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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the original filing of 02/05/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
19045844 filed 02/05/2025 claims foreign priority to 102024103311.8, filed 02/06/2024.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/05/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 02/05/2025 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2025 and 07/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 19045796. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of the co-pending application are anticipated by claims 1-17 of the pending application.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A side-by-side comparison of claims 1 of the pending application and the 19/045,796 co-pending application is given in the following table to show their similarities and differences:
19/045,844
19/045,796
1. A sensor for a vehicle, comprising:
a housing;
a measurement interface configured to capture a measurement variable of the vehicle and designed to generate raw measurement data describing the measurement variable;
a processing means which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data;
a data interface which is configured to exchange data between the sensor and other transmitters or receivers and is connected to the processing means for this exchange of data;
a storage section which is configured to store at least one cryptographic key and to make it available exclusively to the processing means, wherein the processing means is configured to use the at least one key to encrypt, decrypt or validate data sent or received via the data interface, wherein the storage section is formed as or in a hardware security module.
13. The sensor according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is designed, as a protective measure, to detect whether an unauthorized data connection to the sensor has been or is being established.
1. A sensor for a vehicle, comprising:
a housing;
a measurement interface configured to capture a measurement variable of the vehicle and configured to generate raw measurement data describing the measurement variable;
a processing means which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data,
wherein the sensor has at least one protective measure against unauthorized access.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or “processing means” used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
The term "processing means" as recited in independent claim 1 (and incorporated by reference into claims 2–14 and system claim 15) invokes treatment as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). (use of "means" raises a rebuttable presumption of § 112(f) treatment). Claim 1 recites "a processing means which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data" and further recites that "the processing means is configured to use the at least one key to encrypt, decrypt or validate data sent or received via the data interface." These are purely functional recitations supported only by the word "means." The examiner has construed the claimed functions as: (1) processing raw measurement data to form measurement data; and (2) using a cryptographic key to encrypt, decrypt, or validate data sent or received via the data interface. A review of the specification discloses no structure specifically linked to function (2). The specification at col. 1, para. [0010]–[0014] (Abstract and Description) describes the processing device generically as a component that "processes the raw measurement data" and "uses the at least one cryptographic key." The two embodiments of FIGS. 1–2 label the processing component as element 4 ("processing means") without identifying any specific hardware beyond a general-purpose processor equivalent. When a means-plus-function claim invokes software-implemented functionality, the specification must disclose an algorithm whether in prose, a flowchart, or otherwise that performs the claimed function. The failure to disclose such an algorithm renders the claim indefinite under § 112(b), and also fails to satisfy § 112(a) written description for that function. Applicant is advised that replacing "processing means" with "processor" in claims would remove the § 112(f) presumption and eliminate this rejection, provided the amended term is supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Lewis et al U.S. 20140304511 A1.
Claims 1: Lewis et al reaches a sensor for a vehicle (par.76-77, abstract Lewis et al
abstract teaches: "The invention relates to a sensor module (100) for recording at least one physical variable, the sensor module (100) being designed to transmit measured values (SS'), which characterize the at least one physical variable, to an external unit (200)." The disclosure further recites "as used for example in the automotive sector for detecting at least one physical variable (pressure, temperature, etc.)" The sensor module 100 of Lewis et al is a sensor for a vehicle see also par.59), comprising:
a housing (Under the BRI: A "housing" is broadly construed as any physical enclosure or packaging structure that contains the components of the sensor. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this includes an integrated circuit package, an ASIC housing, or any enclosure structure. Lewis et al teaches par.57-60, 72-78, Figure 2 / Figure 3 teaches that all components of the sensor module 100 the signal processing unit 160, AD converter 150, interface units 110/120, sensor security module 130, and control unit 140 are integrated together in one module. Par.47, 52, 91, 126 further teaches" the sensor module according to the invention 100 be completely integrated into existing sensor modules or sensor components. For this purpose, all components of the sensor module are advantageous 100 in the form of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or the like." The integrated chip/module package constitutes a housing for the components of the sensor.);
a measurement interface configured to capture a measurement variable of the vehicle and designed to generate raw measurement data describing the measurement variable (Under the BRI "Measurement interface" is construed as any hardware or functional interface through which the sensor acquires a physical parameter from the vehicle environment and converts it to data. "Raw measurement data" is any initial digital or analog data representation of the measured variable before processing. "Measurement variable of the vehicle" is any physical variable arising from vehicle operation. Lewis et al teaches see par.45-47, 63, Fig.1 schematically shows a sensor module 100, as used for example in the automotive sector for detecting at least one physical variable (pressure, temperature, etc.). The sensor module 100 has a first interface unit [110] on, over the sensor module 100 a sensor signal SS can be supplied." The specification further discloses: "the sensor module takes 100 if the sensor signal SS is present as an analog signal, for example as an analog voltage, an analog-to-digital conversion, so that the physical variable or the digital signal SS' representing the sensor signal SS are obtained." Thus, Lewis et al ’s first interface unit 110 and the A/D converter 150 together constitute a measurement interface that captures a measurement variable (sensor signal SS) and generates raw measurement data (digital values SS') describing that variable.);
a processing means which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data (Under the BRI and § 112(f) construction discussed above, the "processing means" is construed as the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification a generic processor/microcontroller performing the function of transforming raw measurement data into processed measurement data (e.g., calibrated, filtered, or conditioned values). Lewis et al teaches par.62-63, 47, Fig.2 teaches "These data become the signal processing unit embodied here as a digital signal processor (DSP) 160 forwarded for further processing." Lewis et al s DSP 160 (signal processing unit) is a processing means that processes the digital raw measurement values SS' to form processed measurement data. The disclosure further teaches the control unit 140 as "a state machine that may be implemented, for example, in a microcontroller or in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or the like" that "controls, for example, the detection of the sensor signal SS at the interface unit 110 and the forwarding of the derived therefrom measured values SS'." Together, the DSP 160 and control unit 140 of Bosch perform the claimed function of processing raw measurement data to form measurement data.);
a data interface which is configured to exchange data between the sensor and other transmitters or receivers and is connected to the processing means for this exchange of data (Under the BRI "Data interface" is construed as any communication interface wired or bus-based through which the sensor exchanges data with external components. The interface must be "connected to" the processing means, which is broadly interpreted as any operative coupling that allows data to flow between the interface and the processing means.
Lewis et al par.46-48, 63-65, Figure 2 teaches "the second interface unit 120 which transmits the data in the form of the measured values SS' via a data interface which is presently designed as PSI5 (Peripheral Sensor Interface 5) 220 to the external unit 200." The second interface unit 120, connected to both the signal processing unit 160 and the sensor safety module 130, constitutes the claimed data interface. The specification further states: "the interface unit may be, for example, a, preferably bidirectional, communication interface via which the sensor module is connected to a bus system or to an external control unit, for example a control unit of a motor vehicle," confirming the data exchange function. The sensor safety module 130 "is in data connection with the signal processing unit 160 as well as with the second interface unit 120," establishing operative connection between the processing means (DSP 160) and the data interface (second interface unit 120));
a storage section which is configured to store at least one cryptographic key and to make it available exclusively to the processing means(Under the BRI: "Storage section" is construed as any memory, register, or dedicated storage medium within the sensor that retains a cryptographic key. "Available exclusively to the processing means" is construed as the key being inaccessible to entities external to the sensor (including external bus participants), even if technically accessible to multiple on-chip components, so long as access from outside the sensor module is precluded. The examiner does not require the storage section to be a separate physical chip co-location on the same ASIC satisfies this limitation under BRI.
Lewis et al teaches par.99, 118, 122 "In a particularly preferred embodiment, the sensor security module 130 designed so that a required for the AES encryption secret key once in the sensor security module 130 or is programmable in a corresponding memory. Preferably, this key can not be from units external to the sensor module 100 be read out, eg via the interface 120. Accordingly, it is advantageous if only the sensor security module 130 to access the AES encryption, you can access the secret key. Particularly preferably, the secret key is stored in a so-called OTP (One Time Programmable) memory." Lewis et al further teaches par.53-55, "Particularly preferred alone may be the sensor security module 130 access the secret key thus stored to the signature formation or the AES encryption algorithm by means of the cryptography unit 134 to be able to execute." The OTP memory within sensor safety module 130 constitutes a storage section that stores at least one cryptographic key (the master/secret key) and makes it available exclusively to the processing means of the sensor module explicitly preventing external readout via the interface.), wherein the processing means is configured to use the at least one key to encrypt, decrypt or validate data sent or received via the data interface(Under the BRI "Validate" is broadly interpreted as any operation that uses a cryptographic key to verify the authenticity or integrity of data including MAC generation and verification. The disjunctive "encrypt, decrypt or validate" means that satisfaction of any one of these three functions anticipates this limitation.
Lewiset al teaches par.4, 9, that the sensor module "is designed to form a message authentication code (Sig) and to forward it to the external unit (200), the message authentication code (Sig) making it possible to check the authenticity or integrity of at least one measured value." Lewis et al's Disclosure of Invention section further teaches: "In a preferred embodiment, it is provided that the sensor module is designed to form the message authentication code as a function of at least one measured value and/or a secret key." Lewis et al further teaches par.19-27 "The sensor module generates MACs using the decrypted session key, for example, using the CMAC standard,". Lewis et al further teaches (that the external controller encrypts a session key with the sensor's master key using AES-decrypt, and "The sensor module receives the thus encrypted session key and decrypts it using the AES encryption algorithm" i.e., the sensor's processing means decrypts incoming data using the stored key, satisfying "decrypt data received via the data interface."), wherein the storage section is formed as or in a hardware security module (Under the BRI A "hardware security module" (HSM) is construed under BRI as a dedicated hardware component that securely stores cryptographic keys and performs cryptographic operations, preventing unauthorized external access to the stored keys. Accordingly, the term "hardware security module" is interpreted broadly to include any dedicated hardware component with cryptographic key storage and Lewis et al teaches par.52, 91, 126, 74, sensor security module 130 is a dedicated hardware component described as an "ASIC or microcontroller" that stores cryptographic keys in OTP memory, performs AES cryptographic operations via its cryptography unit 134, and prevents external readout of stored keys. These are the defining characteristics of a hardware security module under the BRI. Lewis et al further teaches par,13, 121-124, 67-69, 99, DPA (differential power analysis) countermeasures: "Measures for hardening the sensor module 100 or the sensor safety module 130 against so-called side-channel attacks or general attacks based on the technique of differential power analysis (DPA) can also be provided," which is a recognized security feature of hardware security modules.)
Claim 2: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the storage section is configured as a storage device structurally separated from the processing means (Under the BRI Structurally separated" is construed as the storage section being a distinct physical component from the primary processing means, even if co-located on the same PCB or module. Lewis et al teaches par.51-53, Fig.2, items 1 Figure 2, item 130 the sensor security module 130 is a component separate from the signal processing unit (DSP 160) and control unit 140: "the functionality for forming the signature Sig is in a separate sensor security module 130 arranged." The sensor security module 130 includes its own OTP storage (for the key) separate from the DSP 160, satisfying structural separation between the storage section and the processing means).
Claim 3: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the storage section and the processing means are formed as a structural unit(Under the BRI, claim 3 is construed as an alternative to claim 2, reciting that the storage and processing are co-integrated in a single structural unit. Lewis et al teaches par. 126 , 52, 91: "In a further preferred embodiment, the sensor, for example a pressure sensor or the like, and the module 100 or the module 130 be arranged on the same semiconductor chip, for example realized in an ASIC," and "all components of the sensor module are advantageous 100 in the form of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)." Where the sensor safety module 130 (with its key storage) and the control unit 140 (processing means) are integrated on the same ASIC, they form a structural unit.).
Claim 4: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the data received via the data interface are or include application data or program code(Under the BRI: "Application data or program code" is construed as any functional data payload received from an external source via the data interface, including configuration data, software updates, or session keys. Lewis et al teaches par.102-103 "The external controller sends the thus encrypted session key to the sensor module" the sensor module receives application data (encrypted session key) via its data interface (second interface unit 120)).
Claim 5: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the data sent via the data interface are or contain the measurement data or status information relating to the sensor(Under the "Measurement data or status information" sent via the data interface is broadly construed as any data transmitted from the sensor to external components describing a physical measurement or the operational state of the sensor. Lewis et al teaches par.48-49, "The MAC Sig may, for example, in addition to the measured values SS' via the second interface unit 120 to the external unit 200 be transmitted." an interface unit for forwarding measurement values and/or the MAC to the external unit).
Claim 7: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the storage section is designed configured to store program parts of the processing means and/or the raw measurement data and/or the measurement data, which have been authorized by means of the at least one key, in the storage section (Under the BRI "Program parts … authorized by means of the at least one key" is construed as any executable code or data whose storage in the section is conditioned on cryptographic authorization using the key. Lewis et al teaches par.74 , 99, 118: "Preferably, the secret key for the signature or AES encryption is stored in a flash memory or in an OTP memory. Particularly preferred alone may be the sensor security module 130 access the secret key thus stored to the signature formation or the AES encryption algorithm by means of the cryptography unit 134 to be able to execute." Lewis et al further teaches par.31-35, that the sensor security module receives and decrypts a session key (application data) via the data interface using the stored master key . Additionally, Lewis et al teaches par.15-16 that measured values SS' are "assembled into larger data blocks" within the sensor security module 130 (i.e., stored therein), and the MAC is formed from those measured values authorizing/authenticating them via the key. This satisfies the limitation that the storage section stores raw measurement data and/or measurement data authorized by means of the at least one key).
Claim 13: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the sensor is designed, as a protective measure, to detect whether an unauthorized data connection to the sensor has been or is being established (Under the BRI "Detect whether an unauthorized data connection … has been or is being established" is construed as the sensor having any mechanism to identify data communications originating from unauthorized sources, such as checking cryptographic credentials of incoming data.
Lewis et al teaches par. 102-103, 107, 31-35,a session key establishment protocol in which the sensor module decrypts the session key using the master key and accepts it only if the decryption succeeds. An external unit that does not possess the correct master key cannot generate a properly encrypted session key that the sensor will accept. This constitutes detection of unauthorized data connections).
Claim 14: Lewis et al teaches
wherein the sensor is an angle sensor and the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a measurement variable which describes a rotational movement of a rotatably provided element, wherein the rotatably provided element is in particular a steering column or an element of a vehicle steering system, from whose rotational movement a steering angle can be determined, or wherein the sensor is a rotation rate sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is in particular a yaw, pitch and/or roll rate of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided, or wherein the sensor is an acceleration sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an acceleration, or wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a pressure, or wherein the sensor is a force sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a force, or wherein the sensor is a speed sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a speed, or wherein the sensor is a position sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is in particular a position of a movable element, or wherein the sensor is a level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a level of a vehicle body of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided, or wherein the sensor is an oil level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an oil level (Claim 14 is an alternative-limitation dependent claim reciting specific sensor types. Under the BRI, anticipation of any one of the "or wherein" alternatives satisfies the claim. Lewis et al teaches par.45-47, Figs.1 " schematically shows a sensor module 100, as used for example in the automotive sector for detecting at least one physical variable (pressure, temperature, etc.)" and "The recorded pressure and temperature values are from the first interface unit 110 to an amplifier 170 forwarded…" The Figure 2 and par.60-64 teaches a rail pressure sensor for an automotive application. Thus, the "wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a pressure" alternative of claim 14 is directly anticipated.).
Claim 16: Lewis et al teaches a vehicle, comprising the sensor according to claim 1(Claim 16 is rejected as unpatentable over Lewis et al which discloses the sensor module 100 integrated into a motor vehicle environment (Figure 2 embodiment, rail pressure sensor for automotive application). Installing the sensor of claim 1 in a vehicle, as explicitly contemplated by Lewis et al, would have been obvious.).
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.
Claims 6, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al U.S. 20140304511 A1 in view of Geiger et al U.S. 20140016781 A1.
Claim 6: Lewis et al fails to teach, however Geiger et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the at least one key is linked to an identification mark of the sensor and/or to a manufacturer-specific identification mark and/or to a customer-specific identification mark, wherein the identification mark of the sensor is preferably a part and/or serial number and/or a vehicle identification number and/or an ECU ID and/or a manufacturer name (Linked to an identification mark" is construed as any association between the cryptographic key and an identifier (serial number, VIN, ECU ID, manufacturer name) such that the key can be used to authenticate or verify the sensor's identity. The "and/or" connectives mean that linkage to any one of the recited identification Geiger et al teaches that, in the vehicle domain, linking cryptographic keys to vehicle-specific identifiers (VIN, ECU ID) is the recognized mechanism for ensuring component authenticity and preventing unauthorized substitution. Gei teaches par,39-41, that the control unit's keys are linked to the specific vehicle to prevent unauthorized cross-vehicle exchanges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lewis et al with the additional features of Geiger et al in order to prevent control units for motor vehicles to be exchanged between individual motor vehicles by unauthorized persons, as suggested by Geiger et al abstract.
Claim 15: Lewis et al fails to teach, however Geiger et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the system is configured to determine whether the sensor is approved for use in the system by comparing at least one cryptographic key of the sensor with at least one cryptographic key of the system, and wherein the system is configured to deactivate the sensor, to output a message or to deactivate the system, or to transfer it to a secure state when a non-approved sensor is detected by the system (Under BRI "Determine whether the sensor is approved … by comparing … cryptographic keys" is construed as any process in which the system performs a cryptographic key comparison — including challenge-response authentication, key matching, or MAC verification to verify sensor approval. "Deactivate … or transfer … to a secure state" is broadly construed as any response to a failed key comparison that renders the non-approved sensor or system inoperative or restricted. Geiger et al teaches that "the system is designed to determine whether the sensor [control unit] is approved for use in the system by comparing at least one cryptographic key of the sensor [control unit] with at least one cryptographic key of the system." Geiger et al further teaches par.33, 36, description of enabling/disabling "individual functionalities of a control unit … only for a specific motor vehicle" by key comparison directly anticipates the system-level comparison and deactivation response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lewis et al with the additional features of Geiger et al in order to prevent control units for motor vehicles to be exchanged between individual motor vehicles by unauthorized persons, as suggested by Geiger et al abstract.
Claim 17: the combination teaches a method for checking permissibility of a combination of a system for a vehicle with a sensor, wherein the method comprises: providing the system according to claim 15, wherein the system has cryptographic keys; providing the sensor; comparing at least one cryptographic key of the sensor with at least one cryptographic key of the system; enabling the system with the sensor if the comparison determines that the sensor is approved for the system (Claim 17's method steps are functionally equivalent to the system operation of claim 15 expressed as sequential acts. "Comparing at least one cryptographic key of the sensor with at least one cryptographic key of the system" is construed as any cryptographic key-matching or challenge-response protocol. "Enabling the system with the sensor if the comparison determines that the sensor is approved" is construed as any positive authorization action contingent on a successful key comparison. Lewis et al teaches providing a sensor module and an external controller both possessing the same master key; the controller checks the MACs generated by the sensor using the master key a functional "comparison" of the sensor's key with the system's key. Geiger et al teaches method of enabling functionalities only when keys match directly corresponds to steps 3 and 4 of claim 17.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al U.S. 20140304511 A1 in view of Hans et al EP 3,644,207 A1.
Claim 8: Lewis et al fails to teach, however Hans et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the sensor, in particular the processing means, is configured to check data, which in turn are provided with a cryptographic key and are received via the interface, or communication, which is directed to the sensor and is received via the interface, for the trustworthiness of its/their transmitter, wherein the sensor is further preferably configured to output a message via the interface or to deactivate itself or a system in which the sensor is provided, or to put itself into a secure state, if the transmission source or the received data or the communication directed to the sensor has/have been classified as untrustworthy (Under the BRI Examiner's interpretation: "Check … for the trustworthiness of … transmitter" is construed as any cryptographic verification (key comparison, signature verification, MAC check) of data received via the data interface that yields a determination of whether the transmitter is authorized/trusted. "Put itself into a secure state" is construed as any self-protective action taken by the sensor in response to detecting untrusted data.. Hans et al teaches par. 32, 42, "the third entity is configured to determine the level of plausibility … and to create the cryptographic record under the condition that the determined level of plausibility is at or above a predetermined threshold" discloses the secure element withholding the cryptographic record (a form of secure-state response) when plausibility is insufficient. Hans et al further teaches further in the paragraph 98-100, 104-105 that the system distinguishes trusted from untrusted data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lewis et al with the additional features of Hans et al in order to provide to provide the cryptographic record to the requestor. The cryptographic record provided by the secure element to may improve a level of trust in sensor values provided by a sensor node in an industrial network, as suggested by Hans et al abstract.
Claim 9: Lewis et al fails to teach, however Hans et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
at least one partial area or the entire sensor has shielding against wireless access as a structural protective measure (Hans et al teaches par.17, 13-15, trusted sensor may be provided with physical tamper protection and/or is connected to the secure element with tamper-protected wiring," and "It is also conceived to add, to a sensor, an electronic system or mechanism that protects it from tampering" (paragraph beginning "the gateway may compare measurement data"). Physical protective measures, including shielding, represent the kind of implementation-level adaptation a skilled artisan would apply to Bosch's sensor security module to harden it against wireless/electromagnetic eavesdropping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lewis et al with the additional features of Hans et al in order to provide to provide the cryptographic record to the requestor. The cryptographic record provided by the secure element to may improve a level of trust in sensor values provided by a sensor node in an industrial network, as suggested by Hans et al abstract.
Claim 10: the combination teaches
wherein the shielding of the partial area is realized by shielding elements provided within the housing of the sensor or in or on one or more walls of the housing, or wherein the housing of the sensor consists of the shielding elements(Hans et al teaches par.17, 13-15, trusted sensor may be provided with physical tamper protection and/or is connected to the secure element with tamper-protected wiring," and "It is also conceived to add, to a sensor, an electronic system or mechanism that protects it from tampering" (paragraph beginning "the gateway may compare measurement data"). Physical protective measures, including shielding, represent the kind of implementation-level adaptation a skilled artisan would apply to Bosch's sensor security module to harden it against wireless/electromagnetic eavesdropping)..
Claim 11: the combination teaches
wherein the shielding of the partial area is realized by a multi-layer structure of the sensor and the partial area to be shielded is shielded by layers of further components of the sensor arranged above this partial area or by appropriately arranged shielding elements (Hans et al teaches par.17, 13-16, 64, trusted sensor may be provided with physical tamper protection and/or is connected to the secure element with tamper-protected wiring," and "It is also conceived to add, to a sensor, an electronic system or mechanism that protects it from tampering" ).
Claim 12: Lewis et al fails to teach, however Hans et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the sensor is configured to deactivate itself when the housing is opened without authorization(Examiner's interpretation: "Deactivate itself when the housing is opened without authorization" is broadly construed as any tamper-response mechanism triggered by unauthorized physical access to the sensor enclosure. Hans et al teaches par.17, 13-16, 64 "It is also conceived to add, to a sensor, an electronic system or mechanism that protects it from tampering") discloses protective measures against physical tampering of the sensor. Additionally, self-destruction or self-deactivation upon unauthorized access to cryptographic hardware is a well-known security technique in HSM design (e.g., FIPS 140-2 Level 3/4 requirements mandate tamper-response mechanisms including key zeroization).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lewis et al with the additional features of Hans et al in order to provide to provide the cryptographic record to the requestor. The cryptographic record provided by the secure element to may improve a level of trust in sensor values provided by a sensor node in an industrial network, as suggested by Hans et al abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HAMMERSCHMIDT et al U.S. 20220263806 A1 teaches sensor may obtain sensor data. The sensor may transmit the sensor data to a controller via a sensor-controller interface. The sensor may determine, based on the sensor data, a security characteristic for the sensor data. The sensor may encrypt the security characteristic to generate an encrypted security characteristic. The sensor may transmit the encrypted security characteristic to the controller via the sensor-controller interface.
Plankenhorn et al U.S. 8601281 B2 teaches a sensor apparatus includes a housing with a security device, a secure first computation device, a second computation device and a sensor element. The sensor apparatus detects a temperature in the housing, to activate the first computation device only when the detected temperature is in a predefined temperature range, to determine a session key by the first computation device and to store the session key in a second memory of the second computation device, to deactivate the first computation device after the session key has been stored, to determine data on the basis of a sensor signal detected using the sensor element and to encrypt and/or sign the data by the second computation device on the basis of the session key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATOUMATA TRAORE whose telephone number is (571)270-1685. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 5712724219. 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.
Friday, May 29, 2026
/FATOUMATA TRAORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights