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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isoyama et al. (US 2021/0163025 A1).
As to clais 1 and 6, Isoyama discloses a vehicle control system/method that establishes an in-vehicle network provided in a vehicle, the vehicle control system comprising: an obtainer (Fig. 1, data acquisition device 131) that obtains vehicle information on the vehicle from the in-vehicle network; a communicator (Fig. 1, network 20, para. 0161-0164) that is capable of communicating with an external device via an external network and transmits the vehicle information obtained by the obtainer to the external device via the external network (para. 0161-0164); an anomaly detector that detects a security anomaly in the in-vehicle network (para. 0123-0131); and a controller that restricts communication between the communicator and the external device when the security anomaly is detected by the anomaly detector (para. 0210-0211, 0225-0226, communication is limited).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isoyama in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2021/0240838 A1).
As to claim 4, Isoyama does not explicitly disclose when the security anomaly is detected by the anomaly detector, the controller determines a risk level indicating a degree of risk corresponding to the security anomaly detected, and restricts communication between the communicator and the external device, in stages, in accordance with the risk level determined. However, Sasaki teaches when the security anomaly is detected by the anomaly detector, the controller determines a risk level indicating a degree of risk corresponding to the security anomaly detected, and restricts communication between the communicator and the external device, in stages, in accordance with the risk level determined (Fig. 15, para. 0057-0074, 0187-0196). Therefore, give the teaching of Sasaki, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Isoyama, by employing the well-known or conventional features of restricts communication in stages, in accordance with the risk level determined, to improve the overall vehicle safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isoyama in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2022/0183052 A1).
As to claim 3, Isoyama further discloses the plurality of vehicle information items each being the vehicle information, and the communicator transmits the specific vehicle information item output from the controller to the external device via the external network (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the in-vehicle network is virtually divided into a plurality of virtual local area networks (VLANs), when the security anomaly is detected by the anomaly detector, the controller outputs, to the communicator, a specific vehicle information item from a specific VLAN among a plurality of vehicle information items from the plurality of VLANs obtained by the obtainer. However, Yamamoto teaches the in-vehicle network is virtually divided into a plurality of virtual local area networks (Fig. 8, para. 0097-0099, 0184), when the security anomaly is detected by the anomaly detector (para. 0102-0103), the controller outputs, to the communicator, a specific vehicle information item from a specific VLAN among a plurality of vehicle information items from the plurality of VLANs obtained by the obtainer (Fig. 3). Therefore, give the teaching of Yamamoto, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Isoyama, by employing the well-known or conventional features of VLANs, to use different VLANs for different sensor communications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights