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 Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 03/11/2026 have been fully considered and area addressed as follow:
Regarding the claim interpretations under 35 USC § 112(f): In applicant’s amendments, the word “unit” was replaced with “circuitry”. Therefore, claim limitations in claims 1-6 are no longer being interpreted under 112(f).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101: Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive. On page 8, applicant argues “reading data as recited in Claims 1 and 8 is not a mental step as it requires some manner of sensing or acquisition of data”. The examiner disagrees. The step of sensing or acquisition data is a mental process. People are constantly and mentally sensing and acquiring data about their surrounding environment. As explained in the non-final, the “circuitry” amounts to a general computer that is operating in its ordinary capacity. These “circuitry” is merely automating the assigning, reading, and authenticating steps. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are still rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103: Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive. On page 7, applicant states “However, since Harada’s comparison is performed by the sensors, Harada’s device does not include a reading unit that read identification codes from the transmission and reception device as recited in Claim 1.” The examiner submits that Harada’s device does include a reading unit, because the real ID stored in the non-volatile memory provided in each sensor has to be read from memory and compared to the temporary ID. Additionally, in an alternative embodiment, “the temporary ID stored in the volatile memory may be transmitted to the ECU 30, and the ECU 30 may perform an ID comparison” [Harada ¶ 0054]. It is inferred that there is reading circuitry within the ECU to read all the temporary IDs. Therefore, Harada does teach “reading circuitry that read second identification codes uniquely representing the plurality of transmission and reception devices from the plurality of transmission and reception devices at the predetermined timing.”
Additionally, applicant argues there would be “no need or reason to separately store a table”. Harada does teach storing the real ID in non-volatile memory [Harada ¶ 0041]. The limitation requires “a storage that stores data associating, for the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the first identification codes with the second identification codes”. This limitation requires the storage of two codes which Kawai does teach. The storage of two codes requires the need for a table. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the detection system storing a real ID as taught by Harada with using a storage to store an equipment ID and a location ID as taught by Kawai in order to more easily determine if the sensor has been replaced with an unauthorized sensor [Kawai ¶ 0004 “whether or not an equipment is normal is determined based on the equipment ID and the installation location of the equipment, so it is easy to determine whether the equipment has been replaced with an unauthorized equipment”]. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are still rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process) without significantly more.
Claim 1. An object detection device comprising:
assignment circuitry that [amounts to a general computer and is generally linking] assigns, at a predetermined timing, first identification codes uniquely representing installation positions in a vehicle to a plurality of transmission and reception devices that are installed in a plurality of places of the vehicle, and transmit and receive probe waves [mental process];
reading circuitry that [amounts to a general computer and is generally linking] reads second identification codes uniquely representing the plurality of transmission and reception devices from the plurality of transmission and reception devices at the predetermined timing [mental process]; and
processing circuitry that [amounts to a general computer and is generally linking] authenticates the plurality of transmission and reception devices based on first combinations of the first identification codes assigned at the predetermined timing and the second identification codes read at the predetermined timing [mental process]; and
a storage that stores data associating, for the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the first identification codes with the second identification codes assigned to the plurality of transmission and reception devices in advance [mental process],
wherein the processing circuitry [amounts to a general computer and is generally linking] collates second combinations of the first identification codes and the second identification codes in the data with the first combinations to verify whether they match to authenticate the plurality of transmission and reception devices. [mental process].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be
analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following
groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain
methods of organizing human activity.
The examiner submits that the limitations
“assigns, at a predetermined timing, first identification codes uniquely representing installation positions in a vehicle to a plurality of transmission and reception devices that are installed in a plurality of places of the vehicle, and transmit and receive probe waves”
“reads second identification codes uniquely representing the plurality of transmission and reception devices from the plurality of transmission and reception devices at the predetermined timing”
“authenticates the plurality of transmission and reception devices based on first combinations of the first identification codes assigned at the predetermined timing and the second identification codes read at the predetermined timing”
“a storage that stores data associating, for the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the first identification codes with the second identification codes assigned to the plurality of transmission and reception devices in advance”
“collates second combinations of the first identification codes and the second identification codes in the data with the first combinations to verify whether they match to authenticate the plurality of transmission and reception devices”
constitutes a judicial exception in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. For example,
a person can mentally assign codes to each transmission and reception device
a person can mentally read codes
a person can mentally match the first code combination to authenticate them
a person can mentally store the matching codes
a person can mentally match the second code combination to authenticate them
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it
must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations
recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical
application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “assignment circuitry”, “reading circuitry”, and “processing circuitry”, the examiner submits that these limitations are merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea. In particular, they are a general computer operating in its ordinary capacity. These circuitries are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the assigning, reading, and authenticating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation
on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a
whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional
element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim
amount to no more than merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent method claim 8 recites similar limitations performed by the apparatus of
claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim
1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 3-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause
the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward
additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or merely using a computer to implement an
abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial
exception into a “practical application”.
Therefore, dependent claims 3-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (JP 2017052386 A) in view of Kawai (JP 2000107424 A).
Regarding claim 1, Harada teaches An object detection device comprising [Harada ¶ 0007 "detection system for a vehicle"]:
an assignment circuitry that assigns, at a predetermined timing, first identification codes uniquely representing installation positions in a vehicle to a plurality of transmission and reception devices that are installed in a plurality of places of the vehicle, and transmit and receive probe waves [Harada ¶ 0033 "In step S220, the connected sensors 10 and 20 are assigned their corresponding temporary IDs."];
a reading circuitry that reads second identification codes uniquely representing the plurality of transmission and reception devices from the plurality of transmission and reception devices at the predetermined timing [Harada ¶ 0034 "permanent ID" and ¶ 0041 "The real ID assigned by the ECU 20 is stored in a non-volatile memory provided in each of the sensor 10 and 20. … Then, the sensors 10 and 20 compare the real ID and the temporary ID."]; and
a processing circuitry that authenticates the plurality of transmission and reception devices based on first combinations of the first identification codes assigned at the predetermined timing and the second identification codes read at the predetermined timing [Harada ¶ 0028 "ID comparison and determination performed by the ECU" and ¶ 0034 "In step S230, it is confirmed whether or not the permanent ID and the temporary ID match in all the sensors 10 (20) that have performed the ID comparison determination." and ¶ 0041 "This makes it possible to detect a mismatch in the real IDs even if the sensor 10 and 20, each having a real ID already set, are mistakenly connected to a position different from the original position."].
Harada does not teach a storage that stores data associating, for the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the first identification codes with the second identification codes assigned to the plurality of transmission and reception devices in advance, wherein the processing circuitry collates second combinations of the first identification codes and the second identification codes in the data with the first combinations to verify whether they match to authenticate the plurality of transmission and reception devices.
However, in a related field of invention, Kawai does teach a storage that stores data associating, for the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the first identification codes with the second identification codes assigned to the plurality of transmission and reception devices in advance [Kawai ¶ 0004 "an equipment installation database which stores the equipment installation location where equipment is installed and the equipment ID of each equipment in correspondence with each other"],
wherein the processing circuitry collates second combinations of the first identification codes and the second identification codes in the data with the first combinations to verify whether they match to authenticate the plurality of transmission and reception devices [Kawai ¶ 0004 "reads the equipment ID of an installed equipment, and determines that the equipment is normal if the read equipment ID is stored in the equipment installation database and the equipment installation location of the equipment from which the equipment ID was read matches the equipment installation location stored in the equipment installation database corresponding to the equipment ID"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the detection system using a temporary ID and a real ID as taught by Harada with using an equipment ID and a location ID as taught by Kawai in order to more easily determine if the sensor has been replaced with an unauthorized sensor [Kawai ¶ 0004 “whether or not an equipment is normal is determined based on the equipment ID and the installation location of the equipment, so it is easy to determine whether the equipment has been replaced with an unauthorized equipment”].
Regarding claim 3, Harada and Kawai teach the object detection device according to claim 2. Harada further teaches wherein, when the first combinations and the second combinations match in one transmission and reception device out of the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the processing circuitry determines that authentication of the one transmission and reception device is successful [Harada ¶ 0034 "assuming that the ID comparison judgment for all sensors 10 (20) for which ID comparison judgment was performed has been completed successfully].
Regarding claim 4, Harada and Kawai teach the object detection device according to claim 2. Harada further teaches wherein, when the first combinations and the second combinations do not match in one transmission and reception device out of the plurality of transmission and reception devices, the processing circuitry determines that authentication of the one transmission and reception device is failed [Harada ¶ 0035 "Then, after determining which sensor 10 (20) has determined that the IDs do not match, this control ends.].
Regarding claim 5, Harada and Kawai teach the object detection device according to claim 4. Kawai further teaches wherein, when the authentication of the one transmission and reception device is failed, the processing circuitry outputs a collation result for the one transmission and reception device [Kawai ¶ 0004 "an abnormality alarm is output when the read device ID is not stored in the device installation database"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the detection system that detects misplaced sensors by mismatched IDs as taught by Harada with using an abnormality alarm as taught by Kawai in order to more easily determine the installation location of unauthorized devices and the nature of any abnormalities [Kawai ¶ 0004].
Regarding claim 6, Harada and Kawai teach the object detection device according to claim 2. Kawai further teaches wherein the assignment circuitry assigns the first identification codes at least at factory shipment of the vehicle to include the first identification codes in the data [Kawai ¶ 0006 "the installation location within the store of the device 2n to which the device 1n with the device ID is attached,"], and
the reading circuitry reads the second identification codes at least at factory shipment of the vehicle to include the second identification code in the data [Kawai ¶ 0006 "the device 1n with the device ID is attached is shipped."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the detection system that detects misplaced sensors by mismatched IDs as taught by Harada with setting the IDs at factory shipment as taught by Kawai in order to more easily determine the installation location of unauthorized devices and the nature of any abnormalities [Kawai ¶ 0004].
Regarding claim 7, Harada teaches the object detection device according to claim 1. Harada further teaches wherein the predetermined timing is a timing at which a traveling time of the vehicle at a predetermined speed or higher exceeds a predetermined period of time [Harada ¶ 0030 "implementation condition" and ¶ 0031 "When the traveling speed of the vehicle 100 is higher than a predetermined speed, there is little need for the object detection device to perform object detection. Therefore, one of the conditions is set as the traveling speed of the vehicle 100 being higher than a predetermined speed."].
Regarding claim 8, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 8 can clearly perform on the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale.
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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights