DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
2. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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: “control unit configured to – corresponding to element 60 in Fig. 2” 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
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, the phrase "the in-vehicle device that is authorized” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear how an authorization is established or what distinguishes an “authorized device” from the claimed at least one-in vehicle device. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the phrase "an accessible storage area” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what it is the same “accessible storage area” introduced earlier in claim 1 or different “accessible storage area”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the in-vehicle apparatus" in line 6 and "the in-vehicle device that is authorized" in line 11. There are insufficient antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the in-vehicle apparatus" in line 7 and "the in-vehicle device that is authorized" in line 12. There are insufficient antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-10 and 14-16 depend on claim 1. Claims 2, 4-7, 9-10 and 14-16 are also indefinite because they depend on a base claim that is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The claims are allowed because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination “compares an estimated required time stored in an accessible storage area in advance, with a measured required sending time from the sending time point at the in-vehicle apparatus to the reception time point at the in-vehicle device, or a measured required reception time from the sending time point at the in-vehicle device to the reception time point at the in-vehicle apparatus; and determines that an unauthorized device is performing the communication by pretending to be the in-vehicle device that is authorized if the measured required sending time or the measured required reception time is shorter than the estimated required time” in combination with the remaining elements of the claimed limitation.
Considering the claims, the best prior art found during examination is Kurachi et al. (US 2022/0360510) which teaches in-vehicle communication system according to this aspect is an in-vehicle communication system in which a plurality of in-vehicle communication devices connected to a common communication line transmit and receive messages through the communication line. An in-vehicle communication device on a transmitting side of a message includes: a delay time measuring unit that measures a delay time from a point in time when transmission of a message to be transmitted is first attempted to a point in time when the transmission of the message is started; and an assigning unit that assigns the delay time measured by the delay time measuring unit to the message. An in-vehicle communication device on a receiving side of a message includes: a reception point acquisition unit that acquires a point in time when a message from the in-vehicle communication device on the transmitting side is received; a delay time acquisition unit that acquires a delay time assigned to the received message; and a calculation unit that calculates a transmission cycle of each message based on a point in time acquired by the reception point acquisition unit and a delay time acquired by the delay time acquisition unit for each of two received messages [0021], the in-vehicle communication system according to the present embodiment, the ECU 2 adds the information of delay time caused by arbitration processing to the message and transmits the message. The ECU 2 that has received the message can calculate the time (point in time) at which the ECU 2 as a transmission source has attempted to transmit the message first, that is, transmission time (transmission point in time) at which the ECU 2 as a transmission source could transmit the message if there is no delay due to arbitration processing, based on the message reception time (reception point in time) and the delay time assigned to the message [0039], the ECU 2 that has received the message calculates a time difference from the previous message transmission time to the current message transmission time based on the reception time and delay time of the received message and the reception time and delay time of the previous received message having the same CANID as the received message. The calculation of the time difference corresponds to the process of calculating the transmission cycle of the message [0040] and each time a message is received, the CAN controller 24 transmits information, such as the content of the message, the reception time, and the delay time, to the processing unit 21. Based on the information transmitted from the CAN controller 24, the transmission cycle calculation unit 21a of the processing unit 21 performs a process of calculating the transmission cycle of the message by calculating the time difference between the received message and the previously received message. Therefore, the transmission cycle calculation unit 21a stores the information of the reception time and the delay time (or may be information of the transmission time of the message calculated from the reception time and the delay time) of the previously received message. The transmission cycle calculation unit 21a calculates the transmission cycle of the message based on the reception time and delay time of the previous received message and the reception time and delay time of the current received message [0055].
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights