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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-9, 12-13) in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-11, 14, 15, 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Species 2-5), there being no allowance generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: (a verification unit configured to verify…) in claims 1, 12, (a reception unit configured to receive…; a validity confirmation unit configured to confirm…) in claim 2, .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1, 2, 12 limitation “a verification unit configured to verify…; a reception unit configured to receive…; a validity confirmation unit configured to confirm” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claim has no support for means in the specification. Therefore, claims 1-9, 13 (claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1, and claim 13 is dependent on claim 12) are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner’s note
Claim 3 is not rejected under prior art.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al (Pat. No. US 10637657) in view of Kohlbrenner et al (Pub. No. US 2022/0405743).
As per claim 1, Haga discloses an electronic control unit mounted on a vehicle (master ECU inside a vehicle, fig.1, col. 7 lines 49-51), the electronic control unit comprising: a storage that stores a key (storing by a master ECU, a shared key used in transmission of a first session key, claim 1); and a verification unit configured to verify, for each predetermined time (verifying update authority information indicating authority of the external tool, acquiring external point-in-time information; determining whether or not the external point-in-time information is before the expiration date; and in a case where the external point-in-time information is a predetermined amount of time before the expiration date or the expiration date has passed, claim 1), the key stored in the storage with key information that is information related to the key (storing, by a master electronic control unit (master ECU) which is included in the ECUs, a shared key…, and an expiration date of the shared key; in a case where the master ECU receives an update message from the external tool instructing updating of the shared key, verifying update authority information indicating authority of the external tool…, wherein the update authority information (i) identifies that one or more function types are out of a plurality of function types related to operation of a vehicle for classifying the ECUs, and (ii) indicates that the external tool has authority to cause the ECU which is classified to any of the identified one or more function types, to perform the update, and wherein the determining further determines whether or not the function type of the ECU set to receive a message ID of the update message corresponds to any of the identified one or more function types, when the function type of the ECU set to receive the message ID is determined to correspond to any of the identified one or more function types, claim 1). Haga discloses in a case where the master ECU receives an update message from the external tool but does not explicitly cite the key…is stored in a distributed ledger placed outside the vehicle. However Kohlbrenner discloses the key…is stored in a distributed ledger placed outside the vehicle (the electronic control unit is configured to gather initial vehicle service data at a start of a provision of the vehicle service in the electronic control unit, wherein the initial vehicle service data comprise a timestamp of establishing the data connection, identification data of the vehicle, and at the time of the timestamp at least one value of a state of the vehicle indicating a quantity which is to be altered by the provision of the vehicle service, the electronic control unit configured to store the initial vehicle service data and final vehicle service data gathered in the electronic control unit, which are updated initial vehicle service data at an end of the completion of the provision of the vehicle service, consecutively or along with each other on a blockchain network (fig.1 shows the blockchain network 5 place outside the vehicle), par. 27-29, fig.1, element 5). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Kohlbrenner in Haga for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further provide a transfer of the initial and final vehicle service data to the blockchain network occur in a secure and trustworthy manner, par. 18-19.
As per claim 12, Haga discloses an electronic control system comprising: a plurality of electronic control units mounted on a vehicle (master ECUs 100 and 100a, col.31, lines 64-65), wherein each of the plurality of electronic control units includes: a storage that stores a key (storing by master ECU, a shared key used in transmission of a first session key, claim 1, col.31 lines 64-65); and a verification unit configured to verify, for each predetermined time (verifying update authority information indicating authority of the external tool, acquiring external point-in-time information; determining whether or not the external point-in-time information is before the expiration date; and in a case where the external point-in-time information is a predetermined amount of time before the expiration date or the expiration date has passed, claim 1), the key stored in the storage with key information that is information related to the key (storing, by a master electronic control unit (master ECU) which is included in the ECUs, a shared key…, and an expiration date of the shared key; in a case where the master ECU receives an update message from the external tool instructing updating of the shared key, verifying update authority information indicating authority of the external tool…, wherein the update authority information (i) identifies that one or more function types are out of a plurality of function types related to operation of a vehicle for classifying the ECUs, and (ii) indicates that the external tool has authority to cause the ECU which is classified to any of the identified one or more function types, to perform the update, and wherein the determining further determines whether or not the function type of the ECU set to receive a message ID of the update message corresponds to any of the identified one or more function types, when the function type of the ECU set to receive the message ID is determined to correspond to any of the identified one or more function types, claim 1). Haga discloses in a case where the master ECU receives an update message from the external tool but does not explicitly cite the key… is stored in a distributed ledger. However Kohlbrenner discloses the key… is stored in a distributed ledger (the electronic control unit is configured to gather initial vehicle service data at a start of a provision of the vehicle service in the electronic control unit, wherein the initial vehicle service data comprise a timestamp of establishing the data connection, identification data of the vehicle, and at the time of the timestamp at least one value of a state of the vehicle indicating a quantity which is to be altered by the provision of the vehicle service, the electronic control unit configured to store the initial vehicle service data and final vehicle service data gathered in the electronic control unit, which are updated initial vehicle service data at an end of the completion of the provision of the vehicle service, consecutively or along with each other on a blockchain network (fig.1 shows the blockchain network 5 place outside the vehicle), par. 27-29, fig.1, element 5). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Kohlbrenner in Haga for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further provide a transfer of the initial and final vehicle service data to the blockchain network occur in a secure and trustworthy manner, par. 18-19.
As per claim 2, the combination of Haga and Kohlbrenner discloses a reception unit configured to receive a digital certificate of the key; and a validity confirmation unit configured to confirm a validity of the digital certificate via a certificate authority (Haga: the public key certificate includes version, issuer, start and end of valid period, certificate identification information (ID), public key, update authority information (level), and signature for these. The signature is issued by the key issuing authority or a certificate authority such as a portal server or the like, the master ECU can perform authentication of the external tool by acquiring the public key certificate from the external tool and performing verification of the signature, col.10 line 57-col.11 line 5).
As per claim 4, the combination of Haga and Kohlbrenner discloses wherein the storage stores a verification result by the verification unit, and the electronic control unit determines whether to use the key based on the verification result when using the key (Kohlbrenner: store on the blockchain network service provider service data of the completed vehicle service gathered in the service provider communication unit, checking means in the blockchain network for checking on the blockchain network a validity of the provision of the vehicle service by comparing at least a first numerical value of the initial and final vehicle service data of a predetermined unit with at least a second numerical value of the provider service data of the completed vehicle service of the predetermined unit, such that the validity is positive, when the first and second numerical values and/or a third numerical value, which results from the comparison based on an arithmetical operation using the first and second numerical values, are/is within a predetermined range of numerical values or below/above a predetermined threshold value, par. 30-31). The motivation for claim 4 is the same motivation as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, the combination of Haga and Kohlbrenner discloses wherein in addition to a second distributed ledger that is the distributed ledger, a first distributed ledger is provided in the vehicle (Kohlbrenner: par. 42). The motivation for claim 5 is the same motivation as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 13, the combination of Haga and Kohlbrenner discloses wherein when the plurality of electronic control units are a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit, the predetermined time in the first electronic control unit is different from the predetermined time in the second electronic control unit (Haga: col.32 lines 25-40).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al (Pat. No. US 10637657) in view of Kohlbrenner et al (Pub. No. US 2022/0405743) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takori et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0300235).
As per claim 6, the combination of Haga and Kohlbrenner does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined time is each first predetermined time when the vehicle is possible to communicate with an outside of the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling. However Takori discloses wherein the predetermined time is each first predetermined time when the vehicle is possible to communicate with an outside of the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling (when the automobile V that has arrived at the side of the occupant outside the vehicle starts after the occupant gets into the vehicle or while the automobile V is traveling by self-driving after starting, a predetermined communication or notification can be carried out to a pedestrian, etc. outside the vehicle, par. 54, when the first movement time has elapsed (that is, the distance between the automobile V and the occupant outside the vehicle has decreased to the first proximity distance), the electronic control unit controls the light emission of the first notification device so that the crescent moon-shaped light-emitting region is fixed to one of the left and right, and this gives the appearance of the eyes being oriented in a direction in which the occupant outside the vehicle is recognized, thus notifying the occupant outside the vehicle, par. 67). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Takori in the combination of Haga and Kohlbrenner for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve the communication support in a vehicle, par. 4-5.
As per claim 7, the combination of Haga, Kohlbrenner and Takori discloses wherein the first predetermined time is determined according to a speed of the vehicle (Takori: see par. 66). The motivation for claim 7 is the same motivation as in claim 6 above.
As per claim 8, the combination of Haga, Kohlbrenner and Takori discloses wherein the predetermined time is within a third predetermined time after the vehicle resumes communication with the outside when the vehicle has not communicated with the outside for a second predetermined time or more (Takori: par. 69). The motivation for claim 8 is the same motivation as in claim 6 above.
As per claim 9, the combination of Haga, Kohlbrenner and Takori discloses wherein the predetermined time is each fourth predetermined time when the vehicle is possible to communicate with an outside of the vehicle while the vehicle is parked (Takori: in the automobile V that is parked and is in standby in the proximity of an occupant outside the vehicle, the first and second notification devices are both in a non-operating state, in such a standby state of automobile , when the occupant outside the vehicle operates the smartphone so as to call the automobile V, in response to the operation (that is, receiving an operation signal) the electronic control unit C controls the first notification device to emit light. Due to these light-emitting modes, the occupant outside the vehicle is notified of the automobile V having acknowledged the call operation, and this notification state continues for a predetermined time, par. 57-58).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to an electronic control unit for verifying keys used for encryption, decryption, and the like.
Chhajer (Pub. No. US 2023/0185614); “System and Method for Providing Decentralized Vehicle Computing Using Blockchain”;
-Teaches the task execution module may be configured to pass the encrypted task request data associated with one or more computing tasks that may be requested to be offloaded by the ECU of the vehicle through the blockchain infrastructure to be communicated securely through the blockchain from the vehicle to one or more respective vehicles that are determined to be utilized to execute one or more respective computing tasks, par. 74.
Ghannam et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0078512); “Vehicle Data Verification”;
-Teaches upon determining the ECU determining an event code, the respective first blockchain node is programmed to initiate creation of an event block in the first blockchain. An event block is a blockchain data block that stores event data and typically also sensor data received by the ECU that determines the event code, par. 73-74.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights