DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application with case number 18/952,608 filed on 11/19/2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0171459, filed on 11/30/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/19/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claim(s) 1-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
8. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
9. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are directed to an apparatus.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-8 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
10. Claim(s) 9-15 is/are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
Therefore, claim(s) 9-15 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
11. Claim(s) 16-20 is/are directed to a computer-readable recording medium.
The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that a computer-readable recording medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as Applicant’s claimed a computer-readable recording medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuijten’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”) Therefore, claim(s) 16-20 is/are not within at least one of the four statutory categories and the claim is not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
12. Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
13. Independent claim(s) 1, 9 and 16 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a communication device;
a memory configured to store instructions and a mapping table regarding a source address; and
a control device operatively connected to the communication device and the memory,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to
receive, via the communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device,
determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, based on a comparison result between the request signal, identification information of the at least one external device, and the mapping table [mental process/step], and
transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device when transmission of the diagnostic information is determined to be acceptable.
14. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers steps that could be carried out in the human mind. For example, “determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable ...” step(s) encompass(es) a user making observation, evaluation or judgement about accepting or denying a communication request based on a list of allowed addresses, could all be carried out in one’s mind. The same user looking at the data collected, could form a simple judgement and conclude whether allow or deny the request. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
15. Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
16. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a communication device [insignificant extra-solution activity 2106.05(g)];
a memory configured to store instructions and a mapping table regarding a source address [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)]; and
a control device operatively connected to the communication device and the memory [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)],
wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)]
receive, via the communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g)],
determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, based on a comparison result between the request signal, identification information of the at least one external device, and the mapping table [mental process/step], and
transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device when transmission of the diagnostic information is determined to be acceptable [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)].
17. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
18. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a memory configured to store instructions and a mapping table regarding a source address” “a control device operatively connected to the communication device and the memory” and “wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to” the Examiner submits that these limitation(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating, detecting and predicting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The “a memory configured to store instructions and a mapping table regarding a source address” “a control device operatively connected to the communication device and the memory” and “wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to” limitations are claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
19. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a communication device,” “receive, via the communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device,” and “transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device when transmission of the diagnostic information is determined to be acceptable” the examiner submits that this/these limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “receive, via the communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device” step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device when transmission of the diagnostic information is determined to be acceptable” step(s) is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
20. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
21. Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a memory configured to store instructions and a mapping table regarding a source address” “a control device operatively connected to the communication device and the memory” and “wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to” using a vehicle controller to perform the evaluation amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, in regard to the additional limitations of “a communication device,” “receive, via the communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device,” and “transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device when transmission of the diagnostic information is determined to be acceptable” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
22. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation(s) of “a communication device” is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. According to relevant paragraph [0004] of Applicant’s specification: “at least one communication device (e.g., OBD-II) configured to transmit diagnostic information for diagnosing the performance or failure of the vehicle to an external device may be included in the vehicle.” Examiner notes, in 1996, the OBD-II specification was made mandatory for all cars sold in the United States (Non-patent Literature Wikipedia - On-board diagnostics). As such, “a communication device” is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
23. As established above claim 1 is representative of all independent claims and therefore claim(s) 9, and 16 is/are rejected for the same reason.
24. Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 does/do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
25. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
26. 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.
127. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US-20200396318-A1) in view of Bonnah et al. (US-20220070761-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Jung discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising (See at least Fig. 1, [0041]: an Ethernet ECU 300 [i.e., a vehicle control apparatus] includes a CAN diagnostic device 200):
a communication device (See at least [0048]: the communication device [i.e., a communication device] of the controller includes at least one processor);
a memory configured to store instructions and (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller includes at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory in which the program is stored [i.e., a memory configured to store instructions]); and
a control device operatively connected to the communication device and the memory (See at least Fig. 2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller include at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory [i.e., the memory] in which the program is stored. Examiner notes, executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 means the communication device and the ethernet ECUs are operatively connected),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller include at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory in which the program is stored)
receive, via the communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device (See at least [0005 & 0015]: vehicles are equipped with a central gateway that manages various communication protocols. The ethernet ECU is configured to receive a diagnostic information request [i.e., a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle] and an attribute information from the diagnostic device [i.e., at least one external device] and provide a diagnostic message to the diagnostic device. Examiner notes, the vehicle which includes the ethernet ECU is the host vehicle),
transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device when transmission of the diagnostic information is determined to be acceptable (See at least [0043 & 0052]: when the Ethernet ECU 300 transmits data exceeding 8 bytes, the gateway 100 cannot process the data, and thus the diagnostic session is terminated because the data does not reach the CAN diagnostic device 200. If it is confirmed that the data is a CAN protocol including PCI, the Ethernet ECU transmits a diagnostic message by performing TP processing to fit the frame of the CAN diagnostic device [i.e., transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device]. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the response is transmitted when it is confirmed the protocol is a CAN protocol which is determining that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable).
Jung is silent on a mapping table regarding a source address,
determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, based on a comparison result between the request signal, identification information of the at least one external device, and the mapping table;
However, Bonnah teaches data and connectivity management systems and methods thereof that is implemented on a vehicle or remote system. The storage device stores an allow list 1104 [i.e., a mapping table regarding a source address]. The allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names, associated IP addresses, and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like. An access manager provides access for applications, data and web services, those of which are within a specified list of applications or a set of URLs that are included within the allow list 1104 and/or the whitelist. At block 1302 the vehicle receives an application data access request from at least one of an in-vehicle device and a portable device [i.e., at least one external device]. The method proceeds to block 1304 which includes retrieving and analyzing an electronically stored allow list 1104 that is stored and updated based on a data plan that is associated with the vehicle 100. The method proceeds to block 1306 which includes determining accessibility [i.e., determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable] of the application based on analysis of the allow list (See at least Figs. 11, 13, and [0031 & 0132-0133 & 0176]). Examiner notes, determining accessibility necessarily includes comparison between the request signal and the stored allow list.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, by incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that an allow list is used to accept or terminate a connection from another device and when a request for accessing diagnostic data is received, the allow list is used to allow or deny the request and transmit the requested data only when transmission is acceptable.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Bonnah, to provide a more robust design that allows data access services at a cost reduction (See at least [0033]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows to prevent unauthorized access to the vehicle data.
In regard to claim 2
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mapping table includes:
data identifier (DID) corresponding to pieces of data including the diagnostic information;
whether to allow a full client read for each of the pieces of data; and
an allowed source address capable of transmitting the diagnostic information if the full client read is not allowed.
Further, Bonnah teaches However, Bonnah teaches the storage device stores an allow list 1104 [i.e., the mapping table]. The allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names [i.e., data identifier (DID)], associated IP addresses [i.e., an allowed source address], and associated permissions to allow access [i.e., whether to allow a full client read for each of the pieces of data] to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like (See at least Fig. 11, and [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by further incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the application name, associated IP addresses and associated permissions to allow access are included in the allow list.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 3
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller include at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory in which the program is stored):
determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table, whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read; and
determine that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, and transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device, in response to determining that the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing the full client read.
Further, Bonnah teaches other devices within the vehicle 100 include, driver devices 104A, 104B and passenger devices (portable devices) 104D, 104E and 104F [i.e., external device], each of which communicates with the VAN 102. If the user attempts to utilize one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C through the head unit 104A or rear entertainment system 104B of the vehicle 100 and/or through one or more portable devices 104D, 104E, and 104F that are connected to the vehicle 100 through a hot spot connection provided through the hot spot service manager 1118, the app service manager 1116 is configured to access the data manager 1102 to analyze the allow list 1104 [i.e., the mapping table] to determine if the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C selected by the user are included within the allow list. The app service manager 1116 accesses and analyze the allow list 1104 to determine if the one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C that is included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table] with permissions to allow access to the one or more vehicle applications [i.e., determining that the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing the full client read]. If it is determined that one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C is included within the allow list 1104 with permissions to allow access to the one or more vehicle applications, the app service manager 1116 is configured to communicate respective data [i.e., transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device] (See at least Fig. 12, and [0041 & 0155-0158]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by further incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the Application name and the access permission of the application are checked and communication is only allowed when the application has permission to access the data on the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 4
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller include at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory in which the program is stored):
determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table, whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read; and
identify, based on at least part of pieces of information included in the request signal, the identification information of the at least one external device in response to determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read.
Further, Bonnah teaches other devices within the vehicle 100 include, driver devices 104A, 104B and passenger devices (portable devices) 104D, 104E and 104F [i.e., external device], each of which communicates with the VAN 102. If the user attempts to utilize one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C through the head unit 104A or rear entertainment system 104B of the vehicle 100 and/or through one or more portable devices 104D, 104E, and 104F that are connected to the vehicle 100 through a hot spot connection provided through the hot spot service manager 1118, the app service manager 1116 is configured to access the data manager 1102 to analyze the allow list 1104 [i.e., the mapping table] to determine if the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C selected by the user are included within the allow list. The app service manager 1116 accesses and analyze the allow list 1104 to determine if the one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C that is included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table] with permissions to allow access to the one or more vehicle applications [i.e., whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read]. It is determined that the particular application inputted by the user [i.e., identify, based on at least part of pieces of information included in the request signal] is or is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 to thereby determine if the application is allowed or not allowed [i.e., determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read]. If it is determined that the particular application inputted by the user is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104, the router application 304 determines that the particular application is not allowed (See at least Fig. 12, and [0041 & 155-0158 & 0165-0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by further incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the Application name and the access permission of the application are checked and communication is not allowed when the application does not have permission to access the data on the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 5
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller include at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory in which the program is stored):
determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table, whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read;
determine, based on the mapping table, whether the identification information of the at least one external device is included in an allowed source address, in response to determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read; and
determine that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, and transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device, in response to determining that the identification information is included in the allowed source address.
Further, Bonnah teaches other devices within the vehicle 100 include, driver devices 104A, 104B and passenger devices (portable devices) 104D, 104E and 104F [i.e., external device], each of which communicates with the VAN 102. If the user attempts to utilize one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C through the head unit 104A or rear entertainment system 104B of the vehicle 100 and/or through one or more portable devices 104D, 104E, and 104F that are connected to the vehicle 100 through a hot spot connection provided through the hot spot service manager 1118, the app service manager 1116 is configured to access the data manager 1102 to analyze the allow list 1104 [i.e., the mapping table] to determine if the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C selected by the user are included within the allow list. The allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names, associated IP addresses, and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like. The app service manager 1116 accesses and analyze the allow list 1104 to determine if the one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C that is included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table] with permissions to allow access to the one or more vehicle applications [i.e., whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read]. It is determined that the particular application inputted by the user is or is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 to thereby determine if the application is allowed or not allowed. If it is determined that the particular application [i.e., identification information] inputted by the user is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., in response to determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read], the router application 304 determines that the particular application is not allowed (See at least Figs. 4, 12, and [0041& 0155-0158 & 0165-0166]). Examiner notes, As mentioned above, the allowed list includes application names, associated IP addresses, and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications. That means, the permission can grant full access or limited access to the data. As such, when the associated IP of an application is in the allowed list, the data access is limited based on the associated permissions. Allowing limited access based on the associated permission encompasses the scenario of determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read and transmitting the diagnostic information to the at least one external device, in response to determining that the identification information is included in the allowed source address.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by further incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the Application name, associated IP, and the associated access permission of the application are checked and data access is limited based on the associated access permission and then the limited data is transmitted to the portable devices.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 6
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0048]: the communication device of the controller include at least one processor for executing a program related to the operation of the ethernet ECUs 301 and 302 and at least one memory in which the program is stored):
determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table, whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read;
determine, based on the mapping table, whether the identification information of the at least one external device is included in an allowed source address, in response to determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read; and
determine that transmission of the diagnostic information is not acceptable, and not transmit the diagnostic information, in response to determining that the identification information is not included in the allowed source address.
Further, Bonnah teaches other devices within the vehicle 100 include, driver devices 104A, 104B and passenger devices (portable devices) 104D, 104E and 104F [i.e., external device], each of which communicates with the VAN 102. If the user attempts to utilize one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C through the head unit 104A or rear entertainment system 104B of the vehicle 100 and/or through one or more portable devices 104D, 104E, and 104F that are connected to the vehicle 100 through a hot spot connection provided through the hot spot service manager 1118, the app service manager 1116 is configured to access the data manager 1102 to analyze the allow list 1104 [i.e., the mapping table] to determine if the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C selected by the user are included within the allow list. The app service manager 1116 accesses and analyze the allow list 1104 to determine if the one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C that is included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., determine, based on comparing DID included in the request signal with the mapping table] with permissions to allow access to the one or more vehicle applications [i.e., whether the diagnostic information is information capable of allowing a full client read]. If it is determined that one or more of the applications 1120A, 1120B, and/or 1120C is included within the allow list 1104 with permissions to allow access to the one or more vehicle applications, the app service manager 1116 is configured to communicate respective data. Upon analyzing the allow list 1104 to determine accessibility of the application, the method proceeds to block 1206, wherein the method includes determining if the application is allowed. The allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names, associated IP addresses [i.e., allowed source address], and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like. It is determined that the particular application inputted by the user is or is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 to thereby determine if the application is allowed or not allowed. If it is determined that the particular application [i.e., identification information] inputted by the user is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., in response to determining that the diagnostic information is information incapable of allowing the full client read], the router application 304 determines that the particular application is not allowed (See at least Figs. 4, 12, and [0041& 0155-0158 & 0165-0166]). Examiner notes, when an application or its associated IP address are not in the allowed list, then the application is not allowed to access the data which means the diagnostic information is not transmitted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by further incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that when an application or its associated IP address are not included in the allow list, then communication is terminated and the data is not transmitted.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 8
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one external device includes at least one of a remote diagnostic device, a charging device, at least one internal controller included in the host vehicle, an external diagnostic device electrically connected to the vehicle control apparatus based on an on-board diagnostics (OBD) included in the communication device, or any combination thereof.
Further, Bonnah teaches the vehicle 100 communicate with the network 202 through the TCU 304. The TCU 304 interfaces with vehicle on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems [i.e., an on-board diagnostics (OBD)], human operable client devices [i.e., an external diagnostic device] such as mobile and non-mobile computing devices 104, a service platform typically hosted at one or more network accessible servers, and various third-party services also typically hosted at one or more network accessible servers (See at least Fig.1 and [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by further incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that client devices are connected to the on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems of the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 9
, Jung discloses A vehicle control method comprising (See at least [0006]: a communication device of a controller and a communication method, capable of ensuring compatibility without putting a load on a central gateway between a controller and a diagnostic device):
receiving, by a control device via a communication device, a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device by a control device (See at least [0005 & 0015]: vehicles are equipped with a central gateway that manages various communication protocols. The ethernet ECU is configured to receive a diagnostic information request [i.e., a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle] and an attribute information from the diagnostic device [i.e., at least one external device] and provide a diagnostic message to the diagnostic device. Examiner notes, the vehicle which includes the ethernet ECU is the host vehicle);
transmitting, by the control device, the diagnostic information to the at least one external device in response to determining that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable (See at least [0043 & 0052]: when the Ethernet ECU 300 transmits data exceeding 8 bytes, the gateway 100 cannot process the data, and thus the diagnostic session is terminated because the data does not reach the CAN diagnostic device 200. If it is confirmed that the data is a CAN protocol including PCI, the Ethernet ECU transmits a diagnostic message by performing TP processing to fit the frame of the CAN diagnostic device [i.e., transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device]. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the response is transmitted when it is confirmed the protocol is a CAN protocol which is determining that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable).
Jung is silent on determining, by the control device, whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, based on a comparison result between the request signal, identification information of the at least one external device, and a mapping table stored in a memory.
However, Bonnah teaches data and connectivity management systems and methods thereof that is implemented on a vehicle or remote system. The storage device stores an allow list 1104 [i.e., a mapping table regarding a source address]. The allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names, associated IP addresses, and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like. An access manager provides access for applications, data and web services, those of which are within a specified list of applications or a set of URLs that are included within the allow list 1104 and/or the whitelist. At block 1302 the vehicle receives an application data access request from at least one of an in-vehicle device and a portable device [i.e., at least one external device]. The method proceeds to block 1304 which includes retrieving and analyzing an electronically stored allow list 1104 that is stored and updated based on a data plan that is associated with the vehicle 100. The method proceeds to block 1306 which includes determining accessibility [i.e., determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable] of the application based on analysis of the allow list (See at least Figs. 11, 13, and [0031 & 0132-0133 & 0176]). Examiner notes, determining accessibility necessarily includes comparison between the request signal and the stored allow list.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, by incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that an allow list is used to accept or terminate a connection from another device and when a request for accessing diagnostic data is received, the allow list is used to allow or deny the request and transmit the requested data only when transmission is acceptable.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 10
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control method of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
In regard to claim 11
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control method of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
In regard to claim 12
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control method of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
In regard to claim 13
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control method of claim 9.
Claim 13 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
In regard to claim 14
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control method of claim 9.
Claim 14 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
In regard to claim 16
, Jung discloses a computer-readable recording medium including a program for performing vehicle control operations, wherein the vehicle control operations comprise (See at least [0059]: a recording medium storing instructions that are executable by a compute):
receiving a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle from at least one external device by a control device (See at least [0005 & 0015]: vehicles are equipped with a central gateway that manages various communication protocols. The ethernet ECU is configured to receive a diagnostic information request [i.e., a request signal regarding diagnostic information of a host vehicle] and an attribute information from the diagnostic device [i.e., at least one external device] and provide a diagnostic message to the diagnostic device. Examiner notes, the vehicle which includes the ethernet ECU is the host vehicle);
transmitting the diagnostic information to the at least one external device in response to determining that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable (See at least [0043 & 0052]: when the Ethernet ECU 300 transmits data exceeding 8 bytes, the gateway 100 cannot process the data, and thus the diagnostic session is terminated because the data does not reach the CAN diagnostic device 200. If it is confirmed that the data is a CAN protocol including PCI, the Ethernet ECU transmits a diagnostic message by performing TP processing to fit the frame of the CAN diagnostic device [i.e., transmit the diagnostic information to the at least one external device]. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the response is transmitted when it is confirmed the protocol is a CAN protocol which is determining that transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable).
Jung is silent on determining whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable, based on a comparison result between the request signal, identification information of the at least one external device, and a mapping table stored in a memory.
However, Bonnah teaches data and connectivity management systems and methods thereof that is implemented on a vehicle or remote system. The storage device stores an allow list 1104 [i.e., a mapping table regarding a source address]. The allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names, associated IP addresses, and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like. An access manager provides access for applications, data and web services, those of which are within a specified list of applications or a set of URLs that are included within the allow list 1104 and/or the whitelist. At block 1302 the vehicle receives an application data access request from at least one of an in-vehicle device and a portable device [i.e., at least one external device]. The method proceeds to block 1304 which includes retrieving and analyzing an electronically stored allow list 1104 that is stored and updated based on a data plan that is associated with the vehicle 100. The method proceeds to block 1306 which includes determining accessibility [i.e., determine whether transmission of the diagnostic information is acceptable] of the application based on analysis of the allow list (See at least Figs. 11, 13, and [0031 & 0132-0133 & 0176]). Examiner notes, determining accessibility necessarily includes comparison between the request signal and the stored allow list.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, by incorporating the teachings of Bonnah, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that an allow list is used to accept or terminate a connection from another device and when a request for accessing diagnostic data is received, the allow list is used to allow or deny the request and transmit the requested data only when transmission is acceptable.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Bonnah in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 17
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the computer-readable recording medium of claim 16.
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable recording medium having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
In regard to claim 18
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the computer-readable recording medium of claim 16.
Claim 18 recites a computer-readable recording medium having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
In regard to claim 19
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the computer-readable recording medium of claim 16.
Claim 19 recites a computer-readable recording medium having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
In regard to claim 20
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the computer-readable recording medium of claim 16.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable recording medium having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
28. Claim(s) 7, and 15
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US-20200396318-A1) in view of Bonnah et al. (US-20220070761-A1) and further in view of Chae et al. (US-20180374282-A1).
In regard to claim 7
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine that transmission of the diagnostic information is not acceptable, and
Further, Bonnah teaches the allow list 1104 is configured to include a list of application names, associated IP addresses [i.e., allowed source address], and associated permissions to allow access to one or more vehicle applications, applets, application interfaces, portable applications, application web interfaces, and the like. It is determined that the particular application inputted by the user is or is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 to thereby determine if the application is allowed or not allowed. If it is determined that the particular application [i.e., identification information] inputted by the user is not referenced and/or included within the allow list 1104 [i.e., determine that transmission of the diagnostic information is not acceptable and in response to determining that the identification information is not included in the allowed source address], the router application 304 determines that the particular application is not allowed (See at least Figs. 4, 12, and [0041& 0155 & 0165]).
Jung, as modified by Bonnah, is silent on transmit a negative response code (NRC) to the at least one external device.
However, Chae teaches the external device 200 [i.e., at least one external device] transmits a test signal to the electronic devices through a plurality of on-board diagnostics (OBD) terminals 310 and a gateway 300 installed in the vehicle, and the electronic devices transmit a response signal corresponding to the received signal to the gateway 300. If the CPU is currently booting, the vehicle 1 transmits an NRC (Negative Response Code) to the external device 200 [i.e., transmit a negative response code (NRC) to the at least one external device] (See at least Figs. 1-4, and [0064 & 0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Jung, as modified by Bonnah, by incorporating the teachings of Bonnah and Chae, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that when it is determined that an application or the identification information is not referenced or included within the allow list, a negative response code (NRC) is transmitted.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Chae, to periodically test whether the electronic devices operate properly by using an external test device (See at least [0005]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to be more reliable and detect possible issues before they interfere with the operation of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 15
, Jung, as modified by Bonnah, teaches the vehicle control method of claim 14.
Claim 15 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelly (US-20230131593-A1) teaches remote vehicle diagnostics using DoIP (Diagnostics over Internet Protocol) in accordance with the ISO 13400 standard.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
31. 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.
32. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
33. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661