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 .
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: “a first obtainer that obtains…” in claim 7, “a second obtainer that obtains…” in claim 7, “a third obtainer that obtains…” in claim 7, and “a predictor that predicts…” in claim 7.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagara, et al (Pub. No. US 2025/0220035 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nagara).
Claim 1 is an independent claim and Nagara discloses an attack path prediction method of predicting an attack path of a cyberattacker, the attack path prediction method comprising:
obtaining incident information related to a cyberattack on a monitoring target vehicle from a monitor who is monitoring the monitoring target vehicle (attack analysis device that analyzes an attack on an electronic control system mounted on a mobile object, para. [0040]; sensor in ECU of vehicle control system of a vehicle monitors for anomalies, para. [0200]; see also para. [0255]);
obtaining one or more items of threat information related to a past cyberattack on a vehicle, based on the incident information obtained (detected anomaly data is collected, and a combination of items in which the anomalies are detected is compared with an anomaly detection pattern specified in advance for each attack, para. [0050]; patterns of anomaly occurrence may be created or generated using history data related to pattern of anomaly occurrence caused by attacks in the past, para. [0130]);
obtaining, for each of the one or more items of threat information obtained, trend information indicating a degree of trend of the cyberattack (determine level of match between predicted anomaly pattern and actual anomaly pattern, para. [0255]-[0258]); and
predicting the attack path of the cyberattack on the monitoring target vehicle, based on the one or more items of threat information and the trend information for each of the one or more items of threat information (when an actual anomaly pattern and a predicted anomaly pattern completely match with one another, the attack type and attack path can be identified from the matching table for estimating attack. When the actual anomaly pattern does not completely match the predicted anomaly pattern, the attack type and attack path can be estimated according to the matching level, para. [0258]).
Claim 7 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Nagara further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the attack path prediction method according to claim 1 (see para. [0318]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts, whether alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the subject matter found in claims 2 and 5, when considered in conjunction with independent claim 1. Claims 3-4 and 6 are allowable based on their dependency on claims 2 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2023/0007034 A1 – generally teaches analyzing attack data in security logs to predict an attack route in an electronic control system
Pub. No. US 2024/0070291 A1 – generally teaches an attack path analysis apparatus for cyber security of a vehicle.
Pub. No. US 2025/0247411 A1 – generally teaches analyzing whether an attack has occurred on a vehicle, and whether the attack matches a preset type of attack.
WO 2023/223515 A1 – generally teaches an attack patch estimation system that uses an operation history log of a system to predict paths for an attack on the system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 530PM.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/JONATHAN A BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights