DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 2, 7, 12, and 17 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 encryption algorithm is an algorithm to which post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is applied.
Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, the encryption algorithm is an algorithm to which post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is applied.
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 1-20 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.
It is unclear what the intended metes and bounds of claims 1-20 is, it is indefinite what the intended metes and bounds of “the encryption algorithm is an algorithm to which post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is applied” is, what does it mean applying post-quantum cryptography (PQC) to an algorithm. Applicant has failed to establish the intended metes and bounds of these, and thus the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 what the intended metes and bounds of “wherein an encryption algorithm is applied to the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature based on information on the vehicle” is, what are the metes and bounds of applying an algorithm to information, or a signature based on other information.
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13, and 18, it is indefinite what the intended difference between “a plurality of algorithms is separately applied” and “a plurality of algorithms are separately applied” is.
This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madrid (20180217828).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Madrid teaches
A method of supporting a vehicle feature on demand (FoD) service by an FoD server, the method comprising: / A feature on demand (FoD) server for supporting a vehicle FoD service, the FoD server comprising: a communication module; a memory; and a processor configured to:
receiving a request for information related to an FoD service from a vehicle (par.29-33, determine updates available, package updates for vehicle);
generating information that is related to the FoD service for the vehicle and includes information for activating the FoD service and an electronic signature (par.39-44, encrypt and sign updates); and
transmitting the information related to the FoD service for the vehicle to the vehicle, wherein an encryption algorithm is applied to the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature based on information on the vehicle (par.23-33, transmit to vehicles, determine updates for vehicle, identified by vin, encrypt according to vehicle).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Madrid teaches receiving information on firmware or software applied to the vehicle in relation to the FoD service from the vehicle, wherein the information on the vehicle is information on the encryption algorithm applied to the vehicle (27-29).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Madrid teaches wherein an encryption algorithm applied to the information for activating the FoD service is a symmetric-key encryption algorithm, and wherein an encryption algorithm applied to the electronic signature is an asymmetric-key encryption algorithm (Madrid, 27-29, Miller, 39-41).
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, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madrid, and further in view of Miller (20180048473).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Madrid teaches A method of activating a vehicle feature on demand (FoD) service by an electronic device, the method comprising: / An electronic device for activating a vehicle feature on demand (FoD) service, the electronic device comprising: a communication module; a memory; and a processor configured to (abstract, par.49-53):
requesting information related to an FoD service from an FoD server; receiving information related to the FoD service for a vehicle from the FoD server (par.29-33, determine updates available, package updates for vehicle);
verifying an electronic signature included in the received information related to the FoD service for the vehicle; decrypting information for activating the FoD service included in the received information related to the FoD service for the vehicle (par.35-38, verify signature, decrypt and install software);
activating the FoD service when the electronic signature is successfully verified and the information for activating the FoD service is successfully decrypted (par.35-38, verify signature, decrypt and install software); and
wherein the information related to the FoD service for the vehicle includes the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature, and wherein an encryption algorithm is applied to the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature based on information on the vehicle (par.23-33, determine updates for vehicle, identified by vin, encrypt according to vehicle).
Madrid teaches notifications (par.43-51) but does not expressly disclose, however, Miller teaches transmitting a result of the activated FoD service to the FoD server (par.7-11, 21-28) and also teaches
wherein the information related to the FoD service for the vehicle includes the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature, and wherein an encryption algorithm is applied to the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature based on information on the vehicle (par.26-30).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madrid to send notifications as taught by Miller.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further assist users (Miller, par.3-11, 38-40).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Madrid/Miller teaches transmitting information on firmware or software applied to the vehicle in relation to the FoD service, wherein the information on the vehicle is information on the encryption algorithm applied to the vehicle (Madrid, 27-29, Miller, 39-41).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Madrid/Miller teaches wherein an encryption algorithm applied to the information for activating the FoD service is a symmetric-key encryption algorithm, and wherein an encryption algorithm applied to the electronic signature is an asymmetric-key encryption algorithm (Madrid, 27-29, Miller, 39-41).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madrid/Miller, and further in view of Friesen (20240121615).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Madrid/Miller does not expressly disclose, however, Friesen teaches wherein the information on the vehicle is information on a date on which the vehicle is released, and wherein when the vehicle is released after a specific date, the encryption algorithm is an algorithm to which post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is applied (24-27, 34-37, 60-65).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madrid/Miller to provide a PQC ready system as taught by Friesen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect resources (Friesen, par.8-12).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Madrid/Miller does not expressly disclose, however, Friesen teaches wherein the information on the vehicle is information on a date on which the vehicle is released, and wherein when the vehicle is released before a specific date, a plurality of encryption algorithms is separately applied to the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature (13-19).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madrid/Miller to provide additional encryption schemes and increased key lengths as taught by Friesen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect resources (Friesen, par.8-20).
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madrid, and further in view of Friesen.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Madrid does not expressly disclose, however, Friesen teaches wherein the information on the vehicle is information on a date on which the vehicle is released, and wherein when the vehicle is released after a specific date, the encryption algorithm is an algorithm to which post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is applied (24-27, 34-37, 60-65).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madrid to provide a PQC ready system as taught by Friesen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect resources (Friesen, par.8-12).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Madrid does not expressly disclose, however, Friesen teaches wherein the information on the vehicle is information on a date on which the vehicle is released, and wherein when the vehicle is released before a specific date, a plurality of encryption algorithms is separately applied to the information for activating the FoD service and the electronic signature (13-19).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madrid to provide additional encryption schemes and increased key lengths as taught by Friesen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further protect resources (Friesen, par.8-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to vehicle software updates, Mikami (20260088984), Roseman (20260037244), McGary (20260010358), Reiter (20250315243), Masuda (20250171044), Teraoka (20240134628), Klische (20180336024), Madrid (20180217828), Kruger (20200177561).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights