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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
This is a first action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted 6/12/2024.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2024 and 10/01/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is/are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant is respectfully reminded of the duty to disclose 37 C.F.R. 1.56 all pertinent information and material pertaining to the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention, by continuing to submitting in a timely manner PTO-1449, Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) with the filing of applicant’s application or thereafter.
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: “detection unit configured to”, “notification unit configured to”, “acquisition unit configured to”, “verification unit configured to”, “device configured to”, “post-processing unit configured to”, “transmission unit configured to”, “determination unit configured to”, “reception unit configured to” in claims 1, 7, 10, 12-13, and 15.
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.
Examiner’s Note – Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12-13, and 15comprising the limitations:
“detection unit configured to”, “notification unit configured to”, “acquisition unit configured to”, “verification unit configured to”, “device configured to”, “post-processing unit configured to”, “transmission unit configured to”, “determination unit configured to”, “reception unit configured to” are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Specification paragraph [0027] mentions that device 102 and 103 is a fixed device connected to a server. Further, paragraph [0080] mentions that Figure 2 and 5 are implemented by hardware or software. Additionally, figure 13 is a hardware configuration of the device. Therefore, the corresponding structure is a processor [hardware] device connected to a server.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Abnormality Notification and Verification System, Device, and Method.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
The "and/or" makes the claim vague, the examiner is not sure whether it means "and" or it means "or" as part of the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, the limitation reading “where the detection unit detects the abnormality;” is ambiguous. The underlined term is referring to “an abnormality”. However, the claim language has positively recited “an abnormality” twice. Therefore, it is unclear as to which of the two positively recited terms the underlined term is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency as they do not obviate the above recited deficiency.
Claim Rejections - Examiner's Note
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by *Korea Automotive Institute (KR 20180152561 A, hereinafter “KR-2561”).
*Submitted by Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 1, KR-2561 teaches:
1. An information processing system comprising
a first device and a second device that are communicably connected (par 19, VEH 1, VEH2, VEH_MB),
wherein the first device includes:
a detection unit configured to detect an abnormality (par 20; i.e. VEH1 and VEH2 receive error message from target vehicle), and
a notification unit configured to notify the second device of an abnormality in a case where the detection unit detects the abnormality (par 20; i.e. notification is sent of the error message to road side unit (RSU)); and
the second device includes:
a reception unit configured to receive the notification of the abnormality by the notification unit (par 21; i.e. receipt of an abnormal message report for the target vehicle from plurality of vehicles),
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information related to the abnormality from the first device and/or an other device of the information processing system in response to the reception unit receiving the notification of the abnormality (par 24; i.e. verification unit receives an abnormal message report, and the report can be verified based on another abnormal message report), and
a verification unit configured to verify validity of the notification of the abnormality based on the information acquired by the acquisition unit (par 28; i.e. verification unit verifies the validity of the notification based on abnormal message reports received.).
Regarding claim 2, KR-2561 teaches:
2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies the second device of a result of the detection of the abnormality by the detection unit after notifying the abnormality, and the verification unit verifies the notification of the abnormality received by the reception unit based on the notification of the result (par 20-21; i.e. relaying of the abnormal message report after having received the error message).
Regarding claim 3, KR-2561 teaches:
3. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the verification unit requests the first device to confirm the abnormality, and the notification unit notifies the second device of the result in response to the request (par 45; i.e. verification unit confirms location information in location information and time information. The confirmed information is included in the abnormal message report.).
Regarding claim 7, KR-2561 teaches:
7. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the information processing system further includes at least one third device (par 20; i.e. plurality of devices) configured to detect an abnormality of the first device and notify the second device of a result (par 20; i.e. each OBU applied to the vehicles receives the message and delivers an error message report), and the verification unit verifies validity of the notification of the abnormality received from the first device based on the notification of the result from the third device (par 28; i.e. verification unit verifies the validity of the notification based on abnormal message reports received.).
Regarding claim 8, KR-2561 teaches:
8. The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the verification unit requests the third device to confirm abnormality of the first device (par 25; i.e. verification of the abnormal message report), and the third device transmits a result of confirming an abnormality of the first device to the second device in response to the request for confirmation from the second device (par 25; i.e. transmission of the actual abnormal message ).
Regarding claim 9, KR-2561 teaches:
9. The information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the verification unit performs the verification based on an abnormality content indicated by the notification of the result received from the third device and an abnormality content indicated by the notification of the abnormality received from the first device (par 25; i.e. verification of the abnormal message report is due to the transmission of the actual abnormal message).
Regarding claim 10, KR-2561 teaches:
10. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second device further includes a post-processing unit configured to execute post-processing corresponding to the abnormality based on a result of the verification by the verification unit (par 34).
Regarding claim 11, KR-2561 teaches:
11. The information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the post-processing includes a process for revoking a certificate used by the first device in the information processing system (par 34; i.e. register the certificate of the vehicle that transmitted the abnormal message in a certificate revocation list).
Regarding claim 12, KR-2561 teaches:
12. The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the second device further includes a transmission unit configured to, in response to a request from an other device of the information processing system, transmit management information including a state of revocation of the certificate of the first device to the other device (par 34; i.e. the updated revocation list is distributed).
Regarding claim 13, KR-2561 teaches:
13. The information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a determination unit configured to determine a content of the abnormality based on information included in the notification of the abnormality received by the reception unit, wherein the verification unit determines whether or not to execute the verification based on a result of the determination by the determination unit (par 33).
Regarding claim 14, KR-2561 teaches:
14. The information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the verification unit executes the verification in a case where the abnormality is determined to be a first type, and in a case where the abnormality is determined to be a second type different from the first type, post-processing corresponding to the abnormality is executed without performing the verification (par 32-33, verification of a normal or authentic abnormality report or not, see also par 43).
Regarding claim 15, all claims are set forth and rejected as it has been rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, all claims are set forth and rejected as it has been rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, all claims are set forth and rejected as it has been rejected in claim 1.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over *Korea Automotive Institute (KR 20180152561 A, hereinafter “KR-2561”) in view of *Park et al. (US 2016/0140842 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
*Submitted in Applicant’s IDS
Regarding claim 4, KR-2561 does not explicitly teach yet Park suggests:
4. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the notification of the result by the notification unit is regularly repeated at regular intervals (Park: par 59, i.e. the misbehavior report has been received number of times).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented a mechanism where the notification is regularly repeated at regular intervals, as taught by Park, to KR-2561’s invention. The motivation to do so would have been in order to enhance the reliability of the verification of a misbehaving vehicle and also to apply a more precise verification method (Park: par 59).
Regarding claim 5, KR-2561 does not explicitly teach yet Park suggests:
5. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the notification of the result by the notification unit is repeated while gradually extending an interval with elapse of time (Park: par 68; i.e. even though Park teaches other types of messages being sent in a predetermined period of time, it would be obvious to also send misbehavior report messages in a period of time, as it would be a matter of design choice.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented a mechanism where the notification is regularly repeated at gradual intervals of time, as taught by Park, to KR-2561’s invention. The motivation to do so would have been in order to enhance the reliability of the verification of a misbehaving vehicle and also to apply a more precise verification method (Park: par 59).
Regarding claim 6, KR-2561 does not explicitly teach yet Park suggests:
6. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the verification unit verifies the notification of the abnormality based on whether or not the notification of the result indicating that the abnormality has been detected has been repeatedly received exceeding a prescribed number of times, repeatedly received exceeding a prescribed time (Park: par 59; i.e. reliability of verification is based on the consideration of number of times the misbehavior report message has been received, but also see par 68; i.e. even though Park teaches other types of messages being sent in a predetermined period of time, it would be obvious to also send misbehavior report messages in a period of time, as it is a matter of design choice.), or received at a frequency exceeding a threshold value.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented a mechanism where the notification is regularly repeated at gradual intervals of time, as taught by Park, to KR-2561’s invention. The motivation to do so would have been in order to enhance the reliability of the verification of a misbehaving vehicle and also to apply a more precise verification method (Park: par 59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
(1) Unagami et al. (US 11,107,300 B2) teaches driving management system, vehicle, and information processing method.
(2) Kishikawa et al. (US 2019/0349394 A1) teaches electronic control device, fraud detection server, in-vehicle network system, in-vehicle network monitoring systema and in-vehicle network monitoring method.
(3) Ujiie (US 2022/0286473 A1) teaches anomaly detection system and anomaly detection method.
(4) Ban et al. (US 2007/0118638 A1) teaches abnormality processing system.
(5) Yamaguchi et al. (US 2014/0196134 A1) teaches verification method for verifying validity of program and verification system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1787. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00a-4:30p.
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, Linglan Edwards, can be reached on (571)270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/February 12, 2026/
/ltd/