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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-134004, filed on 08/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 and 09/25/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not allow a reader to understand the disclosure. It includes broad terms, like “moving body management device” and “moving body”. Examiner suggests amending these terms to “server” and “vehicle” respectively. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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.
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:
Claim 1:
a reception unit configured to receive,
an instruction unit configured to instruct.
Claim 6:
a detection unit configured to detect,
a transmission unit configured to transmit.
Claim 8:
a reception unit configured to receive,
an instruction unit configured to instruct,
a detection unit configured to detect,
a transmission unit configured to transmit.
Claim 10:
a moving body management, receiving,
a moving body management, instructing,
a moving body control device, detecting.
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. See Page 10 (CPU executes programs to function as the instruction unit and reception unit), see Page 11 (CPU executes programs to function as the detection unit and transmission unit), see Page 7 (moving body management device corresponds to a vehicle management device, which is a personal computer or server computer), see Page 6 (moving body control device corresponds to a vehicle control device).
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim limitation “to transmit the detection result at the predetermined timing”, this does not further the limitation of “receive a detection result...at a predetermined timing”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0249308 A1) hereinafter Hwang in view of Tanaka (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0169772 A1) hereinafter Tanaka in view of Torisaki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0053112 A1) hereinafter Torisaki.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a moving body management device [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses a server] comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a detection result of an occurrence status of an abnormality at a predetermined timing from a moving body [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses that a vehicle transmits malfunction information to the server, see Paragraph 0044 - discusses that the transmission occurs when there is a data corresponding to a malfunction in the vehicle (at a predetermined timing)]
an instruction unit configured to, when the detection result received by the reception unit indicates that an abnormality has occurred, instruct a related moving body related to the moving body to detect an occurrence status of the abnormality [see Paragraphs 0048 and 0054-0056 - discusses that after a malfunction is received at the server (S610), that the server instructs another vehicle to perform a diagnosis (S640) for the same malfunction],
wherein the moving body is a vehicle [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses a vehicle]
Tanaka discloses a reception unit configured to receive a detection result of an occurrence status of an abnormality at a predetermined timing from a moving body whose moving function is stopped [see Paragraph 0026 - discusses that an abnormality detect device receives data detected from an abnormal vehicle while stopped].
Tanaka suggests that a vehicle that only detects faults when a vehicle is travelling, wastes energy for causing the vehicle to travel [see Paragraph 0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the reception unit as taught by Hwang to only receive a detection result of an occurrence status of an abnormality at a predetermined timing from a moving body whose moving function is stopped as taught by Tanaka in order to prevent energy waste of a vehicle [Tanaka, see Paragraph 0005].
Torisaki discloses a related moving body includes a vehicle positioned in a zone where the vehicle in which the abnormality has occurred is parked [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses determining an anomaly for vehicles in the same region].
Torisaki suggests that vehicles in a specific region at a specific time are targeted by a cyberattack, and that an anomaly-related vehicle selection based on such a geographical condition is also effective in enhancing the efficiency of anomaly determination [see Paragraph 0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the related moving body as taught by Hwang to include a vehicle positioned in a zone where the vehicle in which the abnormality has occurred is parked as taught by Torisaki in order to enhance the efficiency of anomaly determination [Torisaki, see Paragraph 0049].
Regarding claim 2, Hwang, Tanaka, and Torisaki disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Hwang further discloses wherein when the abnormality has occurred, the detection result includes detection information required to locate the abnormality [see Paragraphs 0044-0047 - discusses determining which specific module/node has a malfunction, see Paragraph 0056 - discusses that a module ID associated with the malfunction].
Regarding claim 3, Hwang, Tanaka, and Torisaki discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Hwang further discloses the instruction unit is configured to give an instruction to transmit the detection result at the predetermined timing [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses that a vehicle transmits malfunction information to the server, see Paragraph 0044 - discusses that the transmission occurs when there is a data corresponding to a malfunction in the vehicle (at a predetermined timing)].
Regarding claim 6, Hwang discloses a moving body control device comprising:
a detection unit configured to detect an occurrence status of an abnormality [see Paragraphs 0044-0045 - discusses that when a code is generated, a malfunction is indicated in the sensor module and then this module data is sent to the server (detection unit)] see Paragraphs 0048 and 0054-0056 - discusses that after a malfunction is received at the server (S610), that the server instructs another vehicle to perform a diagnosis (S640) for the same malfunction]; and
a transmission unit configured to transmit a detection result from the detection unit to the moving body management device [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses that the vehicle transmits the malfunction to the server, see Paragraph 0027 - discusses that the vehicle and server include communication parts],
wherein the moving body is a vehicle [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses a vehicle]
Tanaka discloses detecting an occurrence status of an abnormality when a moving function of a moving body including the moving body control device is stopped [see Paragraph 0026 - discusses that an abnormality detect device receives data detected from an abnormal vehicle while stopped].
Tanaka suggests that a vehicle that only detects faults when a vehicle is travelling, wastes energy for causing the vehicle to travel [see Paragraph 0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the reception unit as taught by Hwang to detect an occurrence status of an abnormality when a moving function of a moving body including the moving body control device is stopped as taught by Tanaka in order to prevent energy waste of a vehicle [Tanaka, see Paragraph 0005].
Torisaki discloses a related moving body includes a vehicle positioned in a zone where the vehicle in which the abnormality has occurred is parked [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses determining an anomaly for vehicles in the same region].
Torisaki suggests that vehicles in a specific region at a specific time are targeted by a cyberattack, and that an anomaly-related vehicle selection based on such a geographical condition is also effective in enhancing the efficiency of anomaly determination [see Paragraph 0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the related moving body as taught by Hwang to include a vehicle positioned in a zone where the vehicle in which the abnormality has occurred is parked as taught by Torisaki in order to enhance the efficiency of anomaly determination [Torisaki, see Paragraph 0049].
Regarding claim 7, Hwang, Tanaka, and Torisaki discloses the invention with respect to claim 6. Hwang further discloses further discloses wherein when the abnormality has occurred, the detection unit performs the detection to provide detection information required to locate the abnormality [see Paragraphs 0044-0047 - discusses determining which specific module/node has a malfunction, see Paragraph 0056 - discusses that a module ID associated with the malfunction].
Claims 8-13 are analogous to claim 1 and are rejected as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Tanaka in view of Torisaki.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights