DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12-15, the language of each of the claims contains a variable ‘N’. However, the exact meaning of the variable ‘N’ is unclear as the claim language appears to define the meaning of this variable in multiple conflicting ways. For example, the variable ‘N’ is introduced in the claim language in a limitation stating “a difference calculation unit that is configured to calculate a difference (N)”. Thus, N is originally defined to be a difference. Next the claim language states “between a reception time of an N-th (N being an integer greater than or equal to 1) actual received frame, which is a data frame actually received by the reception unit after the first data frame, and a predicted reception time of an N-th virtual received frame”. In this limitation, N is defined as being an integer greater than or equal to 1, and ‘N’ is referred to as a number representing a specific frame, i.e. ‘N-th’. It is unclear how ‘N’ at the same time can be both (1) a calculated difference between a reception time and a predicted reception time and (2) an integer representing a specific received frame. It appears that the (1) a calculated difference between a reception time and a predicted reception time and (2) an integer representing a specific received frame must instead be represented by different variables in the claim language. It is recommended that the claim language be amended to clarify the actual meaning of the variable ‘N’ and to remove and conflict between multiple different meanings of the variable.
Dependent claims 2-11 are rejected since they each depend on the language of claim 1 and thus include the above identified unclear claim language.
Further regarding claims 3-6, the language of each of these claims introduces what appears to be a third conflicting meaning of the variable ‘N’ in addition to the other two meanings defined in the language of claim 1. Specifically, each of these claims refers to “N pieces of differences”. Thus, in the language of these claims ‘N’ is further defined as being a number of pieces of differences. It is unclear how ‘N’ at the same time can be each of (1) a calculated difference between a reception time and a predicted reception time and (2) an integer representing a specific received frame, as indicated by the language of claim 1, and (3) a variable representing a number of pieces of differences, as defined in the language of claims 3-6. It is recommended that the claim language be amended to clarify the actual meaning of the variable ‘N’ and to remove and conflict between multiple different meanings of the variable.
Further regarding claims 10-11, these claim include language referring to “the difference (n)”. It is unclear whether this difference indicated by a lower case ‘n’ is meant to be the same or different as the previously defined difference in the language of claim 1 indicated by an upper case ‘N’. It is recommended that the claim language be amended to clarify whether the difference ‘N’ from claim 1 is the same or different than the difference ‘n’ in claims 10 and 11.
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.
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: reception unit, reception interval calculation unit, first determination unit, difference calculation unit, second determination unit, and output unit in claims 1 and 12-15.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakami et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0104204 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 12-15, Kawakami et al. discloses a frame determination system and method comprising: an electronic control device; and a frame determination device connected to a network, wherein the frame determination device comprises a reception unit, a reception interval calculation unit, a first determination unit, a difference calculation unit, a second determination unit, and a output unit that each may be implemented via a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a frame determination program executed by the frame determination device (See the abstract, paragraph 28, paragraph 33, paragraph 52, and Figures 1 and 2 of Kawakami et al. for reference to a communication system, which is a frame determination system, performing an abnormality detection method and including an abnormality detection device, which is a frame determination device, and a ECU, which is an electronic control device, wherein the abnormality detection device may be implemented using a microcontroller executing a software program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein such a structure is equivalent to each of the claimed units). Kawakami et al. also discloses the electronic control device transmits a cycle frame and an event frame transmitted from the electronic control device, wherein: the electronic control device transmits the cycle frame at a predetermined cycle starting from transmission of the cycle frame or the event frame that have been transmitted immediately before, and the event frame regardless of the predetermined cycle when a predetermined event occurs (See paragraph 39 and paragraph 42 of Kawakami et al. for reference to the ECU transmitting a periodically-transmitted communication frame, which is a cycle frame, and transmitting a non-periodic communication frame when a non-periodic event occurs, such that the non-periodic communication frame is an event frame, and wherein the periodic communication frame is transmitted at a period corresponding to the periodic communication frame that may be reset by the transmission of the non-periodic communication frame). Kawakami et al. further discloses a reception unit that is configured to receive a first data frame (See paragraph 44-45 and Figure 4 of Kawakami et al. for reference to the abnormality detection device performing a process as shown in Figure 4 that includes receiving a communication frame in step S101). Kawakami et al. also discloses a reception interval calculation unit that is configured to calculate a reception interval between the first data frame and a second data frame, which is the cycle frame or the event frame received by the reception unit immediately before the first data frame (See paragraphs 45-46, paragraph 54, and Figure 4 of Kawakami et al. for reference to in step S102 determining whether the reception time of the received communication frame is within a predated time range based on a difference between the reception time of the communication frame and the reception time of a previously received communication frame). Kawakami et al. further discloses a first determination unit that determines whether the first data frame is the cycle frame based on the reception interval (See paragraph 45, paragraph 54, and Figure 4 of Kawakami et al. for reference to determining that the received communication frame is a periodic communication frame when the reception time is within the predicted time range). Kawakami et al. also discloses a difference calculation unit that is configured to calculate a difference (N) between a reception time of an N-th (N being an integer greater than or equal to 1) actual received frame, which is a data frame actually received by the reception unit after the first data frame, and a predicted reception time of an N-th virtual received frame, which is a cycle frame that the reception unit predicts to receive after the first data frame when the first data frame is assumed to be an event frame, when the first determination unit determines that the first data frame is not the cycle frame (See paragraph 42, paragraph 45-51, paragraph 54, paragraphs 69-71, and Figures 4 and 12 of Kawakami et al. for reference to, when the communication frame is not received within the predicted time range, determining the difference amount between the predicted time range and the actual reception time of the received communication frame relative to a previously received frame). Kawakami et al. further discloses a second determination unit that is configured to determine, based on the difference, whether the first data frame is an event frame or an abnormal frame different from the event frame (See paragraphs 45-46 paragraph 54, paragraphs 69-71, and Figures 4 and 12 of Kawakami et al. for reference to determining based on the difference whether the received communication frame is a non-periodic event frame or an abnormal frame). Kawakami et al. also discloses an output unit that is configured to output a determination result of the first data frame (See paragraphs 45-51 and Figure 4 of Kawakami et al. for reference to outputting the result of the determination to perform further steps based on whether the received communication frame is determined to be a periodic frame, a non-periodic event frame, or an abnormal frame).
With respect to claim 2, Kawakami et al. discloses wherein the N is an integer of 2 or more (See paragraphs 54-58 of Kawakami et al. for reference to the number of transmitted frames being greater than 1, i.e. 2 or more, i.e. in the case of a retransmitted communication frame).
With respect to claim 8, Kawakami et al. discloses wherein the difference calculation unit calculates a predicted reception time using the predetermined cycle (See paragraph 54 of Kawakami et al. for reference to calculating a predicted time range based on the period of the periodically-transmitted frame).
With respect to claim 9, Kawakami et al. discloses wherein the difference calculation unit calculates a predicted reception time using the reception interval calculated in past by the reception interval calculation unit (See paragraph 54, paragraph 57, and Figure 8 of Kawakami et al. for reference to calculating and updating a predicted time range based on the period of the periodically-transmitted frame and previously received communication frames).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the calculating determining the data frame is the event frame and the abnormal frame based on a case of whether a total value of N pieces of difference is smaller or greater than a predetermined total threshold, as claimed.
Claims 4-7 would be allowable since they each depend on and further limit the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 3.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious weighting the difference in the specific manners claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishida et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0247772 A1), Mahesh et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0029906 A1), and Juliato et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0158521 A1) each disclose further relevant systems and methods of detecting anomalies in received communication frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights