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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 4th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on June 4th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to KR10-2024-0186425 dated December 13th, 2025.
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 1-20 are 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.
The term “abnormal” in claims 1-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how a message would originally be determined as abnormal. The specification states [0083]; “messages that deviate from normal criteria may be stored as logs by comparing collected abnormal messages with predefined rules,” it is unclear how the original abnormal message that is used to compare against the predefined rules is determined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle control apparatus and claim 11 is directed to a vehicle control method. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a storage including a first message queue and a second message queue for storing messages in a vehicle; and
a processor configured to detect an abnormal message,
determine a number of occurrences of the abnormal message,
compare the number of occurrences of the abnormal message with an error counter threshold,
store the abnormal message in the first message queue or the second message queue based on the comparison,
store the abnormal message stored in the second message queue as log data in a memory based on determining whether the abnormal message is a signal affecting safety in the vehicle, and
transmit the log data stored in the memory to a server.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a number of occurrences of the abnormal message and comparing the number with an error counter threshold, in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing how many times a message occurs and comparing the number to a threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 11, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a storage including a first message queue and a second message queue for storing messages in a vehicle; and
a processor configured to detect an abnormal message,
determine a number of occurrences of the abnormal message,
compare the number of occurrences of the abnormal message with an error counter threshold,
store the abnormal message in the first message queue or the second message queue based on the comparison,
store the abnormal message stored in the second message queue as log data in a memory based on determining whether the abnormal message is a signal affecting safety in the vehicle, and
transmit the log data stored in the memory to a server.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmit the log data stored in the memory to a server” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic computer programs to perform the processes. In particular the “transmit” step amounts to merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storage, processor, memory, and server merely describes how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in vehicle control environment. The vehicle control apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the transmission step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim q does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a storage, processor, memory, and server amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of data transmission the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of data transmission is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicates that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitations do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 11 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-10 and 12-20 are patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claim limitation of, a vehicle control apparatus comprising two message queues, wherein the apparatus detects abnormal messages received by the vehicle and based on a count of the abnormal messages compared to a threshold, determines whether to store the message within the first or second message queue, if the abnormal message is a signal effecting vehicle safety the message is logged in the second queue, and the log data is further transmitted to a server, of independent claims 1 and 11 renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record is US-20210075807 (hereinafter, “Park) in view of US-20090313698 (hereinafter, “Wahl”) US-20250168177 (hereinafter, “Lee”), disclose many but not all of the required limitations.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a system and method of providing security to an in-vehicle network. Park teaches the system capable of detecting whether an abnormal message has been received by the in-vehicle network, and further storing the detected message in a message queue. The rule engine of the system is used to detect a network message associated with a security threat, in post-process actions such as passing, blocking, logging, or warning based on the results of checking the CAN messages are executed. An anomaly of a message is detected when anomaly behavior beyond a certain threshold off the normal pattern occurs. Park does not explicitly state that the threshold of the normal pattern is a quantity of the number of messages, nor does it disclose having a second message queue and sorting the message into one of the first or second message queue based on the comparison of the number of messages to a threshold.
Wahl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an invention related to identifying security attacks. The invention of Wahl while in the same field of endeavor of intrusion detection, contains no mention of implementing the system within the vehicle. Wahl discloses the capability to detect malicious messages received within a network and supplying those messages to a queue. Wahl is capable of identifying attacks based on a number of messages per unit of time, and additionally discloses the system containing an additional low priority queue within which a message can be stored, but does not elaborate on how it would be determined that the message would be considered low priority. Therefore, Examiner asserts that while a determination of the number of messages as well as a second message queue are taught by Wahl, Wahl remains silent regarding a connection between the two limitations as well as any type of number threshold.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a CAN communication security method for detecting a CAN bus attack. The IDS analyzes the intrusion detection system based on rule-based filters that utilize attack patterns that can be observed in CAN bus traffic. Lee mentions comparing the number of messages received to a pre-determined threshold in order to determine an attack, but does not relate this information to sorting the messages into a certain queue.
Therefore, while Park in view of Wahl and Lee disclose many of the required limitations individually, Examiner asserts that the combination of references lack motivation to combine the respective limitations of each in such a manner to yield the cause and effect of the limitations as described in the independent claims provided by the applicant. Therefore, Examiner asserts that if the claims were amended to overcome the 101 rejection, it appears that they would be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
8/4/26
Prosecution Insights