) and Com(4,1) calculate common session key).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (CN 112929179B), published Mar. 4, 2022, in view of Lindskog et al. (US 2024/0275617 A1), published Aug. 15, 2024.
As to claim 2, Dong substantially discloses the invention as claimed as described in claim 1, including a blockchain-based anonymous authentication method for cross-trusted authority in Internet of Vehicles is characterized in that the step 2 involves: A respective roadside unit sends a registration request to a respective trusted authority, and upon receiving the request, the respective trusted authority generates registration data for the respective roadside unit, including unique identity data and a private key of the respective roadside unit (Dong pg. 4 step 2 CA generates private key and public key certificate for common nodes based on their identity, and distributes to the common node), the registration data is securely transmitted to the respective roadside unit through a secure channel (Dong pg. 2 prior to communication key agreement is made between pieces of networking equipment – for securing channel; pg. 12 step 7 showing session key), and upon receiving the registration data, the respective roadside unit verifies the accuracy of the registration data (Dong pg. 9-10 verification of signature), if verification is successful, the respective roadside unit stores the secret parameters of the roadside unit, and completes registration (Dong pg. 4 step 2 CA generates private key and public key certificate for common nodes based on their identity, and distributes to the common node – indicates storage at RSU). Dong fails to explicitly disclose making use of a PUF to store data. Lindskog is related to using a physically unclonable function (PUF) for data encryption/decryption. With this in mind, Lindskog discloses making use of a PUF to store data (Lindskog [0016] using a PUF to generate a data encryption key to use to encrypt/decrypt data to be stored). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the PUF data encryption of Lindskog with the IoV network of Dong, such that secret data (such as a private key) is stored encrypted using a PUF generated key, as it would advantageously provide data security using a key that is unclonable by an adversary (Lindskog [0002]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (CN 112929179B), published Mar. 4, 2022, in view of Jobmann (US 2009/0183008 A1), published Jul. 16, 2009.
As to claim 3, Dong substantially discloses the invention as claimed as described in claim 1, including a blockchain-based anonymous authentication method for cross-trusted authority in Internet of Vehicles is characterized in that the step 2 involves: The respective onboard unit sends registration data of the respective onboard unit, including identity data and a first random number, to the respective trusted authority via a secure channel, the respective trusted authority verifies the identity data, and generates verification data comprising a second random number and trusted authority signature data, and sends the verification data back to the respective onboard unit for accuracy verification through a secure channel, and upon successful verification, the respective onboard unit stores the verification data and secret parameters of the respective onboard unit, completing registration (Dong pg. 4 step 3 ¶2 similar process occurring between common nodes to establish communication, random number and public key certificate with signature are sent to establish communication, which is verified by target; pg. 5 step 5 ¶2 target does the same in return to sender (sends random number, public key cert and signature which is verified)). Dong fails to explicitly disclose protecting and storing data using biometric keys. Jobmann describes an identity authentication and secured access system. With this in mind, Jobmann discloses protecting and storing data using biometric keys (Jobmann Fig. 6 608-610; [0073] encrypting stored data using key generated from biometric identifier). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the biometric access control of Jobmann with the IoV network of Dong, such that sensitive data on the onboard unit is controlled using a biometric access key, as it would advantageously prevent access to secured data using identity theft (Jobmann [0003]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (CN 112929179B), published Mar. 4, 2022, in view of Cardoso de Moura et al. (US 2018/0109399 A1), published Apr. 19, 2018, hereinafter referred to as Cardoso, in view of Androulaki et al. (US 10,936,552 B2), issued Mar. 2, 2021.
As to claim 4, Dong substantially discloses the invention as claimed as described in claim 1, including a blockchain-based anonymous authentication method for cross-trusted authority in Internet of Vehicles is characterized in that the step 3 involves: An onboard unit retrieving stored secret parameters, using the secret parameters, the onboard unit computes a first set of authentication parameters, the roadside unit receives the first set of authentication parameters from the onboard unit and computes a corresponding second set of authentication parameters, both the first and second sets of authentication parameters are sent to the consortium blockchain of the Internet of Vehicles (Dong see above detailed process of common nodes verifying each other using nearest CAs), and the consortium blockchain verifies and signs the first and second sets of authentication parameters, producing authenticated data (Dong pg. 2 ¶1 security of the communication process between different pieces of car networking equipment; pg. 2 ¶2 signature of trusted center – trusted center signing data for purposes of authentication by recipients). Dong fails to explicitly disclose a user verifying the identity of a user to an onboard unit, and sending data to a blockchain via a smart contract invocation. Cardoso describes a passenger load management based on hotspot utilization. With this in mind, Cardoso discloses user verifying the identity of a user to an onboard unit (Cardoso [0166] user login to OBU of vehicle for wireless session). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the user OBU login on Cardoso with the IoV network of Dong, such that a user must login to an OBU prior to accessing the IoV network, as it would advantageously allow for efficient power utilization of various components of the IoV network infrastructure (Cardoso [0022]-[0023]). Dong and Cardoso fail to explicitly disclose sending data to a blockchain via a smart contract invocation. Androulaki describes a method of performing bilateral negotiations on a blockchain. With this in mind, Androulaki discloses sending data to a blockchain via a smart contract invocation (Androulaki col. 7 ll. 1-6 using smart contraction function invocation to store proposal as part of a blockchain transaction). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the smart contract storage invocation of Androulaki with the IoV network blockchain of Dong and Cardoso, such that a smart contract is invoked to store data on the blockchain, as it would advantageously automate the process of storing data and removing the need for intermediaries (a feature of using smart contracts for data management in blockchain).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., “A Blockchain-Based Multi-CA Cross-Domain Authentication Scheme in Decentralized Autonomous Network” is related to cross-domain authentication, but is lacking in vehicles and roadside equipment.
Zhang et al., “Cross-domain Identity Authentication in IoV”, is related to cross-domain authentication of vehicles, but is lacking in teaching a trust authority per domain.
Liu et al., “Research on A Cross-Domain Authentication Scheme Based on Consortium Blockchain in V2G Networks of Smart Grid” is related to cross-domain authentication of vehicles using a consortium blockchain with a certificate authority per domain, but is lacking in teaching roadside units and generation of a session key based on vehicle and roadside unit authentication parameters.
Yang et al., “A Blockchain-Based Multidomain Authentication Scheme for Conditional Privacy Preserving in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Network”, is related to cross-domain authentication, with multiple domains, roadside units (RSUs), however, there is a singular trusted authority responsible for the RSUs.
Zhou et al. (US 2023/0113612 A1) is related to using a PUF for authentication in an IoV.
Wang et al. (CN 116566581 B) is related to vehicle networking cross-domain switching authentication based on blockchain.
Zhao et al. (CN 116260592 B) is related to a cross-domain authentication method of upper and lower integrated vehicle network based on union blockchain.
Zheng et al. (CN 110446183 B) is related to a vehicle network system based on block chain and working method.
Yin et al. (CN 110855670 A) is related to a method suitable for vehicle-mounted group message broadcast and a security authentication trusted network.
Xie et al. (CN 118611860 A) is related to a cross-trusted center identity authentication and message issuing method based on an editable blockchain.
Zhao et al. (CN 121194175 A) is related to vehicle networking identity authentication based on blockchain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, EST.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
/Eric W Shepperd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights