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 . The present office action is responsive to communication received 4/4/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/4/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application no. 19/170,110 on 4/4/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) is/are: “a event detection unit…to generate event data, a first verification data generation unit… to generate first verification data, a log generation unit… to generate a security log, a log acquisition unit… to acquire the security log, a second verification data generation unit… to generate a second verification data, a verification unit… to verify identity of the first verification data, a transmission unit… to transmit the event data“ in claim 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, “a first log generation unit… to generate a first security log” in claim 2, “ a third verification data generation unit… to generate the third verification data” in claim 3, “an importance storage unit… to store the event” in claim 7, “a load determination unit… that determines a processing load” in claim 8, “a log reception unit… to receive the second security log, “a fourth verification data generation unit… to generate a fourth verification data”, a verification unit… to verify identity of the third verification data”, “an external communication unit… to transmit an external transmission log” in claim 10 and 13.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 11-13 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. The claims recite limitations invoking 112f, however the specification is lacking the written description corresponding to the units.
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 and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the: “a event detection unit, a first verification data generation unit, a log generation unit, a log acquisition unit, a second verification data generation unit, a verification unit, a transmission unit, a first log generation unit, a third verification data generation unit, an importance storage unit, a load determination unit, a log reception unit, a fourth verification data generation unit, and an external communication” There is no structure performing the functionalities of these units. The specification also states that the units are included in a sensor module which is a part of the ECU, however the ECU can be hardware or a virtualized entity (software). The units themselves are not described as structure.
Claims 5, 8, and 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.
Claims 5, 8, and 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.
Regarding claim 5 Claim 5 recites the limitation “the second security log includes a specific event data contained in a specific security log,” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite and lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what “specific event and specific security log” mean. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as event data and security log.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation “a load determination unit that determines a processing load of the log generation device, and a frequency at which the verification unit verifies the identity when the processing load is a first processing load is lower compared to when the processing load is a second processing load, which is lower than the first processing load” in lines 1-3 renders the claim indefinite and lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what “a frequency at which the verification unit verifies the identity when the processing load is a first processing load is lower compared to when the processing load is a second processing load, which is lower than the first processing load” means. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “a frequency at which the verification unit verifies the identity”.
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the transmission unit transmits the event data to a log collection device mounted on a movable body together with the log generation device” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite and lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what “event data” means as in the claim 2 it is stated that the transmission unit transmits the second security log. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “the second security log” being transmitted by the transmission unit.
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 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jakobsson et al. (US 20110314297) in view of Dhamija et al. (US 12565143) in further view of Kawazu et al. (US 20170249483)
Regarding claim 1,
Jakobsson discloses a log generation device (Fig. 1) comprising
an event data generation unit configured to generate event data indicating an event when detecting the event;
[secure component 212 obtains event descriptions 220-222 for events in computing device 202 (Jakobsson et al., paragraph 40)]
a first verification data generation unit configured to generate first verification data for verifying authenticity of the event data;
[obtains event descriptions 220-222 for events in computing device 202 and computes MACs 224-226 for the events using a key 214 that is inaccessible to computing device 202 (Jakobsson et al., paragraph 40)
and a log generation unit configured to generate a security log including the event data and the first verification data;
[the MAC may be stored in the log entry along with the event description. (Jakobsson et al. paragraph 31)]
the log generation module includes: a log acquisition unit configured to acquire the security log generated by the
[The log entry may be received over a network by an auditing apparatus, such as auditing apparatus 110 of FIG. 1. (Jakobsson et al., paragraph 51)]
[[the MAC may be stored in the log entry along with the event description (Jakobsson et al. paragraph 31)]
a second verification data generation unit configured to generate a second verification data using the event data included in the security log;
[The key may be stored on a secure component associated with the computing device and may be inaccessible to the computing device. In addition, the key may be used to compute a MAC for the log entry (operation 406). For example, an HMAC may be computed from an event description within the log entry using a cryptographic hash function and the key. (Jakobsson et al., paragraph 51)]
and a verification unit configured to verify identity of the first verification data and the second verification data;
[Auditing apparatus 110 may then compare MAC 218 to the stored MAC from the log entry. If MAC 218 and the stored MAC are identical, the integrity of the log entry is verified. If MAC 218 differs from the stored MAC, corruption of the log entry may be detected. (Jakobsson et al. paragraph 43)].
Jakobsson discloses detecting events but does not explicitly teach a sensor module.
However, in an analogous art Dhamija discloses a sensor module[The event model(s) can be configured to process the input data to detect events. For example, the first event model can be an audio event detection model configured to process audio data from the audio capture device 114 to detect audio events. (Dhamija et al., column 11, lines 6-13)]
[A Vehicle Signal Event is an event that indicates vehicle signal data of interest, such as a vehicle signal that indicates a turn signal is activated in the vehicle, has been received by a sensor of the vehicle device. (Dhamija et al., column 5, lines 12-15)]
Jakobsson and Dhamija are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Dhamija et al. to include a sensor module because it would cause to verify if alerts or detected events are accurate. (Dhamija et al., column 12, lines 24-26)
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija fails to explicitly disclose the log generation device further comprises a transmission unit configured to transmit the event data when the first verification data and the second verification data are identical.
However, in an analogous art Kawazu discloses the log generation device further comprises a transmission unit configured to transmit the event data when the first verification data and the second verification data are identical.
[A notification unit 209 transmits the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the modules in step S613 and the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the data in step S616 to the client PC 1001 (step S617). (Kawazu et al., paragraph 121)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Kawazu et al. to include the log generation device further comprises a transmission unit configured to transmit the event data when the first verification data and the second verification data are identical, in order to verify integrity of the module and the data stored in the memory. (Kawazu et al., paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 2,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses The log generation device according to claim 1, wherein a first log generation unit, which is the log generation unit, generates a first security log, which is the security log, the log generation module further includes a second log generation unit configured to generate a second security log including the event data and a third verification data for verifying authenticity of the event data when the first verification data and the second verification data are identical, and the transmission unit transmits the second security log.
[Auditing apparatus 110 may use counters 228-230 to further authenticate event log 206. For example, auditing apparatus 110 may examine counters 228-230 in sequential order for missing numeric values. If log entries 208-210 are correctly enumerated by counters 228-230, all log entries in event log 206 may be intact. (Jakobsson et al., paragraph 44, the counters being the third verification data as they can be used to further authenticate the event log)]
Regarding claim 3,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 2, wherein the log generation module further includes a third verification data generation unit configured to generate the third verification data using the event data, the third verification data being different from the first verification data and the second verification data.
[Auditing apparatus 110 may use counters 228-230 to further authenticate event log 206. For example, auditing apparatus 110 may examine counters 228-230 in sequential order for missing numeric values. If log entries 208-210 are correctly enumerated by counters 228-230, all log entries in event log 206 may be intact. (Jakobsson et al., paragraph 44, the counters being the third verification data as they can be used to further authenticate the event log)]
Regarding claim 4,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 2, wherein the third verification data is either the first verification data or the second verification data.
[The first verification unit 203 determines whether the hash value of each data calculated by the calculation unit 201 matches a valid hash value included in a list 302. In this embodiment, the first verification unit 203 compares the hash values of the data a 115, the data b 116, and the data c 117 calculated by the calculation unit 201 with valid hash values included in the list 302. (Kawazu et al. ,paragraph 56)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Kawazu et al. to include wherein the third verification data is either the first verification data or the second verification data, in order to verify integrity of the module and the data stored in the memory. (Kawazu et al., paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 5,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 2, wherein the log acquisition unit acquires a plurality of first security logs where types of events indicated by the event data are common, and the second security log includes a specific event data contained in a specific security log, which is an oldest or newest security log among the plurality of first security logs, and the third verification data, which is either the first verification data contained in the specific security log or the second verification data generated using the specific event data.
[The vehicle device can provide alerts (including real-time alerts) of detected safety events, such as vehicle lane departures and changes without an activated turn signal and/or other events of interest. (Dhamija et al., column 1, lines 44-48)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson and Kawazu to incorporate the teachings of Dhamija et al. to include wherein the log acquisition unit acquires a plurality of first security logs where types of events indicated by the event data are common, and the second security log includes a specific event data contained in a specific security log, which is an oldest or newest security log among the plurality of first security logs, and the third verification data, which is either the first verification data contained in the specific security log or the second verification data generated using the specific event data, in order to verify if alert/detected events are accurate. (Dhamija et al., column 12, lines 24-26)
Regarding claim 6,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses The log generation device according to claim 1, wherein the security log further includes an importance data indicating importance set according to the event, and the verification unit verifies the identity when the importance indicated by the importance data is higher than a predetermined importance.
[the event model can be configured to identity audio events that are indicative of unsafe driving or unsafe driving conditions for the vehicle. In such cases, the vehicle device 110 can generate alerts for the driver of the vehicle and/or for transmitting to the backend server 130. In cases of unsafe driving or unsafe driving conditions related to detected audio, alerts for the driver may not be required, as the nature of the audio events provide an alert to the driver. However, an alert transmitted to the backend server 130 for review by a fleet manager, for example, may be more important to track the driving patterns of the vehicle driver and identify cases of unsafe driving. (Dhamija et al., column 22, lines 39-51)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson and Kawazu to incorporate the teachings of Dhamija et al. to include wherein the security log further includes an importance data indicating importance set according to the event, and the verification unit verifies the identity when the importance indicated by the importance data is higher than a predetermined importance, in order to verify if alert/detected events are accurate. (Dhamija et al., column 12, lines 24-26)
Regarding claim 7,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 1, further comprising an importance storage unit configured to store the event and importance set according to the event in association, wherein the verification unit verifies the identity when the importance corresponding to the event indicated by the event data included in the security log is higher than a predetermined importance.
[additional data may be acquired by the vehicle device 110 along with the audio data and image data and can be stored for further processing or transmission. For example, metadata and/or vehicle signal data can be acquired by the vehicle device 110. (Dhamija et al., column 14, lines 8-12 )]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson and Kawazu to incorporate the teachings of Dhamija et al. to include wherein the security log further includes an importance storage unit configured to store the event and importance set according to the event in association, wherein the verification unit verifies the identity when the importance corresponding to the event indicated by the event data included in the security log is higher than a predetermined importance, in order to verify if alert/detected events are accurate. (Dhamija et al., column 12, lines 24-26)
Regarding claim 9,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 2, wherein the transmission unit transmits the event data when the first verification data and the second verification data are identical, and also when the event data meets a predetermined condition.
[A notification unit 209 transmits the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the modules in step S613 and the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the data in step S616 to the client PC 1001 (step S617). (Kawazu et al., paragraph 121)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Kawazu et al. to include wherein the transmission unit transmits the event data when the first verification data and the second verification data are identical, and also when the event data meets a predetermined condition, in order to verify integrity of the module and the data stored in the memory. (Kawazu et al., paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 10,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 2, wherein the transmission unit transmits the event data to a log collection device mounted on a movable body together with the log generation device,
[A notification unit 209 transmits the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the modules in step S613 and the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the data in step S616 to the client PC 1001 (step S617). (Kawazu et al., paragraph 121)]
the log collection device includes: a log reception unit configured to receive the second security log from the log generation device; [A notification unit 209 transmits the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the modules in step S613 and the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the data in step S616 to the client PC 1001 (step S617). (Kawazu et al., paragraph 121)]
a fourth verification data generation unit configured to generate a fourth verification data using the event data included in the second security log;
[A valid hash value stored in the server is a hash value generated for a module stored in the memory of the information processing apparatus 100.(Kawazu et al., paragraph 45, valid hash being the second verification data)]
a verification unit configured to verify identity of the third verification data included in the second security log and the fourth verification data;
[compares the valid hash values in the database 1003 with the hash values included in the first verification data. The second verification unit 808 thus checks the presence/absence of a falsification of each module (step S613). (Kawazu et al., paragraph 119)]
and an external communication unit configured to transmit an external transmission log, which includes the event data generated based on the second security log, to outside of the movable body when the third verification data and the fourth verification data are identical.
[A notification unit 209 transmits the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the modules in step S613 and the verification result of the presence/absence of falsifications of the data in step S616 to the client PC 1001 (step S617). (Kawazu et al., paragraph 121)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson to incorporate the teachings of Kawazu et al. to include wherein the transmission unit transmits the event data to a log collection device mounted on a movable body together with the log generation device, the log collection device includes: a log reception unit configured to receive the second security log from the log generation device, a fourth verification data generation unit configured to generate a fourth verification data using the event data included in the second security log, a verification unit configured to verify identity of the third verification data included in the second security log and the fourth verification data, and an external communication unit configured to transmit an external transmission log, which includes the event data generated based on the second security log, to outside of the movable body when the third verification data and the fourth verification data are identical, in order to verify integrity of the module and the data stored in the memory. (Kawazu et al., paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 11-12 and 14-19, the claims recite limitations substantially included in claim 1. (see claim 1 for rejection)
Regarding claim 13,
The claim recites substantially the same content as claim 10 and is rejected with the rationales set forth for claim 10.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jakobsson et al. (US 20110314297) in view of Dhamija et al. (US 12565143) in further view of Kawazu et al. (US 20170249483) and in further view of Ishigaya et al., (US 20210258142).
Regarding claim 8,
Jakobsson in view of Dhamija in further view of Kawazu discloses the log generation device according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the log generation module further includes a load determination unit that determines a processing load of the log generation device, and a frequency at which the verification unit verifies the identity when the processing load is a first processing load is lower compared to when the processing load is a second processing load, which is lower than the first processing load.
However in an analogous art Ishigaya discloses wherein the log generation module further includes a load determination unit that determines a processing load of the log generation device, and a frequency at which the verification unit verifies the identity when the processing load is a first processing load is lower compared to when the processing load is a second processing load, which is lower than the first processing load.
[The decrease in the frequency of block generation while the transmission rate is low reduces the communication load on the transaction network 102.(Ishigaya et al., paragraph 124)]
Jakobsson, Dhamija, Kawazu, and Ishigaya are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data verification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jakobsson, Dhamija, and Kawazu to incorporate the teachings of Ishigaya et al. to include wherein the log generation module further includes a load determination unit that determines a processing load of the log generation device, and a frequency at which the verification unit verifies the identity when the processing load is a first processing load is lower compared to when the processing load is a second processing load, which is lower than the first processing load, in order to increase or decrease the threshold t and K on the basis of predetermined control conditions. (Ishigaya et al., paragraph 124)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feist et al. (20200226292) discloses using a Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) technique to determine a HMAC value for the data of the log data element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ELAHIAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1138. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/D.E./DANIEL ELAHIAN, Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights