DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been fully considered.
Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-20 have been examined. Claims 8, 9, and 16 have been canceled.
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
The objection to the claims is withdrawn.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claims 6-7 do not require the insertion loss aspect as argued in Remarks.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “characteristic of a transmission path an in-vehicle network”, it is unclear what the intended metes and bounds of this is.
Claim 2 recites “performs, by using the stored correction parameter in, at least either one of correction of a reception signal received from the other in-vehicle device and correction of a transmission signal that should be transmitted to the other in-vehicle device”, it is unclear what the intended metes and bounds of this is, what is performed .
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the other in-vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "deterioration of the transmission path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huth (20210064969).
Regarding claim 6, Huth teaches A management device comprising (par.16-21):
acquire characteristic data indicating a transmission path characteristic in an in-vehicle network included in a vehicle (par.32-37); and
transmit, to the vehicle, deterioration change information corresponding to the characteristic data acquired, the deterioration change information indicating a change tendency of the transmission path characteristic due to aged deterioration of the transmission path (par.14-24, 41-45).
Regarding claim 7, Huth teaches A transmission path authentication system comprising: a measurement device included in a vehicle; an authentication device (par.16-21); and
a storage device, wherein the storage device includes circuitry to store characteristic data indicating a transmission path characteristic in an in-vehicle network included in the vehicle (par.14-18, 32-37),
the measurement device includes circuitry to measure the transmission path characteristic (fig.2, 16-20, 45-47), and
the authentication device includes circuitry to perform an authentication process for the transmission path by comparing the stored characteristic data in the storage device and the measured transmission path characteristic (par.14-24, 41-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth (20210064969), and further in view of Perron (11271641).
Regarding claim 1, Huth teaches An in-vehicle device included in a vehicle, the in-vehicle device comprising (par.16-21):
circuitry configured to store characteristic data indicating a transmission path characteristic of a transmission path an in-vehicle network included in the vehicle (par.14-18);
Huth does not expressly disclose, however Perron teaches
the transmission path characteristic being an insertion loss of the transmission path (col.13, 30-67);
measure the transmission path characteristic (abstract, col.10, 40-67, col.11, 1-30); and
perform an authentication process for the transmission path by comparing the stored characteristic data and the measured transmission path characteristic (col.11, 30-67, col.12, 1-30).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huth to verify signals as taught by Perron.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further provide for improved reliability of a link (Perron, col.2, 1-60).
Regarding claim 3, Huth/Perron teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform a predetermined abnormality process when the authentication process has failed (Huth, par.49-53).
Regarding claim 4, Huth/Perron teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to withhold the abnormality process when the authentication process has failed and the authentication process has been successful in the past (Huth, par.49-53).
Regarding claim 17, Huth/Perron teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to measure the insertion loss based on a measurement signal transmitted by the in-vehicle device to an opposing device via the transmission path and a response signal received by the in-vehicle device from the opposing device via the transmission path (Huth, par.39-41, Perron, col.10, 40-67, col.11, 1-30).
Regarding claim 18, Huth/Perron teaches wherein the authentication process is a process of comparing a first insertion loss in the transmission path indicated by the characteristic data and a second insertion loss measured as the transmission path characteristic (Huth, par.39-41, Perron, col.10, 40-67, col.11, 1-30).
Regarding claim 19, Huth/Perron teaches wherein when a difference between the first insertion loss and the second insertion loss is less than a threshold value, the circuitry determines that the authentication process has been successful, and when the difference between the first insertion loss and the second insertion loss is equal to or larger than the threshold value, the circuitry determines that the authentication process has failed (Huth, par.39-41, Perron, col.10, 40-67, col.11, 1-30).
Regarding claim 20, Huth/Perron teaches wherein before shipment of the vehicle, the circuitry measures the transmission path characteristic and stores the measured transmission path characteristic as the characteristic data, after shipment of the vehicle, the circuitry measures the transmission path characteristic at a predetermined measurement trigger, and the circuitry performs the authentication process by comparing the characteristic indicated by the stored characteristic data and the measured transmission path characteristic (Perron, col.11,59-67, col.12, 1-30).
Claims 2, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth/Perron, and further in view of Kawahara (20220021449).
Regarding claim 2, Huth/Perron teaches detecting and taking action based on transmission path issues, but does not expressly disclose, however Kawahara teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to communicate with another in-vehicle device through the transmission path, and store a correction parameter to be used, in communication with the other in-vehicle device, and when the authentication process has been successful, the circuitry performs, by using the stored correction parameter in, at least either one of correction of a reception signal received from the other in-vehicle device and correction of a transmission signal that should be transmitted to the other in-vehicle device (par.52-56).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huth/Perron to correct transmission issues as taught by Kawahara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further provide for additional availability of the network (Kawahara, par.5-22, 50-60).
Regarding claim 5, Huth/Perron/Kawahara teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to store deterioration change information indicating a change tendency of the transmission path characteristic due to aged deterioration of the transmission path, and determine, based on the measurement of the transmission path characteristic and the stored deterioration change information, whether or not a cause of failure of the authentication process is aged deterioration of the transmission path (Huth, par.14-16, 39-44, Kawahara, par.20-22, 71-75).
Regarding claim 10, Huth/Perron/Kawahara teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured perform a predetermined abnormality process when the authentication process has failed (Huth, par.14-16, 39-44, Kawahara, par.20-22, 71-75).
Regarding claim 11, Huth/Perron/Kawahara teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to set a new correction parameter to be used in communication with the other in-vehicle device when it has been determined that the cause of the failure of the authentication process is aged deterioration of the transmission path (Kawahara, par.52-56).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth/Perron/Kawahara, and further in view of Ohashi (20220086188).
Regarding claim 12, Huth/Perron/Kawahara does not expressly disclose, however Ohashi teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to set the correction parameter based on a length of the transmission path (par.48-52).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huth/Perron/Kawahara to correct transmission issues as taught by Ohashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further provide for additional availability of the network (Ohashi, par.4-7, 50-55).
Regarding claim 13, Huth/Perron/Kawahara/Ohashi teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to set the correction parameter by performing a link training in an activation process of the in-vehicle device (Huth, par.43-53, Ohashi, par.48-52).
Regarding claim 14, Huth/Perron/Kawahara/Ohashi teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate the length of the transmission path based on a time waveform of a test signal received via the transmission path (Huth, par.43-53, Perron, col.14, 40-67, Ohashi, par.48-52).
Regarding claim 15, Huth/Perron/Kawahara/Ohashi teaches wherein the correction parameter is a parameter for reducing a biterror rate (BER) in the transmission path to a specific value or lower (Huth, par.17-22, Kawahara, par.92-96).
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 verifying transmission path measurements. Gross (20160366586), Huth (20210064969), Ohashi (20220086188), Ohashi (20210304533), Alpert (20210058393), Mildh (20210306856) teach measuring transmission path/connections parameters for authentication/validation purposes, Kumaran (20200092172) teaches detecting abnormal behavior based on timing delay abnormalities, Henry (20170026063) teaches detecting and correcting/mitigating disturbances on transmission path, Deshmukh (11448698).
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 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