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, 2, 9, 10-13, 15-18, 21, 23, and 25 have been amended
Claims 14, 22, 24, and 26 have been cancelled
Claims 27-35 are added new
USC 112(b) rejection for claims 16 and 18 has been overcome due to applicant’s amendments
Claims 1-13, 15-21, 23, 25, 27-35 are pending
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on Sep. 4, 2023. All priority documents have been received. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 09/04/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/20/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the USC 112(f) claim interpretation for claims 1, 9, 14, 21, and 22. The interpretation for all limitations have been overcome except for “… an abnormality monitoring device for monitoring” in claim 21. The claim describes of a center device comprising a circuit and a processor. However, the hardware recited is not linked to the abnormality monitoring device. For this reason, claim 21 is still being interpreted under USC 112(f).
USC 112(b) rejection for claims 16 and 18 has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the USC 103 rejection for independent claim 1 applicant’s representative has argued that TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY fail to teach the newly amended limitation of “instruct changing the first monitoring target group to a second monitoring target group different from the first monitoring target group when a predetermined condition is satisfied, wherein the predetermined condition is that a counter value has reached a predetermined value.” Examiner is relying on a new reference CHAMARTHY to better teach this limitation.
Additional arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
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 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.
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 limitations are:
“… an abnormality monitoring device for monitoring” in claim 21
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
See para. [0019, 0026] for functional support for “abnormality monitoring device”
See para. [0026, 0032] for hardware support for “abnormality monitoring device”
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 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, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI (US-20250080566-A1) based on its priority to foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-088286 filed on May 31, 2022, in view of OGAWA (US-20210150830-A1), and further in view of CHAMARTHY (US-20220164606-A1), hereinafter TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY.
Regarding claim 1, TORISAKI teaches “An abnormality monitoring device comprising: at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the abnormality monitoring device to: monitor an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object and report the abnormality to a center device: ([TORISAKI, para. 0075] “Vehicle 10 includes anomaly detector 11. Although not illustrated in the drawing, vehicle 10 includes a plurality of in-vehicle devices. The plurality of in-vehicle devices include: at least one electronic control unit (ECU) that controls, for example, travel of vehicle 10; an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI); and a telematics control unit (TCU) (telematics communication unit). These in-vehicle devices are connected to each other via an in-vehicle network.”) ([TORISAKI, para. 0076] “Anomaly detector 11 detects that an anomaly occurs to vehicle 10. For example, anomaly detector 11 may be provided for each of the at least one ECU, the IVI, and the TCU, or may be provided to detect anomalies of at least two among the at least one ECU, the IVI, and the TCU. Anomaly detector 11 may perform a measurement of a control target of a corresponding in-vehicle device”) ([TORISAKI, para. 0077] “anomaly detector 11 transmits, to analysis center 20, an anomaly log including time-series data on anomalous parts and anomaly details. In addition to the time-series data on the anomalous parts and the anomaly details, the anomaly log may include information on the manufacturer (vehicle manufacturer) of vehicle 10, the vehicle type of vehicle 10, the time of day at which the anomaly was detected, and the location where the anomaly was detected, for example.”) ([TORISAKI, para. 0083] “Information processing device 40 is a server (SOC server) included in analysis center 20, and performs information processing for analyzing an anomaly detected in a corresponding one of the plurality of vehicles 10.”) … execute a process to ensure security on the first monitoring target group … ([TORISAKI, para. 0103, Fig. 3 “recommended response”] “The recommended response indicates a response method in the event of an attack scenario. For example, the response method executed by SIRT server 70 based on the analysis result may be included as the recommended response. Note that, instead of a specific response method, a response method ID indicating the specific response method may be included.”).
However, TORISAKI does not teach “determine a first monitoring target group, which is a set including a part of all of a monitoring target candidate in the electronic control system, based on first identification information synchronized between the abnormality monitoring device and the center device; … and instruct changing the first monitoring target group to a second monitoring target group different from the first monitoring target group when a predetermined condition is satisfied, wherein the predetermined condition is that a counter value has reached a predetermined value.”.
In analogous teaching OGAWA teaches “determine a first monitoring target group, which is a set including a part of all of a monitoring target candidate in the electronic control system, based on first identification information synchronized between the abnormality monitoring device and the center device;” ([OGAWA, para. 0071] “When the control unit 15 completes the registration of the vehicle information and the design information, the control unit 15 subsequently shifts to the vehicle monitor state for monitoring the vehicle for which the registration of the vehicle information and the design information has been completed (A2), and terminates the initial registration processing.”) ([OGAWA, para. 0078] “The control unit 15 monitors the communication log information database 15 and the vehicle log information database 16 (A23), monitors the threat information database 20 and the map information database 22 (A24), and monitors abnormality detection (A25, vehicle state identification process).”) ([OGAWA, para. 0041] “The vehicle log information is information related to behavior of the vehicle, and includes, for example, an operating state of the ECU 11, a vehicle position, and the like.”) ([OGAWA, para. 0039] “The ECUs 11 connected to the body bus include, for example, a door ECU for controlling locking/unlocking of doors, a meter ECU for controlling a meter display, an air conditioning ECU for controlling an air conditioner, a window ECU for controlling opening/closing of windows”).
Thus, given the teaching of OGAWA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of monitoring groups by OGAWA into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because OGAWA recognizes the need to improve vehicle safety ([OGAWA, para. 0028] “a technique for visualizing the vehicle state to the user is required for the purpose of giving the user a sense of safety and security. Further, a technique for presenting the vehicle state not only the user who uses the vehicle but also an administrator who monitors the vehicle is required.”) ([OGAWA, para. 0029] “The present disclosure to provide a center device, an identification result display system for a vehicle state”).
However, TORISAKI-OGAWA does not teach “and instruct changing the first monitoring target group to a second monitoring target group different from the first monitoring target group when a predetermined condition is satisfied, wherein the predetermined condition is that a counter value has reached a predetermined value.”
In analogous teaching CHAMARTHY teaches “and instruct changing the first monitoring target group to a second monitoring target group different from the first monitoring target group when a predetermined condition is satisfied, wherein the predetermined condition is that a counter value has reached a predetermined value.” ([CHAMARTHY, para. 0027] “The machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism then determines a fairness metric using a disparate impact ratio based on the original record data and the newly considered perturbed record data to determine whether the machine learning model is truly acting in an erroneously inclined manner in the group 26-30. If the newly determined fairness metric meets the fairness threshold, indicating that the machine learning model is not acting in an erroneously inclined manner, then the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism splits the new monitored group of 26-30 into half and repeat the process, e.g., the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism considers group of 26-28 as the new monitored group repeats the process.”) ([CHAMARTHY, para. 0050] “Once the reference/monitored group modification tool 114 determines that the fairness threshold is met, the reference/monitored group modification tool 114 adds the last analyzed smaller bucket to the monitored group. Having identified a new monitored group and new reference group, the accurate identification of the monitored group and the reference group may be transmitted as a monitored/reference groups notifications 108”)
Thus, given the teaching of CHAMARTHY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of changing the first monitoring target group to a second monitoring target group by CHAMARTHY into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because CHAMARTHY recognizes the benefits of utilizing monitoring groups ([CHAMARTHY, para. 0003] “The underlying artificial intelligence and analytics computing systems used in such decision support computing systems is dependent upon a machine learning process using a set of training data. If this training data comprises erroneous inclinations, i.e. erroneous inclination towards a group defined by a set of one or more attributes (often referred to as protected attributes), the erroneous inclinations will influence the training of the artificial intelligence”) ([CHAMARTHY, para. 0005] “implement a machine learning model data quality improvement detection tool that identifies an accurate reference group and an accurate monitored group of a machine learning model. The illustrative embodiment monitors a behavior of the machine learning model for a predetermined time frame. The illustrative embodiment compares a determined fairness metric”)
Regarding claim 10, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. TORISAKI further teaches “wherein the monitoring target candidate is an electronic control unit constituting the electronic control system, and ([TORISAKI, para. 0075] “Vehicle 10 includes anomaly detector 11. Although not illustrated in the drawing, vehicle 10 includes a plurality of in-vehicle devices. The plurality of in-vehicle devices include: at least one electronic control unit (ECU) that controls, for example, travel of vehicle 10; an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI); and a telematics control unit (TCU) (telematics communication unit). These in-vehicle devices are connected to each other via an in-vehicle network.”) the at least one of the circuit and the processor detects an abnormality in the electronic control unit, and provides an instruction for transmitting a detection result to the center device when the abnormality is detected. ([TORISAKI, para. 0077] “Anomaly detector 11 detects: an anomalous part (also referred to as an attacked part) in which vehicle 10 has an anomaly; and an anomaly detail (also referred to as a detection detail). Then, anomaly detector 11 transmits, to analysis center 20, an anomaly log including time-series data on anomalous parts and anomaly details.”).
Regarding claim 12, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. TORISAKI further teaches “wherein the monitoring target candidate is a security sensor of an electronic control unit constituting the electronic control system, and ([TORISAKI, para. 0080] “Examples of the analysis described here include determining, based on vehicle information on vehicle 10 (such as results of sensing by various sensors and communication logs) and a version of software used in vehicle 10: whether there is an association between an anomalous part and an anomaly detail included in the time-series data on the anomalous parts and the anomaly details included in the anomaly log of vehicle 10”) ([TORISAKI, para. 0076] “Anomaly detector 11 detects that an anomaly occurs to vehicle 10. For example, anomaly detector 11 may be provided for each of the at least one ECU, the IVI, and the TCU, or may be provided to detect anomalies”) the at least one of the circuit and the processor provides an instruction for transmitting a security log to the center device when the security log generated by the security sensor indicates an abnormality. ([TORISAKI, para. 0077] “anomaly detector 11 transmits, to analysis center 20, an anomaly log including time-series data on anomalous parts and anomaly details.”).
Regarding claim 13, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. TORISAKI further teaches “wherein the monitoring target candidate is a security log generated by a security sensor of an electronic control unit constituting the electronic control system, and ([TORISAKI, para. 0080] “Examples of the analysis described here include determining, based on vehicle information on vehicle 10 (such as results of sensing by various sensors and communication logs) and a version of software used in vehicle 10: whether there is an association between an anomalous part and an anomaly detail included in the time-series data on the anomalous parts and the anomaly details included in the anomaly log of vehicle 10”) the at least one of the circuit and the processor provides an instruction for transmitting the security log to the center device when the security log indicates an abnormality. ([TORISAKI, para. 0077] “anomaly detector 11 transmits, to analysis center 20, an anomaly log including time-series data on anomalous parts and anomaly details.”)
Regarding claim 19, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. TORISAKI further teaches “wherein the abnormality monitoring device is mounted on the mobile object.” ([TORISAKI, para. 0075] “Vehicle 10 includes anomaly detector 11. Although not illustrated in the drawing, vehicle 10 includes a plurality of in-vehicle devices. The plurality of in-vehicle devices include: at least one electronic control unit (ECU) that controls, for example, travel of vehicle 10; an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI); and a telematics control unit (TCU) (telematics communication unit). These in-vehicle devices are connected to each other via an in-vehicle network.”).
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites of a center device that is mounted outside a mobile object that performs the features of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1. TORISAKI further teaches “center device that is mounted outside a mobile object and receives a report from an abnormality monitoring device … an attack analysis unit configured to analyze a cyber attack based on the report from the abnormality monitoring device.” ([TORISAKI, para. 0033] “an information processing system that analyzes an attack scenario by obtaining anomaly logs detected by a plurality of mobile bodies includes: obtaining, from one mobile body among the plurality of mobile bodies, an anomaly log indicating an anomaly of the one mobile body”) ([TORISAKI, para. 0007] “performing a process for the anomaly log as a first anomalous event occurring to the one mobile body”) ([TORISAKI, para. 0083] “Information processing device 40 is a server (SOC server) included in analysis center 20, and performs information processing for analyzing an anomaly detected in a corresponding one of the plurality of vehicles 10”).
Regarding claim 23, this claim recites of an abnormality monitoring method that performs the steps of abnormality monitoring device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, this claim recites of an non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an abnormality monitoring program that performs the steps of abnormality monitoring device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 32, 33, 34, and 35, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teach all limitations of claims 1, 21, 23, and 25. CHAMARTHY further teaches “wherein the predetermined condition is that the counter value has reached the predetermined value after a previous change of a monitoring target group. ([CHAMARTHY, para. 0027] “If the newly determined fairness metric meets the fairness threshold, indicating that the machine learning model is not acting in an erroneously inclined manner, then the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism splits the new monitored group of 26-30 into half and repeat the process, e.g., the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism considers group of 26-28 as the new monitored group repeats the process. If, on the other hand, the newly determined fairness metric fails to meet the fairness threshold, indicating that the machine learning model is acting in an erroneously inclined manner, the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism considers the next group of 31-35 as a new monitored group and repeats the process.”).
The same motivation to modify TORISAKI-OGAWA with CHAMARTHY as in the rejection of claim 1 applies.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of ARIMUNE (US-20210178965-A1), hereinafter TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE.
Regarding claim 2, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY does not teach “wherein the first identification information includes the counter value that increases or decreases depending on an operation status of a vehicle that is the mobile object.”.
In analogous teaching ARIMUNE teaches “wherein the first identification information includes the counter value that increases or decreases depending on an operation status of a vehicle that is the mobile object.” ([ARIMUNE, para. 0020] “the vehicle usage amount data-obtaining unit is configured to obtain the vehicle identification data and vehicle usage amount data indicating a usage amount of the vehicle identified by the vehicle identification data”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0184] “When the user touches the START button, the BT communication unit 36 (see FIG. 1B) transmits a permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data request RQ to the permanent-open-cabin vehicle 6, as shown in FIG. 3B.”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0175] “The permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes two or more indicators. In the present embodiment, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes … a total number of revolutions of the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source total revolution count), and the number of times of starting the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source starting count).”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0188] “the communication unit 38 transmits, to the server 2, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle identification data ID and the latest permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data NUD.”).
Thus, given the teaching of ARIMUNE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a counter value by ARIMUNE into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because ARIMUNE recognizes the need for a user to analyze vehicle data ([ARIMUNE, para. 0006] “the present teaching has an objective to provide an indicator data output device and an indicator data output method each capable of enabling a user to grasp an increase in usage amount of a vehicle in a simple manner, while suppressing or reducing an increase in data processing load on the indicator data output device.”).
Regarding claim 3, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE teach all limitations of claim 2. ARIMUNE further teaches “wherein by transmitting the counter value to the center device, the first identification information is shared between the center device and the counter value.” ([ARIMUNE, para. 0175] “The permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes two or more indicators. In the present embodiment, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes … a total number of revolutions of the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source total revolution count), and the number of times of starting the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source starting count).”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0188] “the communication unit 38 transmits, to the server 2, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle identification data ID and the latest permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data NUD.”).
The same motivation to modify TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY with ARIMUNE as in the rejection of claim 2 applies.
Regarding claim 4, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE teach all limitations of claim 2. ARIMUNE further teaches “wherein the first identification information is shared with the center device by transmitting information indicating the operation status of the vehicle to the center device.” ([ARIMUNE, para. 0175] “The permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes two or more indicators. In the present embodiment, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes … a total number of revolutions of the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source total revolution count), and the number of times of starting the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source starting count).”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0188] “the communication unit 38 transmits, to the server 2, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle identification data ID and the latest permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data NUD.”).
The same motivation to modify TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY with ARIMUNE as in the rejection of claim 2 applies.
Regarding claim 5, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE teach all limitations of claim 2. ARIMUNE further teaches “wherein the counter value is a trip number, which is a numeral number of times the vehicle has been activated.” ([ARIMUNE, para. 0175] “The permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes two or more indicators. In the present embodiment, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes … a total number of revolutions of the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source total revolution count), and the number of times of starting the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source starting count).”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0188] “the communication unit 38 transmits, to the server 2, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle identification data ID and the latest permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data NUD.”).
The same motivation to modify TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY with ARIMUNE as in the rejection of claim 2 applies.
Regarding claim 6, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE teach all limitations of claim 4. ARIMUNE further teaches “wherein the counter value is a trip number, which is a numeral number of times the vehicle has been activated, and when the vehicle is activated, information indicating a trip start is transmitted to the center device to share the first identification information with the center device.” ([ARIMUNE, para. 0184] “When the user touches the START button, the BT communication unit 36 (see FIG. 1B) transmits a permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data request RQ to the permanent-open-cabin vehicle 6, as shown in FIG. 3B.”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0175] “The permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes two or more indicators. In the present embodiment, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data UD includes … a total number of revolutions of the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source total revolution count), and the number of times of starting the drive source 66 (hereinafter, referred to as a drive-source starting count).”) ([ARIMUNE, para. 0188] “the communication unit 38 transmits, to the server 2, the permanent-open-cabin vehicle identification data ID and the latest permanent-open-cabin vehicle usage amount data NUD.”).
The same motivation to modify TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY with ARIMUNE as in the rejection of claim 2 applies.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE in view of GALULA (US-20160381067-A1).
Regarding claim 7, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE teach all limitations of claim 2. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE does not teach “wherein the counter value is a message counter value that increases or decreases each time a specific message is transmitted or received.”.
In analogous teaching GALULA teaches “wherein the counter value is a message counter value that increases or decreases each time a specific message is transmitted or received.” ([GALULA, para. 0219] “As shown by block 1110, a set of messages that include the same message identifier may be received, at least some of the messages including a counter. For example, a set of messages received from traction control unit 64 may all include a specific, same ID value and may further include a counter. … units or components on a network may be configured to include a running counter in messages they send. For example, traction control unit 64 may include or set, for example in a protocol header of a message, a running counter value of one (“1”) in a first message it sends, a value of two (“2”) in a second or subsequent message and so on.”).
Thus, given the teaching of GALULA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a message counter value by GALULA into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-ARIMUNE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because GALULA recognizes the need to improve anomaly detection ([GALULA, para. 0148] “embodiments of the invention may improve known systems and methods, e.g., known systems and methods related to time based anomaly detection in networks.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of MCKEEFERY (US-11737049-B1).
Regarding claim 8, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY does not teach “wherein the first identification information is a time counter value that increases or decreases over time.”
In analogous teaching, MCKEEFERY teaches “wherein the first identification information is a time counter value that increases or decreases over time.” ([MCKEEFERY, col. 21 Lines. 39-45] “For example, the policy enforcement application has determined that the vehicle has come to a stop. In such an instance, the policy enforcement application begins decrementing a trip duration counter. The trip duration counter refers to a time period pertaining to a predetermined stoppage time that, when met (e.g., decrements to 0), indicates the end of a trip.”) ([MCKEEFERY, col. 23 Lines. 60-63 ] “In the event that the policy release counter has not decremented to zero (0) but the trip duration counter has decremented to zero (0), the trip is ended and particulars of the trip may be recorded ( blocks 1010, 1020, 1016).”).
Thus, given the teaching of MCKEEFERY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a timer counter value by MCKEEFERY into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because MCKEEFERY recognizes the need to restrict vehicle functionality while in use ([MCKEEFERY, col. 1 Lines. 52-57 ] “Thus, a system, method and apparatus are needed to restrict or limit the use of some or all functionality of certain network devices, such as mobile devices for example, within a predefined area of an interior cabin of an automobile when the automobile is in use.”) ([MCKEEFERY, col. 2 Lines. 48-52] “Embodiments of a system and methods are described for determining whether a network device is a driver device on which a set of policies are to be implemented to restrict or limit the use of the network device when operating in the vehicle.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of KEREN (US-20190294781-A1).
Regarding claim 9, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY does not teach “further comprising a storage configured to store a monitoring target group list that lists a monitoring target group including the monitoring target candidate that is a plurality of monitoring target candidates, wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to determine, based on a hash value calculated from the first identification information, the monitoring target group corresponding to the hash value as the first monitoring target group.”.
In analogous teaching KEREN teaches “further comprising a storage configured to store a monitoring target group list that lists a monitoring target group including the monitoring target candidate that is a plurality of monitoring target candidates, wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to determine, based on a hash value calculated from the first identification information, the monitoring target group corresponding to the hash value as the first monitoring target group.” ([KEREN, para. 0036] “the processor configured to detect a first appearance of a new property value in an event of an event stream of a group comprising a plurality of sub-groups, a hash function that generates a hash of an identifier of a sub-group of the plurality of the sub-groups of the group, the hash determining a computational element to which the event is sent for processing, an event reader that extracts property value appearance data from the event, an aggregator that receives the property value appearance data from a plurality of events of the plurality of sub-groups and determines a first appearance of the property value for the group in the plurality of events and a report generator that generates a report that identifies the sub-group that generated the event in which the first appearance of the property value of the group was detected”).
Thus, given the teaching of KEREN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of hash of monitoring groups by KEREN into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because KEREN recognizes the benefits of hash function applied to the sub-group ([KEREN, para. 0002] “When processing events associated with a group comprising multiple different sub-groups, a hash function can be applied to the sub-group identifier to map the events associated with the sub-group to different computational elements used to process the group's events”) ([KEREN, para. 0010] “it can be helpful to be able to distribute the events of a group among several computational elements, however in doing so, memory, data and state typically are no longer be able to be shared by the group. In accordance with aspects of the subject matter disclosed herein, the events of a single group can be divided among several (e.g., n computational elements) and events can be generated to synchronize the state in the group.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of TANABE (US-20200177412-A1).
Regarding claim 11, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY does not teach “wherein the monitoring target candidate is a controller area network (CAN) communication frame generated by an electronic control unit constituting the electronic control system, and the at least one of the circuit and the processor detects an abnormality in the communication frame, and provides an instruction for transmitting a detection result to the center device when the abnormality is detected.”.
In analogous teaching TANABE teaches “wherein the monitoring target candidate is a controller area network (CAN) communication frame generated by an electronic control unit constituting the electronic control system, and ([TANABE, para. 0026] “CAN monitoring ECU 16 includes an interface between CAN monitoring ECU 16 and CAN 22. CAN monitoring ECU 16 monitors CAN 22, and detects whether or not CAN 22 is in an abnormal state. More specifically, if a CAN frame that is a message transmitted through CAN 22 is abnormal”) ([TANABE, para. 0037] “The monitoring log shows that NW monitor 34 detects CAN 22 (or a frame transmitted through CAN 22) that is normal, or shows that NW monitor 34 detects CAN 22 (or a frame transmitted through CAN 22) that is abnormal.”) the at least one of the circuit and the processor detects an abnormality in the communication frame, and provides an instruction for transmitting a detection result to the center device when the abnormality is detected. ([TANABE, para. 0047] “More specifically, process controller 46 may or may not allow log transmitter 40 to transmit monitoring logs to a security operation center (SOC, not illustrated) outside vehicle 10.”) ([TANABE, para. 0058] “if at least one of results of NW monitoring performed by a plurality of the other monitoring devices is abnormal, process controller 46 allows log storing portion 38 to store, in a local storage area, a monitoring log about IVI device 12, and allows log transmitter 40 to transmit the monitoring log about IVI device 12 to the SOC.”).
Thus, given the teaching of TANABE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of controller area network (CAN) communication frame by TANABE into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because TANABE recognizes the need to improve vehicle monitoring ([TANABE, para. 0019] “when the monitoring functions detect an attack, a process is needed that allows the vehicle to safely operate.”) ([TANABE, para. 0021] “a plurality of monitoring devices detect states of respective objects to be monitored, and notify, to each other, the states of respective objects to be monitored. Thus, each of the monitoring devices can refer to states of the vehicle that cannot be grasped itself”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of LI (US-20200344576-A1).
Regarding claim 15, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY does not teach “wherein the predetermined condition is that an instruction to change a monitoring target is received from the center device.”.
In analogous teaching LI teaches “wherein the predetermined condition is that an instruction to change a monitoring target is received from the center device.” ([LI, para. 0038] “example, in a power plant, an IoT server may want to send the same request to a group of sensors, which are monitoring temperature and pressure changes. The message may indicate that all devices need to change their reporting period because some unusual readings were reported. Another example is that an IoT server broadcasts messages to environmental sensors over a large area, such as a national park. The messages would bring calibration information which may be location dependent.”).
Thus, given the teaching of LI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of instruction to change a monitoring target is received from the center device by LI into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because LI recognizes the enhance broadcasting of operations ([LI, para. 0037] “A next generation network, such as the 5G core network (5GC), and entities connected to such a network, may be enhanced to permit multicast and broadcast operations over both the control plane and the user plane”) ([LI, para. 0038] “Many IoT applications require frequent data transfer between the IoT servers and IoT devices, such as sensors. In many cases, an IoT server/gateway may send the same message/command to a large group of IoT devices registered with it.”).
Claims 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of KO (US-20130282895-A1), hereinafter TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-KO.
Regarding claim 16, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teaches all limitations of claim 1. KO further teaches “wherein the predetermined condition is that a certain time has elapsed since a previous change of the monitoring target group.” ([KO, para. 0014] “the monitoring parameters form a multitude of sets of monitoring parameters, and each set of monitoring parameters is used to monitor the system for an associated period of time. The lengths of these monitoring periods are changed based on the rate of change of the correlation graphs.”) ([KO, para. 0016] “a correlation graph is generated by monitoring a first plurality of the parameters of the system during a first time period”) ([KO, para. 0017] “select a second plurality of the parameters to monitor the system during a second time period”).
Thus, given the teaching of KO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a certain time has elapsed since a previous change of the monitoring target group by KO into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because KO recognizes the need to improve monitoring ([KO, para. 0022] “With embodiments of the invention, as compared with a present standard monitoring system, for the same amount of measurement overhead, a higher monitoring accuracy can be achieved.”).
Regarding claim 27, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY-KO teaches all limitations of claim 16. CHAMARTHY further teaches “wherein the monitoring target group of the previous change is different from the first monitoring target group and the second monitoring target group.” ([CHAMARTHY, para. 0027] “The machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism then determines a fairness metric using a disparate impact ratio based on the original record data and the newly considered perturbed record data to determine whether the machine learning model is truly acting in an erroneously inclined manner in the group 26-30. If the newly determined fairness metric meets the fairness threshold, indicating that the machine learning model is not acting in an erroneously inclined manner, then the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism splits the new monitored group of 26-30 into half and repeat the process, e.g., the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism considers group of 26-28 as the new monitored group repeats the process. If, on the other hand, the newly determined fairness metric fails to meet the fairness threshold, indicating that the machine learning model is acting in an erroneously inclined manner, the machine learning model data quality improvement detection mechanism considers the next group of 31-35 as a new monitored group and repeats the process.”).
The same motivation to modify TORISAKI-OGAWA with CHAMARTHY as in the rejection of claim 1 applies.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY in view of FUKUSHIMA (US-20250150485-A1), based on its priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-180736 filed on Nov. 11, 2022.
Regarding claim 20, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY teach all limitations of claim 1. However, TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY does not teach “wherein the abnormality monitoring device is mounted outside the mobile object.”
In analogous teaching, FUKUSHIMA teaches “wherein the abnormality monitoring device is mounted outside the mobile object.” ([FUKUSHIMA, para. 0054, fig. 4] “Security monitoring device 100 is a device that monitors a state of vehicle 400, and is disposed in a monitoring center, for example. Security monitoring device 100 periodically obtains log information from vehicle 400, and monitors the state of vehicle 400 based on the obtained log information.”).
Thus, given the teaching of FUKUSHIMA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of abnormality monitoring device is mounted outside the mobile object by FUKUSHIMA into the teaching of an abnormality monitoring device that monitors an abnormality in an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object by TORISAKI-OGAWA-CHAMARTHY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because FUKUSHIMA recognizes the need to reduce risk of attacks in a vehicle ([FUKUSHIMA, para. 0029] “With this, when the first function of the first vehicle targeted for an attack is a function included in the one or more second functions, which are not the driving functions, the first vehicle can be caused to take a countermeasure for disabling the first function while keeping the driving function active”) ([FUKUSHIMA, para. 0031] “Thus, the risk due to the attack can be avoided”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, 28-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome any USC 112(b) rejections.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
KOHOUT (US-20230133892-A1): This prior art teaches of combining threat-related events associated with different modalities to provide a complete insight into cyber-attack life cycles. The techniques may include receiving telemetry data associated with one or more modalities and detecting, based at least in part on the telemetry data, one or more abnormal events associated with security incidents. The one or more abnormal events may include at least a first abnormal event associated with a first modality and a second abnormal event associated with a second modality. The techniques may also include determining that an entity associated with the abnormal events is a same entity and, based at least in part on the entity comprising the same entity, determining that a correlation between the abnormal events is indicative of a security incident. Based at least in part on the correlation, an indication associated with the security incident may be output.
ZHAO (US-11201886-B2): This prior art teaches of method includes obtaining, by one or more processing devices, a wireless message of an Internet of Things (IoT) device by monitoring a wireless signal sent by the IoT device; determining, by the one or more processing devices, a target running feature of the IoT device based on the wireless message; comparing, by the one or more processing devices, the target running feature with a historical normal running feature of the IoT device; and determining, by the one or more processing devices, whether the IoT device runs abnormally based on the comparing of the target running feature with the historical normal running feature of the IoT device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AFAQ ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/A.A./
05/22/2026
/AFAQ ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights