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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 05 May 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN113347635, the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy) in view of Lei (US20170302774) and further in view of Gopalakrishnan (US9524648).
As to claims 1 and 11, Zhang teaches a method comprising:
determining that a wireless network of a vehicle has been compromised (see at least Zhang para 0037: intrusion detection method…; para 0046-0047: …monitoring result indicates that there is a risk of the vehicle being attacked by the network…; also see para 0042: …wireless communication module…);
providing a notification indicating that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised (see at least Zhang para 0046-0050: …monitoring the risk information of the vehicle being attacked by the network, Obtain the monitoring result, if the monitoring result indicates that there is a risk of the vehicle being attacked by the network, then control the status attribute of the modem function module to switch to the offline state; para 0058: when the monitoring result indicates that there is a risk of the vehicle being attacked by the network, the vehicle may send a prompt message to the user (used to prompt that there is a risk of the vehicle being attacked by the network…); also see para 0062, para 0066);
based on the determining, causing the vehicle to be disconnected from the compromised wireless network (see at least Zhang para 0046-0050: …cut off the network connection between the vehicle and the external device…switch off to offline state…; para 0030: …control the radio frequency antenna to enter the shielding mode if the monitoring result indicates that the vehicle is at risk of being attacked by the network, wherein, when the radio frequency antenna is in the shielding mode, the radio frequency antenna cannot transmit and receive the wireless signal of the preset frequency band; also see para 0058-0066).
Zhang further teaches a processor and memory (Zhang Fig. 8 and related text).
Zhang does not teach:
selecting a different network other than the compromised wireless network;
communicating, over the different network and based on a user profile of a user positioned within the vehicle, with a network-connected device to notify the network-connected device that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised; and
while the vehicle is disconnected from the compromised wireless network:
performing, based on instructions received from the network-connected device, a remedial action to enable the vehicle to navigate from a current location of the vehicle to a safe location.
Lei is directed to detecting the presence of a wireless network access point usable for vehicular communication. Lei teaches …the vehicle will report a usable local wireless network connection if a cellular signal drops below a reliable and/or usable threshold…Since the vehicle can communicate with the remote server through the DSRC connection itself, a lack of usable cellular communication should not prevent the vehicle from reporting usable DSRC connection. …the process running on the vehicle monitors a cellular signal usable by the TCU to establish communication over a cellular network…If multiple cellular communication sources are available, the process may check the signal strength of all usable cellular signals before reporting a DSRC alternative…the remote server can simply use the alternative method of communication to efficiently and reliably relay the remote access request to the vehicle (see at least Lei para 0036-0037, para 0046, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include selecting a different network other than the compromised wireless network; communicating, over the different network and based on a user profile of a user positioned within the vehicle, with a network-connected device to notify the network-connected device that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised in view of Lei et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that when current wireless connection is unreliable, the remote user uses an alternative method, including a cellular communication method, i.e., based on user profile, to communicate with the vehicle of Lei can be used in Zhang, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Lei because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the server to communicate with the vehicle when the current wireless communication is compromised so that the vehicle can be navigated and controlled safely.
Gopalakrishnan is directed to providing countermeasures for threats that may compromise the UAVs. Gopalakrishnan teaches the first UAV that has been determined to be compromised may transmit the alert data to other UAVs in the mesh network. Continuing the example, responsive to the alert data, a second UAV may approach the first UAV and provide commands or other data to direct the first UAV to a safe landing, parking, docking, and so forth….(Gopalakrishnan, col 3, lines 55-60; col 2, lines 15-20: the UAV may include an uncrewed ground vehicle; also see col 8, lines 55-62, col 20, lines 1-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include while the vehicle is disconnected from the compromised wireless network: performing, based on instructions received from the network-connected device, a remedial action to enable the vehicle to navigate from a current location of the vehicle to a safe location in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a server assisting the compromised vehicle to a safe landing/parking of Gopalakrishnan can be used in Zhang, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Gopalakrishnan because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the server to assist the vehicle when the current wireless communication is compromised so that the vehicle can be navigated and controlled safely.
As to claims 2 and 12, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Zhang further teaches wherein determining that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised is based on receiving a user selection indicating that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised (Zhang para 0057-0059: …user pressing virtual switch on the prompt message…, also see para 0085).
As to claims 3 and 13, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12.
Zhang further teaches wherein the user selection corresponds to receiving input associated with a physical switch positioned in the vehicle (Zhang para 0085: …a physical switch… in the cockpit of the vehicle…in response to the user’s pressing operation on the physical switch…disconnected state…).
As to claims 4 and 14, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12.
Zhang further teaches wherein the user selection corresponds to receiving input associated with a graphical user interface of the vehicle or a graphical user interface of a user device (Zhang para 0057-0059: …user pressing virtual switch on the prompt message…).
As to claims 7 and 17, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Zhang further teaches causing the vehicle to be disconnected from the compromised wireless network (see at least Zhang para 0046-0050).
Gopalakrishnan further teaches wherein performing the remedial action comprises: determining, using locally stored navigation data, a navigation route from the current location of the vehicle to the safe location; and causing, using control circuitry disconnected from the compromised wireless network, the vehicle to travel along the determined navigation route from the current location to the safe location (Gopalakrishnan, col 8, lines 48-62: The fail-safe module 140 may be configured to direct the UAV 102, where possible, to a safe location. The safe location may be a predetermined area such as a facility at which the UAV 102 is based, has designated landing or parking areas, and so forth. For example, prior to deployment of the UAV 102, data indicative of the safe locations may be stored by the UAV 102 for subsequent use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the limitations in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Gopalakrishnan because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the server to assist the vehicle when the current wireless communication is compromised so that the vehicle can be navigated and controlled safely.
As to claims 8 and 18, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Zhang further teaches wherein:
the compromised wireless network is one of a plurality of networks associated with the vehicle (see at least Zhang para 0027-0030); and
communicating, over the different network with the network-connected device comprises:
performing the communicating with a user device connected to the different network, wherein the user device is associated with the user positioned within the vehicle (see at least Zhang para 0029: cellular vehicle networking…; para 0108: … Electronic devices may also represent various forms of mobile devices…cellular phones…; para 0113: The electronic device of the vehicle communication control method…).
Lei further teaches wherein selecting the different network other than the compromised wireless network comprises:
identifying a network of the plurality of networks that is determined, based on a comparison of network traffic conditions of the network with normal network traffic conditions, to be unlikely to be compromised (see at least Lei para 0036: …the process running on the vehicle monitors a cellular signal usable by the TCU to establish communication over a cellular network…If multiple cellular communication sources are available, the process may check the signal strength of all usable cellular signals before reporting a DSRC alternative…the remote server can simply use the alternative method of communication to efficiently and reliably relay the remote access request to the vehicle, para 0046, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the limitation in view of Lei et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Lei because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the server to communicate with the vehicle when the current wireless communication is compromised so that the vehicle can be navigated and controlled safely.
As to claims 9 and 19, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Gopalakrishnan further teaches wherein communicating over the different network is performed with another vehicle (Gopalakrishnan col 3, lines 40-67: …a second UAV…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the limitations in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Gopalakrishnan because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the server to assist the vehicle when the current wireless communication is compromised so that the vehicle can be navigated and controlled safely.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fang (US20230396634).
As to claims 5 and 15, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Zhang modified by Lei and Gopalakrishnan does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised comprises:
monitoring network traffic over the wireless network;
determining a network traffic threshold over the wireless network; and
comparing the monitored network traffic to the network traffic threshold;
wherein the wireless network of the vehicle is determined to be compromised when the monitored network traffic exceeds the network traffic threshold.
Fang is directed to universal intrusion detection and prevention for vehicle networks. Fang teaches determining an intrusion event value in response to the network communications… determining…a communication is present that is provided above a frequency threshold rate… communications that result in a data rate that exceeds a threshold value, that is not expected based on the communicating device, that is different from a commanded and/or defined value (Fang para 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the limitations in view of Fang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Fang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to determine compromised network in the vehicle so that appropriate countermeasure could be taken to ensure safe driving.
As to claims 6 and 16, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Fang further teaches wherein determining that the wireless network of the vehicle has been compromised comprises: monitoring network traffic over the wireless network; and extracting packet information from a plurality of network packets communicated over the wireless network of the vehicle; wherein the wireless network of the vehicle is determined to be compromised based on determining that the extracted packet information is different than expected packet information (Fang para 0083: determining unknown packet value is present…; also see para 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the limitations in view of Fang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Fang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to determine compromised network in the vehicle so that appropriate countermeasure could be taken to ensure safe driving.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kundu (US20180040171).
As to claims 10 and 20, Zhang in view of Lei and Gopalakrishnan teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Zhang modified by Lei and Gopalakrishnan does not teach wherein:
the vehicle is in an autonomous driving mode; and
performing the remedial action comprises generating for presentation a notification instructing a user to manually operate the vehicle.
Kundu is directed to self-driving vehicle sensor fault remediation. Kundu teaches …the one or more instructions pertaining to carrying out the determined remedial action can include an instruction to switch the self-driving vehicle from self-driving mode to human-operated mode, as well as an instruction to alter the route of the self-driving vehicle (see at least Kundu para 0050, also see claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang so as to include the limitations in view of Kundu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Kundu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to take appropriate remedial actions to ensure safe driving.
Examiner’s Notes
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conner, US20180234446(A1): … detection of security breaches in intravehicular communication systems.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights