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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Note that an ISR was included in the IDS but the numerous patent/application references and the NPL was not included in the body of the IDS. Best practices are to include these in the body of the IDS. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Examiner has considered all of the references from the ISR.
Claim Interpretation/BRI
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. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method and system for estimating navigation time.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Cateqory?
Yes, with respect to claims 1-4, which recite a system that include at least one step. The system is therefore directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture. Paragraph 0001 of the Specification, states that “the present invention relates to a vehicle diagnostic system.”
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. But for the recited additional elements, the remaining limitations of the claims recite an abstract idea. The system uses Mathematical concepts to determine many of the limitations, including using mathematical relationships. Formulas or equations and calculations. The claims are directed to a diagnostic system for specifying a cause of an abnormality when the abnormality or a symptom of the abnormality occurs in a device of a vehicle, which are abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Inteqrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki, et al. [US20200034531n now Seki (note that this has many of the same inventors and one of the assignees of the instant application, but the priority date (2020-01-30) is more than one year prior to the priority date of the instant application), with Harata et al. [US20210165651, now Harata].
Examiners Note: Both Saki and Harata disclose/teach to same concepts as the instant application, just use different ways of expressing the limitations.
Claim 1
Seki discloses a vehicle diagnostic system [see at least Saki, ¶ 0035 (“The automotive monitoring server 110 collects information about a history of unauthorized accesses made to the vehicle 20 (hereinafter, referred to as “automotive log”) from the vehicle 20, and detects a cyber-attack on the vehicle 20 on the basis of the collected automotive log and the automotive attack detection rule that is received from the attack detection rule generation server 100.”); Note monitoring and analyzing to have get an answer/solution is diagnostic actions.], comprising:
a log acquisition unit that acquires a history of a first log indicating whether a device in a vehicle executes predetermined processing in response to a request signal that requests the device to execute the predetermined processing [see at least Saki, ¶ 0070 (“ The automotive log receiving section 312 stores a log related to the unauthorized access to the vehicle 20 (hereinafter, referred to as “automotive log”) and transmitted from the vehicle 20 in an automotive log DB 320. It is noted that because of a probability that the automotive log is transmitted from a plurality of communication paths, an automotive log transmission order often differs from an automotive log receiving order. Owing to this, the automotive log receiving section 312 reorders the automotive log in an automotive log generation order by reading a time stamp recorded within the automotive log at a time of storing the automotive log.”); 0072 (“The functions of each information processing apparatus described so far are realized by either the hardware of the information processing apparatus or by causing the processor in the information processing apparatus to read and execute a program stored in the memory or the storage device.”)]; and
a communication determination unit that, when a non- execution log indicating that the predetermined processing is not executed is included in the history, determines validity of communication used to transmit the request signal corresponding to the non-execution log [see at least Saki, ¶ 115 (“The vehicle unauthorized access information generation section 214 determines whether other unselected general unauthorized access information is present (S1309). In a case in which the other unselected general unauthorized access information is present (S1309: YES), the vehicle unauthorized access information generation section 214 executes a process in S1301 to select the general unauthorized access information. On the other hand, in a case in which the other unselected general unauthorized access information is not present (S1309: NO), the vehicle unauthorized access information generation process is ended.”)}.
Harata more specifically teaches and clarifies a communication determination unit that, when a non- execution log indicating that the predetermined processing is not executed is included in the history, determines validity of communication used to transmit the request signal corresponding to the non-execution log [see at least Harata, ¶ 0562 (“As described above, although the configuration in which the CGW 13 notifies the DCM 12 of the process execution request has been exemplified, for example, in a case where a processing load increases in the DCM 12 and thus a problem occurs in an original process, a navigation apparatus or an ECU other than the rewrite target ECU 19 may be used instead of the DCM 12 to notify the navigation apparatus or the ECU other than the rewrite target ECU 19 of the process execution request. In a case where the DCM 12 and the CGW 13 are integrated with each other and can cope with an original process without causing a problem, the process execution request may be requested to the process execution unit of the process execution unit itself. For example, the process may be performed between different software components in the same ECU. The above-described configuration may be applied to the master device 11 configured as one integrated ECU having the functions of the DCM 12 and the CGW 13. For example, in FIGS. 73 to 76, the process function in the CGW 13 is set as a first functional unit, and the process function in the DCM 12 is set as a second functional unit, and the first functional unit notifies the second functional unit of a process execution request, and an execution result is returned from the second functional unit to the first functional unit. In the master device 11 configured as an integrated ECU, in a case where a processing load increases and thus a problem occurs in a communication process or a relay process, the navigation apparatus or an ECU other than the rewrite target ECU 19 may be notified of a process execution request instead of the second functional unit.”); 0783 (“ when a cancellation request is generated in a stage in which normal rewriting (installation) has been completed up to “50%” (FIG. 142(a)), the display terminal 5 displays the numerical value of the progress graph as “0%” (FIG. 142(b)). The rewrite target ECU 19 validates the difference data that has been written so far, and continues to write the difference data that is distributed from the CGW 13. That is, the progress display indicating that installation has been completed switches from display of “0%” to a ratio corresponding to the validated “50%” (FIG. 142(c)). The display terminal 5 increases the numerical value of the progress graph in accordance with the progress in which the rewrite target ECU 19 writes the write data distributed from the CGW 13 (FIGS. 142(d) and 142(e)). In the present embodiment, a description has been made of a case where the CGW 13 performs the rewrite progress situation display control process, but the display terminal 5 may perform the rewrite progress situation display control process.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “the vehicle unauthorized access countermeasure taking apparatus and a vehicle unauthorized access countermeasure taking method [0002]” of Saki, with the “ difference data consistency determination method [0002]” of Harata. Providing a more effective and efficient [Harata, ¶ 1245] to assess or diagnose abnormalities of systems within a vehicle.
Claim 2
Saki and Harata teach the system of Claim 1.
Saki further discloses a log processing unit that extracts the history in a time series manner to generate log time series data [see at least Saki, Fig. 13; ¶ 0070; 0072]; and
a vehicle diagnosis history storage unit that stores a history of vehicle diagnoses performed on the vehicle, wherein the communication determination unit compares the log time series data with the vehicle diagnosis history [see at least Saki, ¶ 0035], and
determines that the communication corresponding to the non- execution log is valid when a record corresponding to the non-execution log exists in the vehicle diagnosis history [see at least 0082 (“Moreover, in a case, for example, in which the common category is “difference in object” and the common item is “large number of objects to be monitored,” characteristics corresponding to the category and the item are “one specific object” and “a plurality of objects with same configuration.” In addition, information such as “attack on a plurality of vehicles with same configuration” made to correspond to these characteristics is stored in the behavior element 2403. In other words, while the cyber-attack on the IT system is often carried out on one specific computer (apparatus), the cyber-attack on the automobile is often carried out on a plurality of automobiles with the same configuration as objects to be attacked by repeatedly performing an identical authentication process.”)(]..
Harata also teaches a log processing unit that extracts the history in a time series manner to generate log time series data [see at least Harata, ¶ 339 (“As illustrated in FIG. 11, during a normal operation of executing application processes such as a vehicle control process and a diagnosis process, the microcomputer 33 executes the start determination program, refers to the boot time vector table and the normal time vector table to search for a leading address, and executes a predetermined address of an application program.”)], and determines that the communication corresponding to the non- execution log is valid when a record corresponding to the non-execution log exists in the vehicle diagnosis history [see at least Harata, ¶ 0148 (“[0148] FIG. 143 is a diagram illustrating a rewrite progress situation screen,”); 0479 (“As mentioned above, the downloadability determination unit 67b determines whether or not there is a possibility that the download cannot be completed normally. The determination in the downloadability determination unit 67b is performed on the condition that the “download initiation” button 503a is operated by the user on the download approval screen 503 illustrated in FIGS. 34 and 35. The downloadability determination unit 67b may be configured to determine a determination item in the center device 3. That is, the downloadability determination unit 67b determines that the vehicle is in a downloadable condition, for example, in a case where the setting of the alarm function of the vehicle is validated or the trouble information regarding the ECU 19 is not generated.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “the vehicle unauthorized access countermeasure taking apparatus and a vehicle unauthorized access countermeasure taking method [0002]” of Saki, with the “ difference data consistency determination method [0002]” of Harata. Providing a more effective and efficient [Harata, ¶ 1245] to assess or diagnose abnormalities of systems within a vehicle.
Claim 3
Saki and Harata teach the system of Claim 2.
Saki further discloses wherein the log processing unit deletes the first log corresponding to the communication determined to be valid by the communication determination unit from the log time series data to generate modified log time series data, and the communication determination unit determines that the communication corresponding to the non-execution log is unauthorized when the modified log time series data further includes the non-execution log [see at least Saki, Abstract; ¶ 0006 (“Furthermore, JP-2017-111796-A discloses a technique in which using contents of logs of the same type collected from a plurality of vehicles to be monitored and calculating an anomaly value of a newly collected log of the same type, thereby determining whether an unauthorized attacker is carrying out a cyber-attack.”); 0070 (“The automotive log receiving section 312 stores a log related to the unauthorized access to the vehicle 20 (hereinafter, referred to as “automotive log”) and transmitted from the vehicle 20 in an automotive log DB 320. It is noted that because of a probability that the automotive log is transmitted from a plurality of communication paths, an automotive log transmission order often differs from an automotive log receiving order. Owing to this, the automotive log receiving section 312 reorders the automotive log in an automotive log generation order by reading a time stamp recorded within the automotive log at a time of storing the automotive log.”); 0100 (“ Here, FIG. 13 depicts an example of the automotive log DB 320. The automotive log DB 320 includes one or more records each having columns including: a time stamp 2501 in which information about a date or time is stored; and detailed log information 2502 in which a content of the unauthorized access made to the vehicle 20 is stored.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “the vehicle unauthorized access countermeasure taking apparatus and a vehicle unauthorized access countermeasure taking method [0002]” of Saki, with the “ difference data consistency determination method [0002]” of Harata. Providing a more effective and efficient [Harata, ¶ 1245] to assess or diagnose abnormalities of systems within a vehicle.
Claim 4
Saki and Harata teach the system of Claim 3.
Saki further discloses wherein the log acquisition unit further acquires a history of a second log that is generated when an abnormality occurs in the device and indicates a type of the abnormality [see at least Saki, ¶ 0003 (“one that a center which monitors the automobile promptly detects a cyber-attack and appropriately takes countermeasures against the cyber-attack when the automobile is subjected to the cyber-attack by collecting or analyzing logs generated by the automobile in real time have been taken into consideration”); 0006 (“newly collected log”)], and
when the non-execution log is further included in the modified log time series data, the communication determination unit re-determines the validity of the communication corresponding to the non-execution log based on the second log [see at least Saki, ¶ 0082; 0100; 0101 (“Next, FIG. 14 depicts an example of the alert DB 340. The alert DB 340 has one or more records each having columns including: an alert ID 2701 in which an identifier of the alert is stored, occurrence time 2702 in which a date or time at which the alert is generated is stored, and an alert content 2703 in which a content of the generated alert is stored.”)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
P. Peti, R. Obermaisser and H. Paulitsch, "The diagnostic architecture of the PEGASUS project car," Third International Workshop on Intelligent Solutions in Embedded Systems, 2005., Hamburg, Germany, 2005, pp. 163-174.
H. Schweppe, A. Zimmermann and D. Grilly, "Flexible in-vehicle stream processing with distributed automotive control units for engineering and diagnosis," 2008 International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems, Le Grande Motte, France, 2008, pp. 74-81.
H. Mansor, K. Markantonakis, R. N. Akram, K. Mayes and I. Gurulian, "Log Your Car: The Non-invasive Vehicle Forensics," 2016 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA, Tianjin, China, 2016, pp. 974-982.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3667
(571) 270-7952