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 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: Communication part configured to communicate.., processing part configured to…, in claim 1.
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 § 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, 4 and 5 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. More specifically, the limitation “to transmit a stop signal to the vehicles whose operation is being managed for ordering them to stop when receiving from the abnormal vehicle an abnormal communication incidence signal informing it that there has been abnormal communication different from the usual communications to the abnormal vehicle and to transmit the stop signal to only the abnormal vehicle when not receiving from the abnormal vehicle the abnormal communication incidence signal”. The conditions under which the signal should be transmitted to all vehicles, as opposed to targeting a single vehicle exhibiting abnormal behavior, are not clearly defined.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An operation management apparatus configured to manage the operation of a plurality of vehicles capable of autonomous driving, wherein the operation management apparatus comprises:
a communication part configured to be able to communicate with the vehicles; and a processing part, and wherein the processing part is configured:
to detect the presence of any abnormal vehicle exhibiting abnormal behavior from among the plurality of vehicles; and,
if detecting the presence of an abnormal vehicle, to transmit a stop signal to the vehicles whose operation is being managed for ordering them to stop when receiving from the abnormal vehicle an abnormal communication incidence signal informing it that there has been abnormal communication different from the usual communications to the abnormal vehicle and to transmit the stop signal to only the abnormal vehicle when not receiving from the abnormal vehicle the abnormal communication incidence signal.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “detecting” step encompasses a user standing on a street or inside the vehicle and making observation, evaluation or judgement about the type of behavior of vehicles. For example, the user will be able to determine if the user is receiving an abnormal communication from a vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An operation management apparatus configured to manage the operation of a plurality of vehicles capable of autonomous driving, wherein the operation management apparatus comprises:
a communication part configured to be able to communicate with the vehicles; and a processing part, and wherein the processing part is configured:
to detect the presence of any abnormal vehicle exhibiting abnormal behavior from among the plurality of vehicles; and,
if detecting the presence of an abnormal vehicle, to transmit a stop signal to the vehicles whose operation is being managed for ordering them to stop when receiving from the abnormal vehicle an abnormal communication incidence signal informing it that there has been abnormal communication different from the usual communications to the abnormal vehicle and to transmit the stop signal to only the abnormal vehicle when not receiving from the abnormal vehicle the abnormal communication incidence signal.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmit a stop signal ..” the examiner submits that these limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the data that results from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract.
In addition, the additional elements in claim 1, “communication part”, “processing part ”, “operation management apparatus” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of determining the type of attack. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “transmitting data..” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More specifically, the limitations of transmitting a slow-go.. are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claims 4 and 5 are also rejected using the same reasons and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPEL (20220224700) in view of Kaneichi (US 20210192945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, APPEL discloses an operation management apparatus (FIG. 1, “fleet manager”) configured to manage the operation of a plurality of vehicles capable of autonomous driving (¶0028, “The fleet manager 160 is configured to manage processes and tasks related to a fleet of connected vehicles”), wherein the operation management apparatus comprises:
a communication part configured to be able to communicate with the vehicles (FIG. 1, “security agent 140”, ¶0023, “The security agent 140 is a network element configured to enable communications with the vehicle security manager 130 via the network 110”); and
a processing part (FIG. 2, Vehicle security manager 130 includes “processing circuitry 210”), and wherein the processing part is configured:
to detect the presence of any abnormal vehicle exhibiting abnormal behavior from among the plurality of vehicles (¶0035, “detect, in real-time, behavioral anomalies. The detected anomalies may include anomalies in individual vehicle behavior, in behavior of groupings of vehicles (e.g., a fleet or sub-fleet), or in behavior of a vehicle service interacting with vehicles (e.g., abnormal behavior”); and,
if detecting the presence of an abnormal vehicle,
to transmit a stop signal to the vehicles whose operation is being managed for ordering them to stop when receiving from the abnormal vehicle an abnormal communication incidence signal informing it that there has been abnormal communication different from the usual communications to the abnormal vehicle, to transmit the stop signal to only the abnormal vehicle when not receiving from the abnormal vehicle the abnormal communication incidence signal (¶0031, “Based on the vehicle data, the vehicle security manager 130 may be configured to determine at least one vehicle data abstraction. Each vehicle data abstraction is a representation of a portion of the vehicle data including only data utilized for anomaly detection” ¶0066, “ based on the second set of data and the normal behavior models, it is determined whether an anomaly is detected” ¶0067, “ The mitigation actions may be determined based on the anomaly…The mitigation actions may include actions for blocking one or more communications or types of communications with the anomaly-demonstrating connected vehicles… for ignoring one or more defined commands to those connected vehicles, for blocking one or more communications or types of communications with the anomaly-demonstrating connected vehicle service (e.g., communications sent to or received from the connected vehicle service)”. Examiner construes ¶0067 as blocking commands or communication from or to plurality of vehicles or to only the abnormal vehicle.”).
APPEL does not explicitly disclose, but Kaneichi teaches a stop signal to plurality of vehicles or one vehicle (¶0073, “management server 100 may transmit the notification command or the stop command to a plurality of autonomous vehicles 400. Moreover, the traffic management server 100 may transmit the notification command and the stop command to one autonomous vehicle 400.”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the management apparatus disclosed in APPEL with the stopping signals taught in Kaneichi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a collision avoidance and coordinating safe driving.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPEL (20220224700) in view of Kaneichi (US 20210192945 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mckinzie (US 20220176946 A1).
Regarding claim 2, APPEL does not explicitly disclose but, Mckinzie teaches wherein the processing part is further configured: to transmit a slow-go signal to all of the vehicles whose operation is being managed for ordering them to go slowly if the number of the vehicles transmitting the abnormal communication incidence signal is greater than or equal to a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value; and to transmit the stop signal to all of the vehicles whose operation is being managed if the number of the vehicles transmitting the abnormal communication incidence signal is greater than or equal to the second threshold value (¶0006).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the management apparatus disclosed in APPEL with the slow down signals taught in Mckinzie with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a collision avoidance and coordinating safe driving.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPEL (20220224700) in view of Kaneichi (US 20210192945 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of SIM (US 20200324788 A1).
Regarding claim 3, APPEL does not explicitly disclose but, SIM teaches wherein the processing part is further configured to judge that the vehicle is an abnormal vehicle when detecting that the vehicle has departed from a preset running route based on position data of the vehicle received from the vehicle (¶0010, “The controller may determine whether the vehicle departs from a lane based on the image data and determine that the driving of the vehicle is abnormal when the vehicle departs from the lane.”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the management apparatus disclosed in APPEL with the detection of abnormal behavior based on the vehicle’s position taught in SIM with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction of network threat.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claims 4 and 5 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ANDO (US 20200324788 A1) discloses NOVELTY - The vehicle control interface comprises a control unit (301) that is provided to execute. A first control command is acquired from the second computer including one of first data on designating acceleration or deceleration and second data on designating a travel track, and the first control command being data for controlling the vehicle platform. The first control command is converted into a second control command for the first computer. The second control command is transmitted to the first computer. The first control command is data that is not specific to the first computer provided in the vehicle, and the second control command is data that is specific to the first compute (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667