DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted by applicant dated 12/19/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 9-12 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8 and 13 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes without significantly more. The independent claims and corresponding dependent claims recite mental steps such as “receiving information”, “determine validity”, “determine whether to revoke”, etc., which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determination whether to revoke have no use associated with them (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) mental processes, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’” 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) (“‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’” (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations presented by each of the respective dependent claims are further modifying and providing additional details with respect to the mental processes and/or they recite mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. For at least the above reasoning claims 1-4 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea.
To alleviate this 35 USC § 101 issue, the examiner suggests to amend the independent claims to recite significantly more such as limitations of claim 9 (e.g. to amend the independent claims to positively revoke the certificate based on the determination).
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.
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.
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:
“first apparatus is configure to…” in claim 1;
“first determination unit configured to…” in claim 1;
“transmission unit configured to…” in claims 1, 15;
“second determination unit configured to…” in claim 1;
“first management unit configured to…” in claim 10;
“second management unit configured to…” in claims 11, 12;
“determination unit configured to…” in claim 15;
“reception unit configured to…” in claim 16;
“determination unit configured to…” in claim 16.
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 § 103
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.
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, 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 2016/0140842 (hereinafter Park), in view of Barrett et al. US 2021/0344514 (hereinafter Barrett).
As per claim 1, Park teaches an abnormality determination system comprising: a first apparatus; and a server apparatus (Park Fig, 5),
wherein the first apparatus is configured to include: a first determination unit configured to, in a case where information is received from the second apparatus, determine whether the information indicates an abnormality (Park paragraph [0038]-[0039], [0040], [0068]-[0069], receive message, analyze the received message and detect misbehavior); and
a transmission unit configured to, in a case where the information indicates an abnormality, transmit the information indicating the abnormality and an evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality to the server apparatus (Park paragraph [0040], [0054]-[0055], [0069]-[0071], detect misbehavior and create a misbehavior report that includes the driving information and analysis results and send the report to a server), and
wherein the server apparatus includes a second determination unit configured to determine whether to revoke the certificate of the second apparatus based on the information indicating the abnormality and the evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality in a case where the server apparatus receives the information indicating the abnormality and the evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality from the first apparatus (Park paragraph [0058]-[0060], [0071]-[0073], receive misbehavior report and analyze and verify the misbehavior report to verify that the vehicle is actually misbehaving. If the vehicle is misbehaving, revoke the vehicles certificate).
Park does not explicitly disclose in a case where information based on a certificate of a second apparatus is received, determine whether certificate of the second apparatus is valid;
in a case where the certificate of the second apparatus is valid, transmit abnormality information to a server.
Barrett teaches in a case where information based on a certificate of a second apparatus is received, determine whether certificate of the second apparatus is valid (Barrett paragraph [0041]-[0042], [0044]-[0046], receive a signed message with the sender’s certificate. Verify the validity of the certificate and verify the signature of the message);
in a case where the certificate of the second apparatus is valid, transmit abnormality information to a server (Barrett paragraph [0044]-[0047], [0070]-[0072], verify validity of sender’s certificate, generate misbehavior report, and send the report to a server).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park of receiving a message, analyzing the message to determine misbehavior, and sending a report to a server with the teachings of Barrett to include signing a message, sending a certificate with the signed message, verifying the certificate and signature in order to provide integrity protection of the messages. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park of receiving a message, analyzing the message to determine misbehavior, and sending a report to a server with the teachings of Barrett to include distributing a certificate revocation list to devices in the V2X system in order to provide certificate management and allow the vehicles in the V2X system to determine if a corresponding certificate is valid when receiving signed messages.
As per claim 2, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation value indicates a degree of influence of the information on the first apparatus (Park paragraph [0040], [0054]-[0055], [0069]-[0071], detect misbehavior and create a misbehavior report that includes the driving information and analysis results; Barrett paragraph [0070]-[0072], generate misbehavior report).
As per claim 3, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the first apparatus is mounted to a first mobile object (Park paragraph [0028], [0035]).
As per claim 4, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 3, wherein the first mobile object is a vehicle or a drone (Park paragraph [0028], [0035]).
As per claim 9, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the second determination unit determines that the certificate of the second apparatus is to be revoked, the second determination unit revokes the certificate of the second apparatus (Park paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0073], revoke certificate).
As per claim 10, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 9, wherein the second determination unit transmits information indicating revocation of the certificate of the second apparatus to the first apparatus in a case where the second determination unit determines that the certificate of the second apparatus is to be revoked, and, wherein the first apparatus further includes a first management unit configured to update a revocation list based on the information indicating the revocation of the certificate of the second apparatus (Park paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0073], server revokes certificate; Barrett paragraph [0045], [0051], [0074], [0079], [0081], server revokes certificate, updates certificate revocation list (CRL), and provides the updated CRL to the plurality of devices in the V2X system).
As per claim 11, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 10, further comprising the second apparatus, wherein the second determination unit transmits the information indicating the revocation of the certificate of the second apparatus to the first apparatus and the second apparatus in a case where the second determination unit determines that the certificate of the second apparatus is to be revoked, and wherein the second apparatus includes a second management unit configured to update a revocation list based on the information indicating the revocation of the certificate of the second apparatus (Park paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0073], server revokes certificate; Barrett paragraph [0045], [0051], [0074], [0079], [0081], server revokes certificate, updates certificate revocation list (CRL), and provides the updated CRL to the plurality of devices in the V2X system).
As per claim 12, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 9, further comprising the second apparatus, wherein the second determination unit transmits information indicating revocation of the certificate of the second apparatus to the second apparatus in a case where the second determination unit determines that the certificate of the second apparatus is to be revoked, and wherein the second apparatus includes a second management unit configured to revoke the certificate of the second apparatus based on the information indicating the revocation of the certificate of the second apparatus (Park paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0073], server revokes certificate; Barrett paragraph [0045], [0051], [0074], [0079], [0081], server revokes certificate, updates certificate revocation list (CRL), and provides the updated CRL to the plurality of devices in the V2X system).
As per claim 14, Park in view of Barrett teaches the abnormality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the second determination unit determines whether to revoke the certificate of the second apparatus based on the information indicating the abnormality and a history of an evaluation value of information indicating an abnormality (Park paragraph [0058]-[0060], [0071]-[0073], receive misbehavior report and analyze and verify the misbehavior report to verify that the vehicle is actually misbehaving. Consider a number of times of reception of misbehavior reports received from a plurality of vehicles. If the vehicle is misbehaving, revoke the vehicles certificate; Barrett paragraph [0073]-[0074], analyze misbehavior reports received from a plurality of vehicles).
As per claim 15, Park teaches an abnormality determination apparatus comprising: a determination unit configured to, in a case where information is received from the second apparatus, determine whether the information indicates an abnormality (Park paragraph [0038]-[0039], [0040], [0068]-[0069], receive message, analyze the received message and detect misbehavior); and
a transmission unit configured to, in a case where the information indicates an abnormality, transmit the information indicating the abnormality and an evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality to a server apparatus (Park paragraph [0040], [0054]-[0055], [0069]-[0071], detect misbehavior and create a misbehavior report that includes the driving information and analysis results and send the report to a server).
Park does not explicitly disclose in a case where information based on a certificate of a second apparatus is received, determine whether the certificate of the second apparatus is valid;
in a case where the certificate of the second apparatus is valid, transmit abnormality information to a server.
Barrett teaches in a case where information based on a certificate of a second apparatus is received, determine whether the certificate of the second apparatus is valid (Barrett paragraph [0041]-[0042], [0044]-[0046], receive a signed message with the sender’s certificate. Verify the validity of the certificate and verify the signature of the message);
in a case where the certificate of the second apparatus is valid, transmit abnormality information to a server (Barrett paragraph [0044]-[0047], [0070]-[0072], verify validity of sender’s certificate, generate misbehavior report, and send the report to a server).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park of receiving a message, analyzing the message to determine misbehavior, and sending a report to a server with the teachings of Barrett to include signing a message, sending a certificate with the signed message, verifying the certificate and signature in order to provide integrity protection of the messages. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park of receiving a message, analyzing the message to determine misbehavior, and sending a report to a server with the teachings of Barrett to include distributing a certificate revocation list to devices in the V2X system in order to provide certificate management and allow the vehicles in the V2X system to determine if a corresponding certificate is valid when receiving signed messages.
As per claim 16, Park teaches a server apparatus comprising: a reception unit configured to, in a case where a first apparatus receives information from the second apparatus, and the information indicates an abnormality, receive the information indicating the abnormality and an evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality from the first apparatus (Park paragraph [0038]-[0039], [0040], [0068]-[0069], receive message, analyze the received message and detect misbehavior; Park paragraph [0040], [0054]-[0055], [0069]-[0071], detect misbehavior and create a misbehavior report that includes the driving information and analysis results and send the report to a server); and
a determination unit configured to, in a case where the information indicating the abnormality and the evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality are received from the first apparatus, determine whether to revoke the certificate of the second apparatus based on the information indicating the abnormality and the evaluation value of the information indicating the abnormality (Park paragraph [0058]-[0060], [0071]-[0073], receive misbehavior report and analyze and verify the misbehavior report to verify that the vehicle is actually misbehaving. If the vehicle is misbehaving, revoke the vehicles certificate).
Park does not explicitly disclose in a case where information based on a certificate of a second apparatus is received, and the certificate of the second apparatus is valid, receive abnormality information.
Barrett teaches in a case where information based on a certificate of a second apparatus is received, and the certificate of the second apparatus is valid, receive abnormality information (Barrett paragraph [0041]-[0042], [0044]-[0046], receive a signed message with the sender’s certificate. Verify the validity of the certificate and verify the signature of the message. Barrett paragraph [0044]-[0047], [0070]-[0072], verify validity of sender’s certificate, generate misbehavior report, and send the report to a server).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park of receiving a message, analyzing the message to determine misbehavior, and sending a report to a server with the teachings of Barrett to include signing a message, sending a certificate with the signed message, verifying the certificate and signature in order to provide integrity protection of the messages. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park of receiving a message, analyzing the message to determine misbehavior, and sending a report to a server with the teachings of Barrett to include distributing a certificate revocation list to devices in the V2X system in order to provide certificate management and allow the vehicles in the V2X system to determine if a corresponding certificate is valid when receiving signed messages.
As per claims 17-20, the claims claim a method and a non-transitory storage medium essentially corresponding to the system and apparatus claims 1 and 15-16 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY TSANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (571) 272-3739. 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.
/HENRY TSANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495