DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
Applicant claims foreign priority under 35 USC 119b to DE 10 2023132 251.6, filed on 11/20/2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Applicant’s drawings filed on 11/19/2024 has been inspected and is in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Specification
Applicant’s specification filed on 11/19/2024 has been inspected and is in compliance with MPEP 608.01.
Claim Objections
NO objections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112th f
It is in the examiner’s opinion that claim[s] 1 – 18 do not invoke means for or step plus functional claim language under the meaning of the statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim[s] 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear from the claim language as to which elements further limit the claim based on that the claim language recites a alternative phrase of “and/or.”
Appropriate action required.
***For examination purposes that examiner will choose the appropriate elements to effect a proper prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim[s] 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea: Mental process: concepts performed in the human mind: (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) without significantly more.
In at least claim[s] 1, 16, 17, 18, for example in at least claim # 1, the claim limitations that recite(s) the identified abstract idea are the following:
ascertaining a first noise profile of the image sensor; [i.e. abstract idea: concept that can be performed in the human mind]
ascertaining a second noise profile of the image sensor; [i.e. abstract idea: concept that can be performed in the human mind]
comparing the first noise profile stored on the data memory to the second noise profile; and [i.e. abstract idea: concept that can be performed in the human mind]
authenticating the image sensor if a predetermined correspondence is determined in the comparing the first noise profile to the second noise profile. [i.e. abstract idea: concept that can be performed in the human mind]
This judicial exception above is not integrated into a practical application because based on that the remaining claim limitations lend themselves to one of the following: “adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [MPEP 2106.05 (g)],” “is not an improvement to computer functionality,” “not an improvement to another technology or technical field,”
providing a camera for a motor vehicle which includes the image sensor;
storing the first noise profile on a data memory;
The claim(s) 2 - 16 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the following manner:
As per claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor is authenticated if the predetermined correspondence is at least 60 %. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor is authenticated if the predetermined correspondence is at least 70 %. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor is authenticated if the predetermined correspondence is at least 80 %. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor is authenticated if the predetermined correspondence is at least 90 %. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein a control device of the motor vehicle includes the data memory. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the comparing and the authenticating are performed by the control device. [i.e. Significantly more - practical application]
As per claim 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the camera includes the data memory. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 9. The method according to claim 8, wherein the data memory of the camera is not overwritable after the first noise profile is stored on the data memory. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: encrypting the first noise profile with a predetermined key; and providing the predetermined key to a control device for decrypting the first noise profile encrypted by the encrypting. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea: mathematical relationships/mathematical calculations]
As per claim 11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the first noise profile encrypted by the encrypting is stored on the data memory. [i.e. a further identified abstract idea: mathematical relationships/mathematical calculations]
As per claim 12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first noise profile and the second noise profile are ascertained based on a same approach. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) ]
As per claim 13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first noise profile and the second noise profile are ascertained based on a Photo Response Non-Uniformity of the image sensor. [i.e. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)]
As per claim 14. The method according to, claim 1, wherein the first noise profile and the second noise profile are ascertained based on a Dark Signal Non-Uniformity of the image sensor. [i.e. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)]
As per claim 15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the ascertaining the first noise profile and/or the ascertaining the second noise profile is performed based on black pixels corresponding to no ambient light or ambient light below a predetermined threshold value. [i.e. adding extra – solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)]
Appropriate action required.
Double Patenting
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 11 – 13, 15 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][2] as being taught by Diedrich et al. [US PAT # 11127104]
As per claim 1. Diedrich does teach a computer-implemented method for authenticating an image sensor [Diedrich, col. 1, lines 56 – 58, Camera noise characterization can be used to watermark the image based off a baseline noise profile deviation.], comprising:
providing a camera for a motor vehicle which includes the image sensor [Diedrich, Figure # 1, and col. 3, lines 5 – 12, The vehicle 102 [i.e. applicant’s motor vehicle] can generally include a first device 108, a second device 110 (e.g., receiver), an imaging platform 112, and a driver assistance platform 114. Generally, the first device 108 [i.e. applicant’s image sensor] can include an image signal processor 116 that processes images obtained from the imaging platform 112.[i.e. applicant’s camera] The imaging platform 112 can include one or more image capturing devices such as a camera, LIDAR, and an ultrasonic sensor—just to name few.];
ascertaining a first noise profile of the image sensor [Diedrich, Figure # 2, and col. 6, lines 1 – 5, FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an example method that can be executed by an image signal processor of an example device. The method can include a step 202 of determining the base noise profile for an imaging device, such as a camera.];
storing the first noise profile on a data memory [Diedrich, col. 5, lines 6 – 9, Feature extraction methods are theoretically possible to further reduce memory overhead.];
ascertaining a second noise profile of the image sensor [Diedrich, Figure # 4, and col. 6, lines 41 – 48, The method can include a step 402 of receiving a request to update a baseline noise profile of an imaging device [i.e. applicant’s second noise profile of image sensor]. The request can include transmitting of a key to a second device/receiver at a key on event for the vehicle (e.g., private key challenge). When the key is confirmed, the method can include a step 404 of calculating an updated baseline noise profile from an image obtained by the imaging device.];
comparing the first noise profile stored on the data memory to the second noise profile [Diedrich, col. 4, lines 61 – 67 and col. 5, lines 1 – 2, the second device 110 can calculate the noise of the pixel group of the watermarked image and subtract the noise deviation/expected value that were encoded into the image. The calculated noise deviation is used to verify that the noise of the watermark matches the expected value.]; and
authenticating the image sensor if a predetermined correspondence is determined in the comparing the first noise profile to the second noise profile [Diedrich, col. 4, lines 61 – 67 and col. 5, lines 1 – 2, the second device 110 can calculate the noise of the pixel group of the watermarked image and subtract the noise deviation/expected value that were encoded into the image. The calculated noise deviation is used to verify that the noise of the watermark matches the expected value. Should these values match, the image watermark is considered valid and vice versa. When the values do not match, the second device 110 can reject the image and flag the imaging platform 112 as potentially compromised.].
As per claim 6. Diedrich does teach the method according to claim 1, wherein a control device of the motor vehicle includes the data memory [Diedrich, Figure # 1, component # 116 [i.e. applicant’s control device], component # 120 [i.e. applicant’s memory]].
As per claim 7. Diedrich does teach the method according to claim 6, wherein the comparing and the authenticating are performed by the control device [Diedrich, col. 5, lines 32 – 39, As noted above, the image signal processor 116 [i.e. control device] can be configured to periodically update its baseline noise profile. To be sure, camera photoreceptors may change over time due to usage and environmental conditions. Thus, the baseline noise profile can be periodically updated. This could occur at vehicle start by having a private key challenge to verify device identity, combined with validating noise profile deviation is nominal.].
As per claim 11. Diedrich does teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the first noise profile encrypted by the encrypting is stored on the data memory [Diedrich, col. 2, lines 50 – 55, In some instances, the update of the baseline noise deviation can include a secure challenge process where drift in baseline noise deviation can be verified using a private key. When the secure challenge process fails, the camera can be deactivated or information obtained therefrom can be disregarded.].
As per claim 12. Diedrich does teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first noise profile and the second noise profile are ascertained based on a same approach [Diedrich, col. 2, lines 30 – 33, When compared with the baseline noise characterization, the modified noise characterization produces a noise deviation that can be calculated, which is referred to generally as an expected value.].
As per claim 13. Diedrich does teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first noise profile and the second noise profile are ascertained based on a Photo Response Non-Uniformity of the image sensor [Diedrich, col. 1, lines 58 – 60, Intrinsic noise characterizations for camera classification include Photo Response Non-Uniformity, lens aberration, interaction noise and temporal noise.].
As per claim 15. Diedrich does teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the ascertaining the first noise profile and/or the ascertaining the second noise profile is performed based on black pixels corresponding to no ambient light or ambient light below a predetermined threshold value [Diedrich, Col. 7, lines 2 – 20, In one example, the second device 110 can store both the key and calculate profile drift. That is, prior to updating the baseline noise profile, the second device 110 can verify the key provided by the image signal processor 116. The second device 110 can receive the updated baseline noise profile from the image signal processor 116. The second device 110 can calculate a difference between the updated baseline noise profile and the baseline noise profile. When this difference is at or below a tolerance drift value, the baseline noise profile can be updated. For example, if the drift is an increase in noise that is no more than 5%, the baseline noise profile can be updated. The specific tolerance drift value selected can be based on any value and can be gathered from empirical data. If the key is valid but the noise profile has drifted too far, a notification may be presented to the user to see a dealer for camera verification—but the camera may still be functional for all features. If the key is invalid the camera may be no longer functional for any features, with a diagnostic trouble code and user notification provided for camera fault.].
As per non – transitory computer readable medium claim 16, that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicants recited “non – transitory computer readable medium,” “commands,” is taught by the prior art of Diedrich at col. 7, lines 39 – 67, and col. 8, lines 1 – 67.
As per system claim 17, that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicants recited “processor,” “memory,” and “program code,” is taught by the prior art of Diedrich at col. 9, lines 1 – 6.
As per motor vehicle claim 18, that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 17, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicants recited “motor vehicle,” is taught by the prior art of Diedrich at Figure # 1, component # 102, and col. 2, lines 59 – 62.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich et al. [US PAT # 11127104] in view of Kostepen [US PGPUB # 2015/0271456]
As per claim 8. Diedrich does teach the what is taught in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Diedrich does not clearly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the camera includes the data memory.
However, Kostepen does teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the camera includes the data memory [paragraph: 0025, lines 4 – 8, The camera may record the surrounding view of the interior of the vehicle and the exterior of the vehicle on a memory device. The memory device may be in the form of an SD Card or an embedded memory, for example.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Diedrich and Kostepen in order for the determining the functioning of the camera located on a vehicle by the signal processor thru the validating the camera’s baseline noise profile of Diedrich to include taking pictures of points of interests of the vehicle to which the camera is located of Kostepen. This would allow for determining of whether the camera has been compromised by evaluating the pictures of points of interest of the vehicle to which the camera is supposed to be located on. See paragraph: 0007 – 0009 of Kostepen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim[s] 2 – 5, 9, 10, 14 contain allowable subject matter, but as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim[s] 2 – 5, 9, 10, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
***The examiner notes that reasons for allowance can be written in the next subsequent office action once all formal requirements have been overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi et al., who does teach An anti-drunk driving apparatus for a vehicle including: an alcohol drinking determination device which determines whether or not a first person seated in a driver's seat is drunk; a driving restriction device which restricts driving of the vehicle in a case where it is determined that the first person seated in the driver's seat is drunk by the alcohol drinking determination device; a driving intention presumption device which presumes whether or not a second person seated in the driver's seat has an intention to drive; a photograph device which photographs the faces of the first and second persons; and a person identification device which determines whether or not the first and second persons are the same by comparing their faces in images, wherein if it is determined that the first and the second persons are not the same, the driving restriction device restricts driving of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571- 272- 3811. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434