CTNF 18/963,942 CTNF 87522 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification refers to the term “sky fault” in numerous places (see, e.g., paragraph 9, “The abnormality detection device according to the present disclosure detects a sky fault which is one of abnormalities appearing on a signal line of an ignition switch by using an existing signal instead of using a new signal.” This appears to be a translation error, and as best understood by the examiner the term “power short” or “power fault” may have been intended (see, e.g., machine translation of JP2025098655A available at Espacenet). Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 2 is 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. In claim 2, the meaning of “sky fault” is unclear. For purposes of the present examination, this term is interpreted as “power short” or “power fault” (see discussion above in connection with objection to Specification). Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In particular, analyzing these claims under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: Claim 1 recites: An abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality in a signal line connecting an output of an ignition switch of a vehicle and a battery pack, the abnormality detection device comprising: a monitoring unit that monitors a first signal indicating a voltage of the signal line, a second signal indicating an ON/OFF state of the ignition switch communicated by a network of the vehicle, and a third signal indicating the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch output by a shift-by-wire system of the vehicle ; and a determination unit that determines a presence or absence of an abnormality in the signal line based on the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal monitored by the monitoring unit . Step 1 : Claim 1 is directed to abnormality detection device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine). Step 2A, prong 1 : At least the highlighted recitations of claim 1 set forth above relate to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper. In particular: The language “monitors a first signal indicating a voltage of the signal line, a second signal indicating an ON/OFF state of the ignition switch communicated by a network of the vehicle, and a third signal indicating the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch output by a shift-by-wire system of the vehicle” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The language “determines a presence or absence of an abnormality in the signal line based on the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal monitored by the monitoring unit” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Step 2A, prong 2 : Claim 1 further recites “an abnormality detection device” that includes “a monitoring unit” that performs the “monitors” functionality and “a determination unit” that performs the “determines” functionality. Insofar as these elements could be regarded as reciting additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis at step 2A, prong 2, these elements appear to have a scope that includes a computer/processor programmed to perform the monitoring and determining functions (see Specification, e.g., paragraph 40). The examiner notes that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 1, as the additional elements of “a monitoring unit” and “a determination unit” each have a scope that falls withing the use of a general-purpose computer or computer components in their ordinary capacity as a tool for implementing steps of the abstract idea. These additional elements, considered alone or in combination with the abstract ideas, therefore do not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites that the abnormality detection device is a device “that detects an abnormality in a signal line connecting an output of an ignition switch of a vehicle and a battery pack”. The examiner notes that the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack are not affirmatively recited as elements of the claimed abnormality detection device, but rather appear to be merely structures with which the abnormality detection device is to be used. The signal line, ignition switch and battery pack therefore do not appear to represent additional elements under the 101 analysis sufficient to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Even if the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack would be considered as additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis, e.g., as elements of a particular machine, these elements appear to merely represent an object to which the functionality of the abnormality detection device is applied rather than particular machine that performs the functionality itself. Therefore, even if viewed as additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis, the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack would not integrate the exception into a practical application under step 2A, prong 2. Step 2B : Claim 1 further recites “an abnormality detection device” that includes “a monitoring unit” that performs the “monitors” functionality and “a determination unit” that performs the “determines” functionality. Insofar as these elements could be regarded as reciting additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis at step 2B, these elements appear to have a scope that includes a computer/processor programmed to perform the monitoring and determining functions (see Specification, e.g., paragraph 40). The examiner notes that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This appears to be the case in claim 1, as the additional elements of “a monitoring unit” and “a determination unit” each have a scope that falls withing the use of a general-purpose computer or computer components in their ordinary capacity as a tool for implementing steps of the abstract idea. These additional elements, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, therefore do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 1 further recites that the abnormality detection device is a device “that detects an abnormality in a signal line connecting an output of an ignition switch of a vehicle and a battery pack”. The examiner notes that the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack are not affirmatively recited as elements of the claimed abnormality detection device, but rather appear to be merely structures with which the abnormality detection device is to be used. The signal line, ignition switch and battery pack therefore do not appear to represent additional elements under the 101 analysis sufficient to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Even if the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack would be considered as additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis, e.g., as elements of a particular machine, these elements appear to merely represent an object to which the functionality of the abnormality detection device is applied rather than particular machine that performs the functionality itself. Therefore, even if viewed as additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis, the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack would not provide significantly more under Step 2B. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim 2 recites: wherein when the second signal and the third signal both indicate an OFF state of the ignition switch, the determination unit determines that an abnormality of the signal line being a sky fault occurs if the first signal indicates a voltage larger than a predetermined threshold, and appears to further elaborate on the “determines” abstract idea identified above in connection with claim 1. Dependent claim 2 does not appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claim 2 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim 3 recites: wherein the battery pack includes a sub-battery redundantly provided to back up a predetermined main battery mounted in the vehicle. For reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1 pertaining to the signal line, ignition switch and battery pack elements, this recitation is not sufficient to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant-cited JP2021136740A to Wantanabe (Wantanabe) in view of US 2016/0186859 to Parker et al. (Parker) . Regarding claim 1, Wantanabe discloses an abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality in a signal line connecting an output of an ignition switch of a vehicle and a battery pack, the abnormality detection device comprising: a monitoring unit that monitors a first signal indicating a voltage of the signal line , a second signal indicating an ON/OFF state of the ignition switch communicated by a network of the vehicle , and a third signal indicating the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch output by a shift-by-wire system of the vehicle (Wantanabe, e.g., Fig. 1b and paragraphs 28-46, see paragraph 39 for example, that part of abnormality detection device 20 performing the function of monitoring each signal of the CAN communication reception signal (“second signal” as claimed) and voltage signal (“first signal” as claimed)); and a determination unit that determines a presence or absence of an abnormality in the signal line based on the first signal, the second signal , and the third signal monitored by the monitoring unit (Wantanabe, e.g., Fig. 1b and paragraphs 28-46, see paragraphs 39-44 for example). Wantanabe is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that abnormality detection device 20 also monitors a third signal indicating the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch output by a shift-by-wire system of the vehicle and a determination unit that determines a presence or absence of an abnormality in the signal line based on the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal monitored by the monitoring unit. The use of a shift-by-wire system in vehicles, including electric vehicles, is known and provides the advantage of a shift device that is electrically connected with a transmission which is operated through transmitting an electric signal indicating a shift operation by a driver (Parker, e.g., paragraphs 2, 42). It 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 to modify Wantanabe such that the vehicle in which Wantanabe’s arrangement of Fig. 1b is contained also includes a shift-by-wire system in order to realize the advantage of electronic transmission shifting. Additionally, Parker discloses that a shift-by-wire system may output signals indicating the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch. For example, with reference to the shift-by-wire system of Fig. 3, Parker discloses that when the ignition is turned to the ON state, the ECU 2 applies an instruction to the TCU 1b, and further the TCU 1b supplies an electric power to the actuator 1a, the P sensor 1c, and the EPB 5 on the basis of the applied instruction (Parker, e.g., paragraph 106). Conversely, when the ignition switch is turned to the OFF state, the Parker discloses that the ECU 2 is configured to apply an instruction to the TCU 1b such that the TCU 1b stops supplying the electric power to the actuator 1a, the P sensor 1c, and the EPB 5 on the basis of the applied instruction (Parker, e.g., paragraph 107). On of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand that Parker’s shift-by-wire system outputs signals (e.g., Parker’s instructions to the TCU 1b and/or the power supply signals output by the TCU 1b) that represent/correspond to the state of the ignition switch output. It 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 to modify Wantanabe in view of Parker such that that Wantanabe’s abnormality detection device 20 also monitors a third signal indicating the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch output by a shift-by-wire system of the vehicle. In this way, by using a further confirmatory signal indicative of the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch in addition to the signals disclosed by Wantanabe, the reliability/accuracy of Wantanabe’s abnormality determinations can be improved. Regarding claim 2, Wantanabe in view of Parker as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein when the second signal and the third signal both indicate an OFF state of the ignition switch, the determination unit determines that an abnormality of the signal line being a sky fault occurs if the first signal indicates a voltage larger than a predetermined threshold . Wantanabe nonetheless recognizes that conflicting indications of the ON/OFF state of the ignition switch between received signals may be used to indicate an abnormality (Wantanabe, e.g., paragraph 43, when CAN communication reception signal indicates ON but voltage signal at that time is a signal near 0V, it is determined that an abnormality has occurred). Likewise, in the combination of Wantanabe in view of Parker as applied to claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when there is no received CAN communication signal (indicating the OFF state) and the shift-by-wire signal also indicates the OFF state, a received voltage signal corresponding to the ON state is indicative of a power short or power fault of the ignition switch. Such reasoning falls well within the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ in light of the teachings of Wantanabe in view of Parker. For this reason, the recitation that when the second signal and the third signal both indicate an OFF state of the ignition switch, the determination unit determines that an abnormality of the signal line being a sky fault occurs if the first signal indicates a voltage larger than a predetermined threshold does not patentably define over Wantanabe in view of Parker when considered in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. Claim 3 recites wherein the battery pack includes a sub-battery redundantly provided to back up a predetermined main battery mounted in the vehicle . The examiner notes, however, that claim 1 does not affirmatively recite the battery pack or the sub-battery as elements of the claimed abnormality detection device. Rather, the battery pack/sub-battery are merely structures with which the claimed abnormality detection device is to be used and do not appear to further limit the structure or functionality of the abnormality detection device. Accordingly, the recitation of claim 3 does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless, the examiner notes that Wantanabe does disclose a battery pack that includes a sub-battery redundantly provided to back up a predetermined main battery mounted in the vehicle (Wantanabe, e.g., paragraph 13) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2018020715A to Yoshida relates to a vehicle electronic control device capable of shifting to self-shutoff processing without depending on a signal from an ignition switch. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F. 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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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. /DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/963,942 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights