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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 1/30/2026. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 19 and 20 are new. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 15-18 filed on 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are considered not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-12 of the remarks that the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to teach, show, or suggest “that the first frame is a normal frame”.
Sugashima teaches a threshold value of a reception interval is desirably equal to or below a minimum value assumed as a reception interval of normal data frames in par. 0037. Additionally, Sugashima teaches determining a data frame to be anomalous when the determination value exceeds a limit value in par. 0021. Therefore, the data frames that are not determined to be anomalous are still classified as normal frames.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 17, and 18, “and that the first frame is a normal frame” should be “and that the first data frame is a normal frame”.
Any claim not objected above is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sugashima et al. (US Pat. Pub. 20210006479; hereinafter referred to as Sugashima) and Kishikawa et al. (US Pat. Pub. 20190068715; hereinafter referred to as Kishikawa).
As per claims 1, 17, and 18:
Sugashima teaches an abnormal frame determination device (Sugashima par. 0006, anomaly detection by a first electronic control unit), abnormal frame determination method (Sugashima par. 0021, anomaly detection method), and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an abnormal frame determination program comprising instructions executable by an abnormal frame determination device (Sugashima par. 0020, anomaly detection program comprising instructions executed by a first electronic control unit) configured to be connected to an electronic control unit configured to transmit data frames at a predetermined period (Sugashima par. 0021, the first electronic control unit is connected to a second electronic control unit configured to transmit data frames periodically), the abnormal frame determination device comprising a processor (Sugashima par. 0104, controllers include processors) configured to: receive a first data frame estimated to have been transmitted from the electronic control unit (Sugashima par. 0021); calculate a receipt interval between the first data frame and a second data frame, the second data frame being a data frame received immediately before receiving of the first data frame (Sugashima par. 0021, calculate a reception interval between a first data frame and a second data frame received immediately before the first data frame); add a predetermined value to a determination value stored in a storage when the receipt interval is shorter than a threshold (Sugashima par. 0021, add a predetermined value to a determination value when the reception interval is equal to or less than a threshold); and determine that the second data frame is an abnormal frame and that the first frame is a normal frame when the determination value reaches a limit value (Sugashima par. 0021, determine the second data frame to be anomalous when the determination value exceeds a limit value. Please note the data frames not determined as analogous are initially classified as normal data frames as stated in Sugashima par. 00
37).
Sugashima does not explicitly disclose the receipt interval is longer than a proximity receipt interval that is a criterion for determining whether the first data frame and the second data frame are received in proximity to each other. However, Kishikawa discloses the receipt interval is longer than a proximity receipt interval that is a criterion for determining whether the first data frame and the second data frame are received in proximity to each other (Kishikawa par. 0103-0106, determine if a data frame is fraudulent depending on whether a reception interval of the received interval is within a predetermined transmission period range. Please note the predetermined transmission period range is calculated using a previous receipt time and a receipt time of a currently received data frame as stated in Kishikawa par. 0103, which is interpreted as a proximity receipt interval).
Sugashima and Kishikawa are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor of data transmission. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kishikawa’s determination of whether a reception interval is within a predetermined transmission period range with the abnormal frame determination device, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium of Sugashima. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would allow for fraudulent data frames to be detected (Kishikawa par. 0106).
As per claim 2:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that at least one of the first data frame and the second data frame is the abnormal frame when the receipt interval is equal to or shorter than the proximity receipt interval. (Kishikawa par. 0103-0106, if receipt interval is less than the predetermined transmission period range, the data frame is determined to be fraudulent).
As per claim 3:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the second data frame is the abnormal frame when the determination value reaches the limit value for first time (Sugashima par. 0048, determine the second data frame to be anomalous when a determination value exceeds a limit value. Please note the determination value reaches the limit value for the first time as seen in Fig. 5) and the receipt interval is longer than the proximity receipt interval (Kishikawa par. 103).
As per claim 4:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the determination value reaches the limit value for first time when the determination value reaches the limit value by adding the predetermined value to an initial value of the determination value a predetermined number of times (Sugashima Fig. 4, Step S105 updates the determination value by adding a predetermined value and in Step S106-S107 the determination value reaches the limit value and the data frame is determined to be anomalous).
As per claim 5:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to subtract the predetermined value from the determination value when the receipt interval is longer than the threshold (Sugashima Fig. 6, Step S201 subtracts a predetermined value from the determination value after Step S104 determines the receipt interval is longer than the threshold value), and the processor is configured to determine that the determination value reaches the limit value for first time when the determination value reaches the limit value by adding the predetermined value to the determination value a predetermined number of times after the predetermined value is subtracted from the determination value (Sugashima Fig. 7, the determination value reaches the limit value for the first time after subtracting the predetermined value D4 and adding the predetermined value D3).
As per claim 6:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the second data frame is the abnormal frame when the determination value reaches the limit value by adding the predetermined value to the determination value less than the limit value (Sugashima par. 0048, determine the second data frame to be anomalous when a determination value exceeds a limit value. Please note the determination value reaches the limit value after adding the predetermined value D3 as seen in Fig. 5) and the receipt interval is longer than the proximity receipt interval (Kishikawa par. 0103).
As per claim 7:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that at least one of the first data frame and the second data frame is the abnormal frame when the predetermined value is further added to the determination value equal to or greater than the limit value (Sugashima Fig. 8, a predetermined value is added the to the determination value after it is greater than or equal to the “2nd limit value”. Please note this means that there is an anomalous data frame as stated in par. 0088)
As per claim 8:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the threshold is equal to or less than the predetermined period (Sugashima par. 0037, the threshold value is equal to or below a minimum value of reception interval of normal data frames).
As per claim 9:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 8, wherein the threshold is equal to a minimum value of a receipt interval of data frames transmitted from the electronic control unit (Sugashima par. 0037).
As per claim 15: Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is a value based on a difference between the receipt interval and the threshold (Sugashima par. 0050, predetermined value is a different between a reception interval of data frames and a threshold value)
As per claim 16:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein a maximum value of the determination value is equal to the limit value (Sugashima par. 0049, once the determination value exceeds the limit value, it is reset to an initial value, therefore the maximum value of the determination value is the limit value).
As per claim 19:
Sugashima and Kishikawa further teach the abnormal frame determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate an additional receipt interval between the second data frame and a third data frame, the third data frame being a data frame received immediately before receiving of the second data frame (Sugashima Fig. 5, additional receipt interval between F3 and F4 is calculated, wherein F3 is received immediately before F4); and add a predetermined value to the determination value stored in the storage when the additional receipt interval is shorter than the threshold (Sugashima Fig. 5, Add D2 when the additional receipt interval between F3 and F4 is less than the threshold P-T)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A YANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. EST.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571) 270-3750. 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.
/JEFFREY ANDREW YANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111