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 . Claims 1-13 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “reception unit”, “detection unit” in claims 1-2, 5, 11, and 13.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11, and 13 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(s) 1-2, 5, 11, and 13 limitation “reception unit” and “detection unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim nor no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (US 2019/0149562 A1) (Maeda hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a relay device that, in an in-vehicle network to which a plurality of in-vehicle devices are connected, relays frames among the plurality of in-vehicle devices, the relay device comprising:
a reception unit configured to, in a case where an unauthorized frame is detected by an in-vehicle device among the plurality of in-vehicle devices, receive a request to start detecting an unauthorized frame from the in-vehicle device (Fig. 3, frame transmission/reception unit 310; [0082], [0165] – [0167]; the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371 receives a message from the frame processing unit 350), and
a detection unit capable of executing detection processing that detects an unauthorized frame among frames transmitted over the in-vehicle network, wherein in a case where the request to start is received by the reception unit in a stopped state in which the detection processing is stopped, the detection unit transitions from the stopped state to an executing state in which the detection processing is executed (([0082], [0091] – [0092], [0168] – [0170], [0198]; the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371 that has received the message used various types of determining functions, such as ID determining function and so forth, to determine whether that message is an attack message or a normal message ... by the communication pattern determining unit 375).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the relay device is connected to a plurality of communication lines constituting the in-vehicle network (Fig. 1, the onboard network system 10 is configured of a CAN network, and includes ECUs 100), and the detection unit takes frames transmitted on a communication line, among the plurality of communication lines, to which the in-vehicle device that transmitted the request to start is connected, as a subject of the detection processing (Fig. 3, the gateway 300 includes a frame transmission/reception unit 310, a frame interpreting unit 320, a reception ID determining unit 330, a reception ID list storing unit 340, a frame processing unit 350, a transfer rule storing unit 360, an unauthorized activity detection processing function group 370, and a frame generating unit 380).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the request to start includes specifying information specifying a communication line, among the plurality of communication lines, to which the in-vehicle device that has detected the unauthorized frame is connected (Fig. 6, the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371 requests the communication pattern determining unit 375 for determination of whether or not the received message matches the communication pattern of an attack message).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the request to start includes a result of detecting the unauthorized frame by the in-vehicle device ([0082], the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371 determines whether or not a message received from the frame processing unit 350 is an attack message).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the detection unit takes the frames relayed among the plurality of in-vehicle devices as a subject of the detection processing (Fig. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an example of the functional configuration of the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the detection processing is processing that, in a case where the unauthorized frame is detected by the in-vehicle device among frames of a first type, detects the unauthorized frame among frames of the first type on the basis of frames of a second type different from the first type ([0083], the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371 has six types of determining functions for checking predetermined points of messages).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the detection processing is processing that detects the unauthorized frame among frames of a plurality of types ([0082], the unauthorized activity detecting unit 371 has multiple types of determining functions).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the detection processing is processing that, on the basis of a timing of transmission of frames of a first type and a timing of transmission of frames of a second type different from the first type, detects the unauthorized frame among frames of the first type ([0090]).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the detection processing is processing that detects the unauthorized frame on the basis of a number of frames of a first type, and a number of frames of a second type different from the first type, that are transmitted per unit of time ([0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the detection processing is processing that detects the unauthorized frame by comparing a first data value included in a frame of a first type with an estimated from a second data value included in a frame of a second type different from the first type ([0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda discloses the relay device according to claim 1, as stated above, further including a transmission unit configured to, in a case where the unauthorized frame is detected by the detection unit, transmit display information for displaying a notification screen indicating that the unauthorized frame has been detected ([0084]).
Regarding claim 12, the elements contained in claim 12 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a method rather than a device and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claim 13, the elements contained in claim 13 are substantially similar to elements presented in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
07/28/2026
Prosecution Insights