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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 05/08/2023 and 08/14/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-159588, filed on 09/24/2020.
Status of Application
Claims 5,6, and 8-11 were pending.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are the independent claims.
Claims 12-14 have been added.
Claims 5,6, and 8-14 are pending.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 03/04/2026.
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.
Claim 5 and 9-12 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation …
Vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed …
Imaging unit configured to image surroundings …
Maintenance work recognizing unit configured to recognize whether an operator is performing maintenance …
Power supply control unit configured to cut off supply …
Since Claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 5 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Interlock detecting unit”, “Vehicle speed detecting unit”, “Maintenance work recognizing unit” and “Power supply control unit” is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a CPU, ROM, and RAM ([0031] and Fig. 4).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Imaging unit” is a camera ([0056]).
Claim 6 and 13 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation …
Vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed …
Position information acquiring unit configured to acquire position information …
Stopping position determining unit configured to determine whether the electric vehicle stops …
Power supply control unit configured to cut off supply …
Since Claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 6 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Interlock detecting unit”, “Vehicle speed detecting unit”, “Stopping position determining unit” and “Power supply control unit” is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a CPU, ROM, and RAM ([0031] and Fig. 4).
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Position information acquiring unit” is a GPS ([0059]).
Claim 8 and 14 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation …
Vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed …
Maintenance work information acquiring unit configured to obtain …
Power supply control unit configured to cut off supply …
Since Claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 8 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “Interlock detecting unit”, “Vehicle speed detecting unit”, “Maintenance work information acquiring unit” and “Power supply control unit” is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a CPU, ROM, and RAM ([0031] and Fig. 4).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20140176034-A1 to Matsumura et. al. (“Matsumura”) in view of JP-2013143806 (“Uchibori”), further in view of US-20190205814-A1 (“Kawano”) and US-20200282843-A1 to Stefan et. al. (“Stefan”).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura teaches a vehicle power supply control device that is mounted in an electric vehicle and that controls supply of electric power from an onboard battery to an electronic device, the vehicle power supply control device comprising (Matsumura Fig. 1 and ref 350 “HV-ECU” and [0082]):
an interlock circuit (Matsumura Fig. 2 and ref 352 “interlock circuit”) configured to detect opening of a case of the electronic device or separation of a power supply harness from the electronic device (Matsumura [0013] “a first interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an operable state of an interruption device for interrupting an output of the power storage device, a second interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an openable state of a case containing the power control unit” and [0081]);
an interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation based on an input signal from the interlock circuit (Matsumura Fig. 3 ref 360 “interlock detection unit”);
and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device after the opening or the separation has been detected by the interlock detecting unit (Matsumura Fig. 4 step S06 and [107] “That is, the processing of steps S01 and S02 corresponds to the operation of interlock detection unit 360 shown in FIG. 3”).
Matsumura does not teach a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time. However, Uchibori teaches a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle (Uchibori [0061] “vehicle speed sensor”), and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time (Uchibori [0061] and [0067] – [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Matsumura to incorporate the teachings of Uchibori such that the power supply control device comprises a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time. Doing so would ensure safety of operations (Uchibori [0003]).
Matsumura as modified by Uchibori does not teach:
an imaging unit configured to image surroundings of the electric vehicle;
a maintenance work recognizing unit configured to recognize whether an operator is performing maintenance work on the electric vehicle based on an image captured by the imaging unit;
the maintenance work recognizing unit recognizes that the maintenance work is being performed.
However, Kawano teaches:
an imaging unit configured to image surroundings of the electric vehicle (Kawano ref 100 “network camera”);
a maintenance work recognizing unit configured to recognize whether an operator is performing maintenance work on the electric vehicle based on an image captured by the imaging unit (Kawano [0075] “since a worker who is conducting the inspection is normally located near the vehicle, whether the worker is conducting the inspection can be determined by determining whether a vehicle can be detected near the worker.”);
the maintenance work recognizing unit recognizes that the maintenance work is being performed (Kawano [0075] “since a worker who is conducting the inspection is normally located near the vehicle, whether the worker is conducting the inspection can be determined by determining whether a vehicle can be detected near the worker.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kawano to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori such that the vehicle power supply control device comprises an imaging unit configured to image surroundings of the electric vehicle; a maintenance work recognizing unit configured to recognize whether an operator is performing maintenance work on the electric vehicle based on an image captured by the imaging unit; and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the maintenance work recognizing unit recognizes that the maintenance work is being performed. Doing so would allow for the device to determine whether workers are actually inspecting the vehicle (Kawano [0075]).
Matsumura as modified by Uchibori and Kawano does not teach that the imaging unit is mounted on the electric vehicle. However, Stefan teaches that the imaging unit is mounted on the electric vehicle (Stefan [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Stefan to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori and Kawano such that the imaging unit is mounted on the electric vehicle. Doing so would allow for the system to determine if disconnection of the voltage sources is required (Stefan [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Matsumura further discloses that the electronic device includes a first electronic device and a second electronic device (Matsumura ref 200 “PCU” and ref 150 “Power storage device”),
wherein the interlock circuit includes a first interlock circuit configured to detect opening of a case of the first electronic device or separation of the power supply harness from the first electronic device and a second interlock circuit configured to detect opening of a case of the second electronic device or separation of the power supply harness from the second electronic device (Matsumura [0013] “a first interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an operable state of an interruption device for interrupting an output of the power storage device, a second interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an openable state of a case containing the power control unit” and [0081]),
Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan does not teach that the interlock detecting unit includes a first interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation for the first electronic device based on an input signal from the first interlock circuit and a second interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation for the second electronic device based on an input signal from the second interlock circuit. However, Matsumura at least suggests the idea of using an interlock detecting unit to detect the opening or separation of both the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on an input signal from the first and second interlock circuit (Matsumura [0091] “Based on interlock signal ILKB, interlock detection unit 360 detects that … interlock mechanism of power storage device 150 has been activated. Based on interlock signal ILKP, interlock detection unit 360 detects that the interlock mechanism of PCU 200 has been activated.”). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP 2144.04 VI). Duplicating the interlock detecting unit for each electronic device would ensure safety for an operator of all the high-voltage equipment (Matsumura [0020]).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Uchibori and further in view of US-20170039668-A1 to Luke et. al. (“Luke”).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura teaches a vehicle power supply control device that is mounted in an electric vehicle and that controls supply of electric power from an onboard battery to an electronic device, the vehicle power supply control device comprising (Matsumura Fig. 1 and ref 350 “HV-ECU” and [0082]):
an interlock circuit (Matsumura Fig. 2 and ref 352 “interlock circuit”) configured to detect opening of a case of the electronic device or separation of a power supply harness from the electronic device (Matsumura [0013] “a first interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an operable state of an interruption device for interrupting an output of the power storage device, a second interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an openable state of a case containing the power control unit” and [0081]);
an interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation based on an input signal from the interlock circuit (Matsumura Fig. 3 ref 360 “interlock detection unit”);
and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device after the opening or the separation has been detected by the interlock detecting unit (Matsumura Fig. 4 step S06 and [107] “That is, the processing of steps S01 and S02 corresponds to the operation of interlock detection unit 360 shown in FIG. 3”).
Matsumura does not teach a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time. However, Uchibori teaches a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle (Uchibori [0061] “vehicle speed sensor”), and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time (Uchibori [0061] and [0067] – [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Matsumura to incorporate the teachings of Uchibori such that the power supply control device comprises a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time. Doing so would ensure safety of operations (Uchibori [0003]).
Matsumura as modified by Uchibori does not teach:
a position information acquiring unit configured to acquire position information of the electric vehicle;
a map storage unit provided in the electric vehicle and configured to store map information;
a stopping position determining unit configured to determine whether the electric vehicle stops in a safety zone or a parking space based on the position information acquired by the position information acquiring unit and map information;
the stopping position determining unit determines that the electric vehicle stops in the safety zone or the parking space.
However, Luke teaches:
a position information acquiring unit configured to acquire position information of the electric vehicle (Luke [0082] “The user and/or the electric vehicle sharing management system server 106 may be informed of the location of the electric vehicle 110 at any time by GPS signals or other location data sent from a GPS module disposed in the electric vehicle”);
a map storage unit provided in the electric vehicle and configured to store map information (Luke [0081] and claim 36);
a stopping position determining unit configured to determine whether the electric vehicle stops in a safety zone or a parking space based on the position information acquired by the position information acquiring unit and map information (Luke [0081] “The electric vehicle sharing management system server 106 may also confirm the electric vehicle is within an authorized location or area via a Global Positioning System (GPS) signal received from the electric vehicle 110 and/or the user's mobile device”);
the stopping position determining unit determines that the electric vehicle stops in the safety zone or the parking space (Luke [0081] “The electric vehicle sharing management system server 106 may also confirm the electric vehicle is within an authorized location or area via a Global Positioning System (GPS) signal received from the electric vehicle 110 and/or the user's mobile device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Luke to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori such that the vehicle power supply control device comprises: a position information acquiring unit configured to acquire position information of the electric vehicle; a map storage unit provided in the electric vehicle and configured to store map information; a stopping position determining unit configured to determine whether the electric vehicle stops in a safety zone or a parking space based on the position information acquired by the position information acquiring unit and map information; and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the stopping position determining unit determines that the electric vehicle stops in the safety zone or the parking space. Doing so would allow servers to verify that the electric vehicle is at a legitimate parking space or authorized area when parked (Luke [0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches a vehicle power supply control device that is mounted in an electric vehicle and that controls supply of electric power from an onboard battery to an electronic device, the vehicle power supply control device comprising (Matsumura Fig. 1 and ref 350 “HV-ECU” and [0082]):
an interlock circuit (Matsumura Fig. 2 and ref 352 “interlock circuit”) configured to detect opening of a case of the electronic device or separation of a power supply harness from the electronic device (Matsumura [0013] “a first interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an operable state of an interruption device for interrupting an output of the power storage device, a second interlock mechanism configured to be activated to open the open/close device in response to transition to an openable state of a case containing the power control unit” and [0081]);
an interlock detecting unit configured to detect the opening or the separation based on an input signal from the interlock circuit (Matsumura Fig. 3 ref 360 “interlock detection unit”);
and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device after the opening or the separation has been detected by the interlock detecting unit (Matsumura Fig. 4 step S06 and [107] “That is, the processing of steps S01 and S02 corresponds to the operation of interlock detection unit 360 shown in FIG. 3”).
Matsumura does not teach a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time. However, Uchibori teaches a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle (Uchibori [0061] “vehicle speed sensor”), and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time (Uchibori [0061] and [0067] – [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Matsumura to incorporate the teachings of Uchibori such that the power supply control device comprises a vehicle speed detecting unit configured to detect a vehicle speed of the electric vehicle, and a power supply control unit configured to cut off supply of electric power from the onboard battery to the electronic device when the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed detecting unit is 0 for a predetermined time. Doing so would ensure safety of operations (Uchibori [0003]).
Matsumura as modified by Uchibori does not teach a fleet-management company system that manages operation of the electric vehicle and stores information indicating that the electric vehicle is under maintenance when the electric vehicle is under maintenance: a maintenance work information acquiring unit configured to obtain, as maintenance work information, the information indicating that the electric vehicle is under maintenance stored in the fleet-management company system: and the maintenance work information is acquired by the maintenance work information acquiring. However, Luke teaches a fleet-management company system that manages operation of the electric vehicle and stores information indicating that the electric vehicle is under maintenance when the electric vehicle is under maintenance: a maintenance work information acquiring unit configured to obtain, as maintenance work information, the information indicating that the electric vehicle is under maintenance stored in the fleet-management company system: the maintenance work information is acquired by the maintenance work information acquiring (Luke [0061] – [0062] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Luke to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori such that the vehicle power supply control device comprises: a fleet-management company system that manages operation of the electric vehicle and stores information indicating that the electric vehicle is under maintenance when the electric vehicle is under maintenance: a maintenance work information acquiring unit configured to obtain, as maintenance work information, the information indicating that the electric vehicle is under maintenance stored in the fleet-management company system: the maintenance work information is acquired by the maintenance work information acquiring. Doing so would allow the control device to obtain vehicle information and control vehicle functions from the information (Luke [0061]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Uchibori, further in view of Kawano, Stefan, and Luke.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan does not teach that the imaging unit includes a camera configured to perform at least one of a drive recorder function or a driver assistance function. However, Luke teaches that the imaging unit includes a camera configured to perform at least one of a drive recorder function or a driver assistance function (Luke [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Luke to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan such that the imaging unit includes a camera configured to perform at least one of a drive recorder function or a driver assistance function. Doing so would allow the control device to ensure vehicles are at the correct locations (Luke [0083]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Uchibori, further in view of Kawano, Stefan, Luke, and KR-102153486-B1 to Sim et. al. (“Sim”).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, Stefan, and Luke teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, Stefan, and Luke does not teach that the camera is an around-view monitor camera. However, Sim teaches that the camera is an around-view monitor camera (Sim Description ref “AVM (Around View Monitor) camera”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Sim to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, Stefan, and Luke such that that the camera is an around-view monitor camera. However, Sim teaches that the camera is an around-view monitor camera. Doing so would allow the control device to determine the proximity of objects and workers (Sim Description).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Uchibori, further in view of Kawano, Stefan, and US-20130013139-A1 to Maki et. al. (“Maki”).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan does not teach that the predetermined time is a minimum time required for the operator to access the electronic device after the electric vehicle has stopped. However, Maki teaches that the predetermined time is a minimum time required for the operator to access the electronic device after the electric vehicle has stopped (Maki [0118] “At Step S1612, determination is made for a condition on the vehicle-speed setting completion. A condition on the vehicle-speed setting completion includes the case where the vehicle arrives at the recharging place, the case where the vehicle is confirmed to stop for predetermined time duration (e.g., 5 minutes) or longer or the case where the operator performs an accelerator operation or a brake operation to cancel the cruise control. At Step S1613, when the determination result at Step S1612 meets the vehicle-speed setting completion condition, the procedure proceeds to Step S1614 to complete the vehicle-speed setting. On the other hand, when the determination result does not meet the vehicle-speed setting completion condition, the procedure returns to Step S1609 to continue the vehicle-speed setting.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Maki to Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, Kawano, and Stefan such that the predetermined time is a minimum time required for the operator to access the electronic device after the electric vehicle has stopped. Doing so would improve safety.
Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Uchibori, further in view of Luke and Maki.
With respect to claim 13, Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, and Luke teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 13 mirror the limitations recited in claim 12, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 12 above.
With respect to claim 14, Matsumura as modified by Uchibori, and Luke teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 14 mirror the limitations recited in claim 12, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 12 above.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/04/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
There is no apparent reason to modify the cited references to arrive at this inventive concept.
Stefan does not determine whether "an operator is performing maintenance work on the electric vehicle based on an image captured by the imaging unit." Moreover, no reasonable combination of the network camera 100 of Kawano "arranged in the standby area 1 and the inspection area 2, respectively, and capture the states of the standby area 1 and the inspection area 2" with Stefan could determine if an operator is performing maintenance work.
Kawano is directed toward inspecting vehicles in specific areas and matching a correct number of inspectors to the vehicles. Whereas, Stefan is directed toward at least one self-destructing or otherwise irreversibly disabling integrated circuit (IC) that may be activated by a controller in response to vehicle sensor data indicative of a situation that may expose rescue or recovery personnel to a possibility of electric shock. There is no apparent reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the four cited refences to arrive at Claim 5 as argued by the Office Action.
Discussed above, the combination of references does not suggest or disclose cutting off supply of electric power when the detected vehicle speed is zero for a predetermined time in combination with the particularly recited cut-off conditions of Claims 6 and 8. As described in the original disclosure when the electric vehicle starts before a predetermined time, an operator does not perform maintenance work on the first electronic device and thus supply of electric power is not cut off. An example of this situation is a case in which the electric vehicle V has stopped temporarily due to a traffic signal or the like. (par. [0043] of the original specification).
Office Response:
The rejection explicitly sets forth rationales for combining the teachings of the references. A conclusion of obviousness does not require an explicit statement of motivation in the prior art.
Stefan is not being used to teach that limitation, but rather Kawano is. Applicant is addressing references individually, but the rejection is based on the combination of references, not any single reference taken alone. Please see the mapping for Kawano and Stefan.
The rejection explicitly sets forth rationales for combining the teachings of the references. A conclusion of obviousness does not require an explicit statement of motivation in the prior art. Identifying a situation that may expose rescue or recovery personnel to a possibility of electric shock is a valid motivation to combine.
Predetermined time, without any definition of a value or range, can be any time. Based on that interpretation, Uchibori teaches that limitation. See mapping above.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights