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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 06/26/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 112 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
As per claims 1 and 10, the first countermeasure recites “for disabling the first function.” However, the subsequent limitation recites “determining…whether to stop the first function” and “determining, after stopping the first function.” The shift from “disabling” to “stopping” lacks antecedent basis and creates ambiguity.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1 and 10, the specification does not clearly identify: what particular “state of the attack” is evaluated; what particular “state of the first function” is evaluated; what algorithm determines whether resumption is appropriate; what the “predetermined condition” is; or how that condition relates to the risk levels. The specification describes a risk based selection of countermeasures and particular software-update/recovery procedure, but does not reasonably demonstrate possession of the broader claimed process of determining whether to resume based on the “state of the attack or state of the first function” and automatically resuming when an unspecified “predetermined condition” is satisfied. The specification, paragraphs 0131-0132, describes receiving “software updating data for eliminating the vulnerability” as the condition for recovery, and lacks broader examples of what constitutes a “predetermined condition”.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0232687 to SASAKI et al., above, and further in view of US 2021/0026958 to FILIPEK et al.
Regarding claim 1, SASAKI disclose an information provision method executed by an information processing device that: obtains attack information through communication with a security monitoring device that determines a presence or an absence of an attack based on [log information] obtained from a vehicle; and provides an instruction that causes an attacked vehicle to take a countermeasure appropriate to the attack (an information provision method executed by an information processing device (Security Risk Countermeasure Server 10) that obtains information about an incident of a cyberattack through communication with a security monitoring device (Incident Information Collector Server 30) and provides instructions (function restriction commands) to cause the vehicle to take countermeasures, 0085, 0104-0112).
SASAKI’s server calculates risk using historical/predictive data rather than real-time “log information” indicating a present attack.
However, FILIPEK teaches attack based on log information (determining the presence of a cyberattack in real-time based on log/trace information (e.g. memory map, register, trace information, executed line of code) obtained from the vehicle by a Host-based Intrusion Detection System (HIDS) or Network-based Intrusion Detection System (NIDS), 0013 and 0023).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SASAKI’s central server to receive real-time attack data based on FILIPE’s log-based HIDS/NIDS systems, to enable the server to issue immediate, targeted countermeasures to active threats rather than relying solely on predictive historical risk scores.
SASAKI, as modified above, further teaches
the information provision method comprising:
receiving attack information from the security monitoring device, the attack information including a first function of a first vehicle targeted for an attack and vehicle information for identifying the first vehicle; and transmitting, to the first vehicle identified by the vehicle information, an instruction that causes the first vehicle to take a countermeasure determined according to the first function (receiving attack/vehicle information (0141) and generating and transmitting a function restriction command (countermeasure) specifically targeting the affected “vehicle function”, 0007, 0194-0196),
wherein when the first function is included in one or more second functions, which are not driving functions of the first vehicle, the countermeasure includes a first countermeasure for disabling the first function (disabling (restricting/invalidating) specific non-driving functions, such as communication interfaces, 0074 and 0080).
FILIPEK teaches disabling the first function while keeping the driving function functions active (isolating non-driving systems to maintain physical vehicle control. FILIPEK determines if the attacked controller is taking control of a “driving function” (e.g. steering, acceleration, braking); 0026. If it not a driving function (e.g. a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth interface), teaches degrading/disabling that specific interface, 0027, while allowing autonomous systems to “stay in control of driving the vehicle”, 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate FILPEK’s granular isolation logic (disabling compromised non-driving functions while keeping driving functions active) into SASAKI’s server-issued commands to prevent telematics threats from causing dangerous, unexpected vehicle shutdowns in moving traffic.
SASAKI, as modified above, further discloses
the countermeasure further includes:
determining, based on a risk level associated with the attack information, whether to stop the first function (reading a risk score (risk level) and determining whether it is higher than or equal to a threshold (a first/second criterion) to determine if a function restriction/invalidation (stopping) command should be generated, 0191-0194);
determining, after stopping the first function, whether to resume the first function based on a state of the attack or a state of the first function; and when the state of the attack satisfies a predetermined condition, resuming the first function (evaluating the state of the threat and generating a “function restriction cancellation command” (resuming the function) when the risk level (state of the attack) drops lower than the first criterion (predetermined condition), 0061, 0205-0207.).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, SASAKI, as modified above, further discloses the information provision method according to claim 1, wherein the first countermeasure includes forcedly disabling the first function; (generating a function invalidation command for completely invalidating the vehicle function, 0059 and 0194. FILIPEK similarly teaches completely disabling the attacked interface or shutting down the software, 0026-0027.).
Regarding claim 3, SASAKI, as modified above, further discloses the information provision method according to claim 2, wherein the countermeasure further includes a second countermeasure that causes a display included in the first vehicle to present function information that indicates the first function (integrating the countermeasures with the In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) system, 0101. FILIPEK teaches interacting with the user via the infotainment screen 0045.). It would have been an obvious design choice to utilize the known IVI screen to display information indicating which function has been disabled to keep the driver informed of the vehicle status.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, SASAKI, as modified above, further discloses the information provision method according to claim 3, wherein the second countermeasure further includes, after forcedly disabling the first function, causing the display to present a user interface (UI) for receiving, from a user of the first vehicle via an input interface included in the first vehicle, an instruction for resuming the first function; wherein the first countermeasure further includes, after disabling the first function, causing the display to present a second user interface (UI) for receiving, from the user of the first vehicle via the input interface, a second instruction for resuming the first function (adjusting security postures based on “user demand” or “user desired modes” via the IVI screen, 0101. While SASAKI does not explicitly teach a specific “resume button”, providing a graphical user interface prompt to allow a user to manually override or resume a disabled non-critical feature (like Wi-Fi) is a well-known, conventional practice.).
It would have been obvious to modify SASAKI with FILIPEK, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to allow the user to select their desired mode via the IVI screen, as taught by FILIPEK, 0012 and 0045.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, SASAKI lacks or does not expressly disclose a first instruction for disabling the first function . However, FILIPEK further discloses the information provision method according to claim 1, wherein the first countermeasure includes causing a display included in the first vehicle to present a first user interface (UI) for receiving, from a user of the first vehicle via an input interface included in the first vehicle, a first instruction for disabling the first function; wherein the first UI further includes risk information for presenting a risk in a case where the first function is not disabled (adjusting the security protocols based on passenger navigation on the infotainment screen, 0045. Prompting the user to confirm disabling a feature and displaying the associated risk (e.g., “Warning: continuing to use Wi-Fi poses a security risk”).
It would have been obvious to modify SASAKI with FILIPEK, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a conventional GUI design choice in order to ensure informed user consent before altering vehicle functionality, as taught by FILIPEK, 0012 and 0045.
Regarding claim 8, SASAKI lacks or does not expressly disclose a second countermeasure that disables the one of the driving functions (if the vehicle controller being attacked is taking control of the driving function. However, FILIPEK further discloses the information provision method according to claim 1, wherein when the first function is one of the driving functions of the first vehicle, the countermeasure includes a second countermeasure that disables the one of the driving functions (if the vehicle controller being attacked is taking control of the driving function (steering, acceleration, braking) the system will “shutdown the commands to that controller/ECU…or stop the vehicle, 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate FILPEK’s granular isolation logic (disabling compromised non-driving functions while keeping driving functions active) into SASAKI’s server-issued commands to prevent telematics threats from causing dangerous, unexpected vehicle shutdowns in moving traffic.
Regarding claim 9, SASAKI, as modified above, further discloses the wherein the one or more second functions are set according to an administrator that manages the first vehicle (establishing criteria and operating rules for the restrictions 0149. It is standard industry practice for fleet managers or OEMs (administrators) to set these centralized policy rules).
As per claim 10, this is a device version of the claimed method discussed above in claim 1 wherein all claimed limitations have also been addressed and/or cited as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
