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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Rem. 6-10, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koya et al. (US 2019/0338562 A1) in view of Hellström et al. (US 2015/0178337 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koya teaches “A communication control terminal comprising: a communication unit configured to perform communication with another device; an acquisition unit configured to acquire a value of acceleration; a determination unit configured to determine that the communication control terminal is in a state of being brought into a vehicle, based on the value of acceleration; and a communication control unit configured to perform restriction of use of the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is not in the state of being brought into the vehicle.” Koya teaches an electronic key 2 carried by a user and configured to communicate with an in-vehicle device 3 mounted in vehicle 4 (¶¶21–22), the electronic key including an acceleration sensor 25 that detects acceleration applied to the electronic key and determines whether vibration equal to or greater than a threshold has been detected according to the detected acceleration (¶¶5, 19–20). Koya further teaches determining whether the electronic key has been brought into the passenger compartment of the vehicle and whether the electronic key has subsequently been brought out of the vehicle (¶¶87–95). Koya controls communication according to the detected vibration state by setting a response permission state when the vibration detection flag is set, in which the electronic key is permitted to transmit a response to the in-vehicle device, and a response prohibition state in which the electronic key does not respond to the request signal (¶¶4, 17, 19–20).
Koya further recognizes acceleration-derived vibration occurring while the electronic key is brought into the passenger compartment, expressly explaining that the frequency with which acceleration sensor 25 detects threshold vibration in that condition differs from the frequency associated with the user carrying the electronic key, and referring to vibration occurring “when the vehicle 4 travels on a bumpy road” (¶92).
Koya does not expressly teach “wherein the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and that the vehicle is in a traveling state, based on a vibration state determined based on the acceleration.”
Hellström teaches that an acceleration-sensor signal may represent the magnitude and frequency of vibrations detected by an acceleration sensor (¶135), and further teaches an analysis unit receiving a signal from an acceleration sensor and determining whether a portable device is stationary, carried by a walking person, carried by a running person, or carried in a moving vehicle, identifying these respective states as, for example, “stationary,” “walking,” “running,” and “traveling” (¶141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Hellström's acceleration-signal analysis in Koya's electronic key to classify the vibration detected by Koya's acceleration sensor and thereby determine whether the electronic key is being carried in a traveling vehicle, as distinguished from other movement states such as the user carrying the electronic key. One would have been motivated to do so to more accurately identify the physical movement state represented by the acceleration-sensor output and thereby improve Koya's determination of the appropriate communication state. Such a modification would have involved the predictable use of Hellström's known acceleration-based movement-state classification for its known purpose in Koya's acceleration-sensing portable electronic key.
Accordingly, Koya in view of Hellström teaches or suggests “wherein the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and that the vehicle is in a traveling state, based on a vibration state determined based on the acceleration, and the communication control unit permits the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and the vehicle is in the traveling state, and performs restriction of use of the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is not in the state of being brought into the vehicle or the vehicle is not in the traveling state.”
Regarding claim 6, Koya further teaches “wherein the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and that the vehicle is in the traffic congestion state, based on a frequency of detection of the acceleration or the deceleration equal to or greater than a threshold.” Koya expressly evaluates acceleration/vibration relative to a threshold and further evaluates the frequency with which acceleration sensor 25 detects vibration equal to or greater than the threshold (¶92). In combination with Hellström's acceleration-based classification of a portable device as traveling in a moving vehicle, it would have been obvious to use the frequency of threshold acceleration/deceleration events to identify a particular vehicle movement condition, including repeated acceleration/deceleration associated with congested travel.
Regarding claim 7, Koya further teaches “wherein the communication control unit turns off a wireless communication function as the restriction of use of the communication.” Koya teaches placing electronic key 2 in a response prohibition state in which the electronic key does not transmit a response to the request signal from the in-vehicle device, thereby restricting the wireless communication function. It would have been obvious to implement Koya's prohibition of wireless response by disabling or turning off the wireless communication function when communication is prohibited, as a predictable implementation of Koya's expressly taught communication restriction.
Claim 9 recites a communication control method for use in a communication control terminal, corresponding to the communication control terminal of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koya et al. (US 2019/0338562 A1) in view of Hellström et al. (US 2015/0178337 A1), and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 9,743,260 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koya and Hellström does not specifically disclose “wherein the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and that traveling of the vehicle is in a traffic congestion state, based on a movement state determined based on the acceleration, and the communication control unit permits the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and the vehicle is in the traffic congestion state, and performs restriction of use of the communication by the communication unit when the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is not in the state of being brought into the vehicle or the vehicle is not in the traffic congestion state.”
Wilson teaches determining a driving situation based on movement of a vehicle, including determining that a user is driving based on a speed associated with the mobile computing device, wherein the speed may be ascertained from an accelerometer of the mobile computing device (11:11-36). Wilson further teaches collecting drive data including acceleration and deceleration data and determining a driving situation based on vehicle movement and traffic conditions, and controlling communication functionality according to the determined driving situation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further configure the acceleration-based movement-state determination of Koya in view of Hellström according to Wilson to determine a traffic congestion state based on vehicle movement and traffic conditions and to control communication according to the determined vehicle state. One would have been motivated to do so to permit or restrict communication according to the current driving situation and traffic conditions, as taught by Wilson.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koya et al. in view of Hellström et al. and Wilson et al., and further in view of Tcherniak et al. (US 2021/0216151 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Koya, Hellström, and Wilson does not specifically disclose “wherein the acquisition unit acquires time-series data of acceleration corresponding to a plurality of axes, and the determination unit determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and that the vehicle is in the traffic congestion state, based on the movement state based on the time-series data of acceleration corresponding to a direction of travel of the vehicle.”
Tcherniak teaches that a transducer may comprise a single-axis or multi-axis, including triaxial, accelerometer; that sensor signals from the transducer may represent one or more series of measurements; that each measurement may indicate acceleration along one or more directions, including three directions; and that a triaxial accelerometer may provide a time series of measurements, wherein each measurement represents an acceleration vector relative to a measurement coordinate system of the accelerometer (¶19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Tcherniak's multi-axis, time-series acceleration measurement technique in the acceleration-based movement-state determination of Koya, Hellström, and Wilson in order to obtain acceleration information along respective directions and determine the acceleration component corresponding to the direction of vehicle travel. Such a modification would have predictably provided directional movement information useful for determining the vehicle movement state.
Regarding claim 5, Tcherniak further teaches “wherein the determination unit detects the direction of travel of the vehicle based on acceleration acquired for each of the axes, and determines that the communication control terminal is in the state of being brought into the vehicle and that the vehicle is in the traffic congestion state, based on acceleration or deceleration for the direction of travel.” Tcherniak teaches acquiring acceleration along multiple directions using a multi-axis accelerometer and representing each measurement as an acceleration vector relative to the accelerometer coordinate system (¶19). Wilson further teaches collecting acceleration and deceleration data for determining the driving situation. It would have been obvious to determine the direction of vehicle travel from the multi-axis acceleration vectors taught by Tcherniak and evaluate acceleration or deceleration along that direction, as taught by Wilson, in order to determine the vehicle movement state, including the traffic congestion state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights