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 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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konen WO 2022039807 in view of Choi US 10333893
1. A method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising (Konen: [0040 and 00111] hub devices used for control can be attached to vehicle):
trying to establish a communication network connection between a connected terminal provided in the vehicle and a service provider (Konen: [0007, 0040] “hub device communicates with a network server through a cellular network” wherein the hub device may be connected to the vehicle);
in response to a failure of the communication network connection, retrying the communication network connection (Konen: [00121] hub device may retry communication if initial connection attempt fails) based on a predetermined retry condition (Konen: [00123] retry condition based on time exists) according to a state of the vehicle (Konen: [0041] hub device connects to network based on “a sensor sensing activity” of the vehicle).
Konen merely discloses “checking a service activation status of the connected terminal and in response to a confirmation that the service activation status is active”
Choi further teaches trying to establish a communication network connection between a connected terminal provided in the vehicle and a service provider (Choi: fig. 2, step S111 – attempt to access network);
in response to a failure to establish the communication network connection, checking a service activation status of the connected terminal (Choi: fig. 2, step S112-S113, col. 4, lines 65-67 – Even upon determining that the telematics device is powered on, since the specific time has elapsed, the telematics device cannot immediately receive the APN change alarm message); and
in response to a confirmation that the service activation status is active (e.g., powered on), retrying to establish the communication network connection (Choi: fig. 2, step S111 – Accordingly, the telematics device should access a wireless network and the APN server again).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Konen’s invention in order to indicates information necessary to attempt to access the APN server and to check whether the APN server is accessible, as taught by Choi.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating the predetermined retry condition according to a changed state of the vehicle when the state of the vehicle is changed (Konen: [00256] retry number increases depending on sensor report of state of vehicle).
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konen-Choi in view of Redpath US 20140167503
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the retry condition comprises a retry interval (Redpath [0081, 0082] retry algorithm has retry interval) and a maximum number of retries (Redpath [0081, 0083], retry algorithm has a maximum number of retries); and the communication network connection is retried according to the retry interval and the maximum number of retries (Redpath [0028 and 0080] components with network communication retry based on parameters including retry interval and maximum number of retries).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Konen’s invention in order to prevent “unnecessary and unscheduled maintenance [0003], as taught by Redpath.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the state of the vehicle comprises a state of charge of a battery mounted in the vehicle (Konen: [0037] state of the vehicle includes a battery level).
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the state of the vehicle further comprises an ON state and an OFF state of an engine mounted in the vehicle (Konen: [00102] binary sensor detects engine heat).
7. The method of claim 3, wherein the state of the vehicle further comprises a power ON state and a power OFF state of the vehicle (Konen: [0034, 0059, and 00110] devices have wake on and off mode, vehicle voltage is monitored and reported).
9. The method of claim 3, wherein the connected car terminal tries the communication network connection to the service provider through a communication modem (Konen: [00146] hub device has receiver for communication) and involves a reset of the communication modem whenever retrying the communication network connection (Konen: [00256] if retry number reaches maximum, the process is restarted/reset).
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konen-Choi-Redpath in view of Iitaka, JP 2022072937
4. The method of claim 3, wherein as a charged amount of the battery is increased, the retry interval is set shorter and the maximum number of retries is set greater (Iitaka: [0049] retries occur less when the amount of battery used is greater) and the maximum number of retries is set greater (Iitaka: [0032] retry interval may be set according to battery capacity and is set based on a maximum number of retries per minute).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Konen’s invention in order to provide technology to prevent excessive battery discharge as well as repeat requests for communication during emergency calls, even if communication with a destination of the call is not possible (abstract), as suggested by Iitaka.
Claims 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konen-Choi-Redpath in view of Predmore US 20200336695
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the retry interval when the engine is in the OFF state is set to be longer than the retry interval when the engine is in the ON state (Predmore: [0030, 0041, 0043, and 0045] network connection may continue when vehicle/engine is OFF and attempt intervals may be shorter when vehicle/engine is in the OFF state and data may be based on engine); and the maximum number of retries when the engine is in the OFF state is set to be smaller than the maximum number of retries when the engine is in the ON state (Predmore: [0030, 0043, and 0045] “system shut down may be limited based on connectivity to the network,” “inhibit function may be limited based on a limited maximum number of permitted reconnection attempts” based on vehicle/engine shutdowns and data may be based on engine).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Konen’s invention in order to inhibit shutdown of a system when a download/process is active (abstract), as suggested by Predmore.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the retry interval when the vehicle is in the power OFF state is set to be longer than the retry interval when the vehicle is in the power ON state (Predmore: [0041, 0043, and 0045] network connection may continue when vehicle is OFF and attempt intervals may be shorter when vehicle is in the OFF state); and the maximum number of retries when the vehicle is in the power OFF state is set to be smaller than the maximum number of retries when the vehicle is in the power ON state (see (Predmore: [0030, 0043, and 0045] “system shut down may be limited based on connectivity to the network,” “inhibit function may be limited based on a limited maximum number of permitted reconnection attempts” based on vehicle shutdowns).
Regarding claims 11-20, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-10, where the difference used is a “apparatus” and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Remark:
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the Examiner directs the applicant to those responses above.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is (571) 270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski, can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights