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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on December 5, 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on December 5, 2024 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on December 5, 2024 have been accepted.
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.
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: “an obtainer that obtains…”, “a determiner that determines…” and “a notifier that performs…” in claims 1 and 12.
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.
Claim 11 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the group.” The claims previously recite two or more groups so it is unclear as to which particular group the limitation is referring.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The limitations “an obtainer that obtains vehicle type information on each of a plurality of vehicle types of the vehicles provided with the software having vulnerability; and a determiner that performs a first determination to classify the plurality of vehicle types into two or more groups for the analysis, based on the vehicle type information obtained for each of the plurality of vehicle types", as drafted in claim 1 (similar rationale applies to other independent claim 14) under its broadest reasonable interpretation is the claimed concept of mental processes. This is because the limitations are grouping data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the independent claims is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities (See MPEP 2106.05 (g) and Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 4 (2019-01-07); MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The dependent claims 2-13 and 15 fail to obviate such rejections and are themselves rejected under this title for they are also abstract ideas and fall outside the plainly expressed scope of this title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torisaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0053112 and hereinafter referred to as Torisaki).
As to claim 1, Torisaki discloses an analysis support system that supports analysis for addressing vulnerability of software provided to vehicles (paragraphs [0008] and [0043], Torisaki teaches vehicle vulnerability detection), the analysis support system comprising:
an obtainer that obtains vehicle type information on each of a plurality of vehicle types of the vehicles provided with the software having vulnerability (paragraphs [0008], [0043], [0090], [0104]-[0107] and [0114], Torisaki teaches obtaining vehicle information for vehicle types where a vulnerability may exist); and
a determiner that performs a first determination to classify the plurality of vehicle types into two or more groups for the analysis, based on the vehicle type information obtained for each of the plurality of vehicle types (paragraphs [0008], [0043], [0090], [0123]-[0124] and [0169], Torisaki teaches putting car types into two groups based on factors, such as a relevant ECU kind, for vulnerability analysis.).
Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
As to claim 2, Torisaki discloses the analysis support system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle type information includes information indicating a vehicle configuration of a corresponding one of the plurality of vehicle types, and the determiner performs the first determination based on a level of matching of the vehicle configuration between the plurality of vehicle types (paragraphs [0008], [0090], [0104]-[0107], [0123]-[0124] and [0187], Torisaki teaches information related to configurations for the vehicle types.).
As to claim 15, Torisaki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for use in a computer, the recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing the computer to perform the analysis support method according to claim 14 (paragraphs [0056], [0061], [0074] and [0127], Torisaki teaches memory storing software.).
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(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torisaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zettel, II et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0102560 and hereinafter referred to as Zettel).
As to claim 12, Torisaki discloses the analysis support system according to claim 1. Torisaki does not specifically disclose further comprising: a notifier that performs notification of completion of the first determination performed by the determiner as claimed. However, Zettel does disclose
further comprising: a notifier that performs notification of completion of the first determination performed by the determiner (paragraph [0047] and claim 10, Zettel teaches notifying after vulnerability assessment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Torisaki with the teachings of Zettel for having a notifier because this would improve user experience.
As to claim 13, Torisaki discloses the analysis support system according to claim 1. Torisaki does not specifically disclose further comprising: a display outputter that causes a display device to display a determination result of the determiner as claimed. However, Zettel does disclose
further comprising: a display outputter that causes a display device to display a determination result of the determiner (paragraphs [0039] and [0047], Zettel teaches presenting analysis results.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Torisaki with the teachings of Zettel for having a display because this would improve user experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 recites, inter alia, “wherein the information indicating the vehicle configuration includes information on one or more devices disposed on an attack path predicted based on the vulnerability”. The prior art was not found to disclose this limitation in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claims 4-5 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency.
Claim 6 recites, inter alia, “wherein the vehicle type information includes information indicating whether or not a corresponding one of the plurality of vehicle types is a derivative vehicle type, and the determiner performs the first determination based on whether or not each of the plurality of vehicle types is a derivative vehicle type”. The prior art was not found to disclose this limitation in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Claim 7 recites, inter alia, “wherein a device provided with the software having vulnerability includes a plurality of functions, and the determiner performs the first determination based on a similarity of an available or unavailable setting for each of the plurality of functions of the device between the plurality of vehicle type”. The prior art was not found to disclose this limitation in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 7 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia, “the obtainer obtains a first vulnerability analysis result of analyzing vulnerability of each of the plurality of vehicle types provided with the software having vulnerability, and the determiner performs the first determination under a determination condition or a combination of two or more determination conditions identified from the plurality of determination conditions based on at least one of the vehicle type information or the first vulnerability analysis result”. The prior art was not found to disclose this limitation in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 8 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “wherein the obtainer further obtains, for each of the plurality of vehicle types, information indicating an Over The Air (OTA) compatibility state of at least one of the vehicle type or a device provided with the software having vulnerability, and the determiner performs a second determination for classifying two or more vehicle types classified in each of the two or more groups into two or more sub-groups, based on the information indicating the OTA compatibility state”. The prior art was not found to disclose this limitation in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 9 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claim 10 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on its dependency.
Claim 11 recites, inter alia, “wherein the obtainer obtains, for each of the two or more groups classified, a second vulnerability analysis result regarding each of one or more vehicle types classified into the group, under assumption that a countermeasure for vulnerability of the software provided to the vehicle type has been performed, and the determiner excludes, from the group, a vehicle type for which a risk under the assumption is not lower than the risk before the countermeasure is performed”. The prior art was not found to disclose this limitation in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 11 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights