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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/9/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without testing / comparing / determining the first event to determine its purpose in order to determine whether or not “the first event being that the in-vehicle terminal receives a signal requesting remote operation of the vehicle” as recited in claims 1, 13, and 17 in order to perform / define further processes “in response to the first event being…” which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner considers that it would be impossible to carry out the invention and be able to invoke / define further processes in response to such being true without some sort of testing and indication of such.
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, 3-13, 15-17, 19-23 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 “safely” in claims 1, 13, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “safely” in “a condition for safely performing the remote operation” 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. The specification fails to draw the line demarking safe verse unsafe operations or disclose what means would be used to determine safety therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be in agreement of what is considered safe. Thus the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3-11, 13, 15, 17, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou et al. (US 2015/0057840) hereinafter Katou and Soni (US 2018/0033218).
As to claim 1, Katou discloses An in-vehicle terminal (10) that performs processing related to a remote service of a vehicle, comprising a controller including at least one processor, wherein the controller is configured to execute processing of:
executing a first process (connection via center 20) in a case where short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and a user terminal is not being established at the time when a first event occurs (see [0026] lines 1-3); and
executing a second process (direct connection via 40 and short range comm function [0026] lines 3-4) different from the first process in a case where short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is being established at the time the first event occurs. See Fig.1.
Katou further discloses wherein the first event is that the in-vehicle terminal receives a signal requesting remote operation of the vehicle, the first process includes a process of determining whether a first condition (priority) is satisfied and a process of accepting the remote operation (ECU 12 transmits the center request to bus 14) when it is determined that the first condition is satisfied, and the second process includes a process of accepting the remote operation without determining whether the first condition is satisfied (given high priority) see [0045]-[0046].
Although it is considered that Katou’s method would be safe, at least to the extent that operation would not likely result in ones death and thus judged to be safe, Katou fails to explicitly recite wherein the first condition includes a condition for safely performing the remote operation.
In an analogous art, Soni disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition for safely performing the remote operation: the first event is that an ignition switch is switched from on to off (step 402), the first process includes a process for determining whether the state of the vehicle is in the first state (status request step 404), and a process for transmitting a signal indicating the first state (step 408) to the user terminal through a server apparatus outside the vehicle when the state of the vehicle is determined to be in the first state, and the second process (step 438) includes a process of transmitting a signal indicating the state of the vehicle to the user terminal in real time through the server apparatus (step 434). Thus it is considered that Soni provides for wherein the first condition includes a “condition for safely performing the remote operation”. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Katou wherein the first condition includes a condition for safely performing the remote operation as taught by Soni for the purpose of providing status updates without harming anyone.
As to claim 3, the combination of Katou and Soni provides for The in-vehicle terminal according to claim 1, Katou discloses wherein the process of accepting the remote operation is a process in which the controller (GWECU 12) transmits a signal requesting an operation corresponding to the remote operation to a first electronic control unit (ECU 13) mounted on the vehicle. See [0049]-[0050].
As to claims 4-6, the combination of Katou and Soni discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 3 but fails to explicitly recite wherein the first condition is in regard to a smart key isn’t detected (claim 4), a bonnet hood (claim 5), moving object (claim 6). Applicant failed to traverse official notice and thus admits that such were all known conditions in the art and to use them would provide their known functionality. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to modify Katou such that each condition was included as a first condition for the purpose of expanding the usefuleness.
As to claim 17, Katou discloses A vehicle equipped with a first communication apparatus (11) configured to perform short-range wireless communication with a user terminal (40) and an in-vehicle terminal (10/12/13) configured to perform processing related to a remote service of a vehicle, wherein the in-vehicle terminal comprising a controller including at least one processor is configured to execute processing of:
determining whether short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is being established at the time a first event occurs (see [0026] lines 1-4);
executing a first process (connection via center 20) in a case where it is determined that short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is not being established (see [0026] lines 1-3); and
executing a second process (direct connection via 40 and short range comm function [0026] lines 3-4) different from the first process in a case where it is determined that short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is being established. See Fig.1.
Katou discloses everything claimed as applied to claim 17 and further discloses [0026]-[0029] & [0045]-[0046] wherein the first event is that the in-vehicle terminal receives a signal requesting remote operation of the vehicle, the first process includes a process of determining whether a first condition (priority) is satisfied and a process of accepting the remote operation (ECU 12 transmits the center request to bus 14) when it is determined that the first condition is satisfied, and the second process includes a process of accepting the remote operation without determining whether the first condition is satisfied (given high priority).
Although it is considered that Katou’s method would be safe, at least to the extent that operation would not likely result in ones death and thus judged to be safe, Katou fails to explicitly recite wherein the first condition includes a condition for safely performing the remote operation.
In an analogous art, Soni disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition for safely performing the remote operation: the first event is that an ignition switch is switched from on to off (step 402), the first process includes a process for determining whether the state of the vehicle is in the first state (status request step 404), and a process for transmitting a signal indicating the first state (step 408) to the user terminal through a server apparatus outside the vehicle when the state of the vehicle is determined to be in the first state, and the second process (step 438) includes a process of transmitting a signal indicating the state of the vehicle to the user terminal in real time through the server apparatus (step 434). Thus it is considered that Soni provides for wherein the first condition includes a “condition for safely performing the remote operation”. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Katou wherein the first condition includes a condition for safely performing the remote operation as taught by Soni for the purpose of providing status updates without harming anyone.
As to claim 13 the combination of Katou and Soni provides for everything as applied above to corresponding to claim 17.
As to claim 19, the combination of Katou and Soni provides for everything claimed as applied to claim 17 however Katou fails to explicitly recite wherein the first event is that an ignition switch is switched from on to off, the first process includes a process for determining whether the state of the vehicle is in the first state, and a process for transmitting a signal indicating the first state to the user terminal through a server apparatus outside the vehicle when the state of the vehicle is determined to be in the first state, and
the second process includes a process of transmitting a signal indicating the state of the vehicle to the user terminal in real time through the server apparatus.
In an analogous art, Soni disclose wherein the first event is that an ignition switch is switched from on to off (step 402), the first process includes a process for determining whether the state of the vehicle is in the first state (status request step 404), and a process for transmitting a signal indicating the first state (step 408) to the user terminal through a server apparatus outside the vehicle when the state of the vehicle is determined to be in the first state, and
the second process (step 438) includes a process of transmitting a signal indicating the state of the vehicle to the user terminal in real time through the server apparatus (step 434). Before the effective filing date of
the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the steps taught by Soni for the purpose of providing status updates.
Claims 7 and 15 correspond in scope and are likewise rejected.
As to claims 8-11, the combination of Katou and Soni discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 7 but fails to explicitly recite wherein the first state is a state in which doors of the vehicle are not locked (claim 8) wherein the first condition is a condition in which a lighting device of the vehicle is not turned off (claim 9) wherein the first condition is a condition in which windows of the vehicle are not closed (claim 10), wherein the first condition is a condition in which hazard lamps of the vehicle are not turned off (claim 11) however Applicant failed to traverse official notice and thus admits that all such were extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and it would have been obvious to explicitly use each of the states/conditions to increase the usefuleness.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou and Soni as applied above to claims 1, 13, 17 in view of Oesterling et al. (US 10377345) hereinafter Oesterling.
As to claim 20 the combination of Katou and Soni discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 17.
Oesterling discloses A vehicle (12) equipped with a first communication apparatus (44) configured to perform short-range wireless communication with a user terminal (90) and an in-vehicle terminal (BCM/VSM/100) configured to perform processing related to a remote service of a vehicle,
wherein the in-vehicle terminal comprising a controller including at least one processor is configured to execute processing of:
determining whether short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is being established at the time a first event occurs (see col. 8 lines 41-65 and col. 9 lines 1-8);
executing a first process (would not start vehicle) in a case where it is determined that short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is not being established; and
executing a second process (start vehicle) different from the first process in a case where it is determined that short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is being established. See Fig.1.
Katou fail to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art Oesterling discloses wherein the in-vehicle terminal further comprises a memory configured to store information (digital certificate) identifying the user terminal, and the controller is configured to execute processing of:
acquiring an identification information of a first device (digital certificate from key) in which short- range wireless communication has been established with the vehicle;
determining whether the first device is the user terminal based on the information stored in the memory and the identification information of the first device (authenticating);
determining that short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is being established in a case where it is determined that the first device is the user terminal (access allowed); and
determining that short-range wireless communication between the vehicle and the user terminal is not being established (inherently not allowing access) in a case where it is determined that the first device is not the user terminal. See col. 8, lines 41-65. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Katou such that the controller is configured to execute processing of acquiring and determining as provided by Oesterling for the purpose of enabling of the vehicle in a sharing network.
As to claims 12, 16, and 21, the combination of Katou and Oesterling discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 20 wherein the first process reads on authentication failure and the second process reads on authentication success.
As to claim 22, the combination of Katou, Soni, and Oesterling discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 21 but Katou fails to explicitly recite wherein the first condition is a condition is one selected from the group of: a condition in which a lighting device of the vehicle is not turned off, a condition in which windows of the vehicle are not closed, and a condition in which hazard lamps of the vehicle are not turned off, however Applicant failed to traverse official notice of such and thus admits that all such were extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and it would have been obvious to explicitly use each of the states/conditions to increase the usefuleness.
As to claim 23, the combination of Katou, Soni, and Oesterling discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 22 but fails to explicitly recite wherein the first condition is in regard to a smart key isn’t detected, a bonnet hood, moving object. Applicant failed to traverse official notice and thus admits that such were all known conditions in the art and to use them would provide their known functionality. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to modify Katou such that each condition was included as a first condition for the purpose of expanding the usefuleness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649