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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hua (US 2024/0040348)
Regarding Claim 1,
Hua (US 2024/0040348) teaches an apparatus for securing data, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor being configured to:
obtain a session key based on a security handshake operation with a sensor controller (Paragraph [0100] teaches establishing a session using a handshake and a shared encryption key to encrypted data exchanged with the sensor control device);
obtain sensor data from a sensor; scramble the sensor data based on the session key to generate scrambled sensor data; and output the scrambled sensor data to the sensor controller for processing (Paragraph [0100-0100] teaches encrypting sensor data and output to the controller).
Regarding Claim 8,
Hua teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to encrypt the scrambled sensor data (Paragraph [0210] teaches encryption key for devices to encrypt sensor data).
Regarding Claim 10,
Hua teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor data from the sensor is encrypted, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to decrypt the sensor data (Paragraph [0009] teaches decrypting sensor data).
Regarding Claims 11, 18, 20,
Claims 11, 18, 20 are similar in scope to Claims 1, 8, 10 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua in view of Valtl (US 2026/0088974)
Regarding Claims 2-4,
Hua teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein, to scramble the sensor data based on the session key, the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate sync bits based on the session key, and wherein the sensor data is scrambled based on the sync bits.
Valtl (US 2026/0088974) teaches generate sync bits based on the encryption key, and wherein the sensor data is scrambled based on the sync bits (Paragraph [0067, teaches bit-shifted sensor data being XOR-ed bit-wise with bits corresponding to the sensor data encryption key), also see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the session key of Hua to include sync bits to encrypt sensor data and the results would be predictable (i.e. sensor data would be encrypted based on sync bits based on the session key)
Regarding Claim 5,
Hua and Valtl teaches the apparatus of claim 2 Valtl teaches wherein the sensor data is scrambled using an exclusive or (XOR) operation with the sync bits (Paragraph [0067, teaches bit-shifted sensor data being XOR-ed bit-wise with bits corresponding to the sensor data encryption key), also see Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 6,
Hua and Valtl teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the scrambled sensor data is decoded by the sensor controller based on the XOR operation using the sync bits (Paragraph [0112, 0124] teaches performing XOR with encrypted sensor data and the sync bits of the encryption key to decrypt sensor data).
Regarding Claims 12-16,
Claims 12-16,are similar in scope to Claims 2-6 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua in view of Thota (US 2015/0381578)
Regarding Claim 7,
Hua teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the security handshake operation is performed during boot of the apparatus.
Thota (US 2015/0381578) teaches wherein the security handshake operation is performed during boot of the apparatus (Paragraph [0182] and Fig. 25 teaches engage in a handshake operation when the host boots up)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hua to perform the handshake process during boot as taught by Thota and the results would be predictable (i.e. the handshake process would occur during boot up)
Regarding Claims 17,
Claim 17 is similar in scope to Claims 7 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hua (US 2024/0040348)
Regarding Claim 9,
Hua teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a camera, and wherein the sensor data comprises image data.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that cameras that produce image data are a well known type of sensor and sensor data
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Hua to include a camera and the results would be predictable (i.e. the sensor would be a camera with image data)
Regarding Claims 19,
Claim 19 is similar in scope to Claims 9 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights