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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 9/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has not been considered by the examiner because it has not been filed.
Specification
2. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. 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 limitations in Claims 1, 9, and 17 are:
An attacker subsystem (Claim 1)
Internal communication module (Claim 9)
External communication module (Claim 9)
Remote communication module (Claim 9)
Redundant control module (Claim 9)
Vehicle control parameters module (Claim 17)
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.
5. Claims 1-20 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 disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “an attacker subsystem configured to attack a module of the plurality of modules,” “the internal communication module is configured to transfer data between the plurality of modules within the vehicle subsystem,” “(ii) the external communication module is configured to send or receive data between the vehicle subsystem and an environmental infrastructure,” “the remote communication module is configured to send control data to, and receive a feedback message from, the vehicle subsystem or the attacker subsystem,” “the redundant control module is configured to control safe vehicle operation,” and “a vehicle control parameters module that is configured to provide a parameter as the vehicle control command,” which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, have been included based on its dependency.
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.
6. 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-20, have been included based on its dependency.
7. The term “high voltage” in Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, high voltage is interpreted as any voltage greater than zero.
8. Claim 1, 9, and 17 limitations includes “an attacker subsystem configured to attack a module of the plurality of modules,” “the internal communication module is configured to transfer data between the plurality of modules within the vehicle subsystem,” “(ii) the external communication module is configured to send or receive data between the vehicle subsystem and an environmental infrastructure,” “the remote communication module is configured to send control data to, and receive a feedback message from, the vehicle subsystem or the attacker subsystem,” “the redundant control module is configured to control safe vehicle operation,” and “a vehicle control parameters module that is configured to provide a parameter as the vehicle control command,” which 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. An attacker subsystem, an internal communication module, an external communication module, a remote communication module, a redundant control module, and a vehicle control parameters module are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a processor for controlling operations of the vehicle.
9. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the attacker subsystem, an internal communication module, an external communication module, a remote communication module, a redundant control module, and a vehicle control parameters module. Therefore, the claim is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
11. 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.
12. The factual inquiries 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.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyr (US 20230056233 A1) in view of Meng (CN 118643502 A).
14. Regarding Claim 1, Cyr teaches a system comprising (Cyr: [0022]):
A vehicle subsystem comprising a plurality of modules and a vehicle chassis, wherein the plurality of modules (i) comprises mechanical or electronic components that simulate one or more vehicle or vehicle electronic functionalities (Cyr: [0073] and [0083]),
(ii) comprises a modular form factor corresponding to the vehicle chassis (Cyr: [0034]),
And (iii) is coupled to a vehicle computer (Cyr: [0063]);
An attacker subsystem configured to attack a module of the plurality of modules (Cyr: [0085]);
and a controller subsystem configured to control operation of the vehicle subsystem and the attacker subsystem by (i) providing (a) a vehicle control command to the vehicle subsystem and (b) an attacker control command to the attacker subsystem and (ii) receiving (a) vehicle feedback from the vehicle subsystem… (Cyr: [0026] and [0085]).
Cyr fails to explicitly teach receiving… (b) attacker feedback from the attacker subsystem.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches (ii) receiving (a) vehicle feedback from the vehicle subsystem and (b) attacker feedback from the attacker subsystem (Meng: [Page 8, Lines 19-21] and [Page 9, Lines 21-26]).
Cyr and Meng are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle security control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cyr to incorporate the teachings of Meng to receive feedback from the attacker subsystem because it provides the benefit of dynamically adjusting the attack based on the output to improve the defense capability of the system under continuous attack as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 19-21] of Meng.
15. Regarding Claim 2, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cyr teaches the vehicle subsystem comprises one or more of a locomotion module group, a sensing module group, a communication module group, or a power management module (Cyr: [0039] and [0076]).
16. Regarding Claim 3, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Cyr teaches the locomotion module group comprises one or more of a drivetrain module, a steering module, or a braking module (Cyr: [0047]).
17. Regarding Claim 4, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Cyr teaches (i) the drivetrain module is configured to control longitudinal motion associated with acceleration of the vehicle subsystem (Cyr: [0049]),
(ii) the steering module is configured to control lateral motion of the vehicle subsystem (Cyr: [0050]),
And (iii) the braking module is configured to control longitudinal motion associated with deceleration of the vehicle subsystem (Cyr: [0051]).
18. Regarding Claim 5, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Cyr teaches (i) the controller subsystem is further configured to provide a motion command to the steering module, the drivetrain module, or the braking module (Cyr: [0083]),
and (ii) the vehicle computer is further configured to receive feedback or performance data from the steering module, the drivetrain module, or the braking module based on an operation in accordance with the motion command (Cyr: [0116] and [0124]).
19. Regarding Claim 6, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Cyr teaches the sensing module group comprises one or more of a perception sensor, a localization sensor, a vehicle motion sensor, or a performance and health sensor (Cyr: [0066]).
20. Regarding Claim 7, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Cyr teaches (i) the perception sensor is configured to collect data that is associated with decision-making and path planning (Cyr: [0065]),
(ii) the localization sensor is configured to provide navigation or driver assistance functionality (Cyr: [0063] and [0066]),
(iii) the vehicle motion sensor comprises a wheel speed sensor, a tire-pressure monitoring system sensor, a steering position sensor, or a steering torque sensor (Cyr: [0076]).
Cyr fails to explicitly teach the performance and health sensor is configured to monitor performance and health of the vehicle subsystem.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Meng teaches (iv) the performance and health sensor is configured to monitor performance and health of the vehicle subsystem (Meng: [Page 10, Lines 23-29]).
Cyr and Meng are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle security control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cyr to incorporate the teachings of Meng to monitor performance and health of the vehicle subsystem because it provides the benefit of detecting a high-risk attack to subsequently perform a mitigating action that isolates the relevant system while analyzing vulnerability points as explicitly explained in [Page 10, Lines 23-29] of Meng.
21. Regarding Claim 8, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Cyr teaches the communication module group comprises one or more of an internal communication module, an external communication module, a remote communication module, or a redundant control module (Cyr: [0039]).
22. Regarding Claim 9, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Cyr teaches (i) the internal communication module is configured to transfer data between the plurality of modules within the vehicle subsystem (Cyr: [0040] and [0045]),
(ii) the external communication module is configured to send or receive data between the vehicle subsystem and an environmental infrastructure (Cyr: [0057] and [0063]),
(iii) the remote communication module is configured to send control data to, and receive a feedback message from, the vehicle subsystem or the attacker subsystem (Cyr: [0057] and [0063]),
And (iv) the redundant control module is configured to control safe vehicle operation (Cyr: [0117]).
23. Regarding Claim 10, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Cyr teaches the power management module is configured to manage an energy storage device in providing power to the vehicle subsystem (Cyr: [0049]).
24. Regarding Claim 11, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Cyr teaches the power management module comprises (i) a high voltage module that is associated with providing high voltage for traction (Cyr: [0049] Note that electricity provided to the motor for causing at least one wheel to rotate is equivalent to a high voltage module associated with providing high voltage for traction.),
and (ii) a low voltage module associated with one or more electronic control units or microcontrollers (Cyr: [0047]).
25. Regarding Claim 12, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cyr teaches the attacker subsystem comprises one or more of an attacker group module, a feedback sensor, an actuator, or a power management module (Cyr: [0103]).
26. Regarding Claim 13, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Cyr teaches the attacker group module comprises an ultrasonic transducer, a millimeter wave or infrared emitter, or a laser (Cyr: [0103]).
27. Regarding Claim 14, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Cyr teaches the feedback sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor, a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor, or a camera that is configured to detect an attack on a sensor, process, or program that operates in conjunction with a target sensor that captures ground truth information (Cyr: [0087] and [0089]).
28. Regarding Claim 15, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Cyr teaches a deviation from information provided by the feedback sensor with respect to the target sensor is representative of a successful attack (Cyr: [0087], [0089], and [0124]).
29. Regarding Claim 16, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Cyr teaches a magnitude of the deviation corresponds to a strength of the successful attack (Cyr: [0124]).
30. Regarding Claim 17, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cyr teaches the controller subsystem comprises a vehicle control parameters module that is configured to provide a parameter as the vehicle control command (Cyr: [0051]).
31. Regarding Claim 18, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cyr teaches the parameter comprises velocity, heading, or steering angle (Cyr: [0051]).
32. Regarding Claim 19, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cyr teaches the controller subsystem comprises an attacker control parameters module that is configured to provide a parameter as the attacker control command (Cyr: [0089] and [0090]).
33. Regarding Claim 20, Cyr and Meng remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Cyr teaches the parameter comprises trigger rate, trigger frequency, height, or azimuth (Cyr: [0089] and [0090]).
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imoto (US 20230007033 A1)
North (US 20180205754 A1)
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights