DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 18, 2024 and December 23, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed March 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) [ 1, 3, 5, 7 ] under [ 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 ] 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of Harata et al.
5. 35 U.S.C 103:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Kuroiwa et al. does not teach
wherein the communication processor is configured to block the communication between the external device and the electronic control unit after a predetermined time elapses from the transition of the ignition of the vehicle to the off state. (After further search and consideration, the examiner relies on Kuroiwa to teach the limitation, (“In S111, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the elapsed time after the repro is performed is within the time limit (for example, within 10 minutes), and if it is determined that it is within the time limit (S111: YES)” [Pg. 6 Paragraph 2]). Following up with, (“In particular, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for limiting the executable time of the specific relay process” [Pg. 8 Paragraph 3]). Following up with, (“In addition, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for prohibiting the specific relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is in the OFF state” [Pg. 8 Paragraph 4]). Repro is performed within the time limit 10 minutes teaching a predetermined time elapse.
after the vehicle ignition transitions to the OFF state, communication between the external device and the electronic control unit (ECU) is blocked, such that the ECU is prevented from transitioning to the normal operation state. (After further search and consideration, the examiner relies on Kuroiwa to teach the amended limitation, (“In addition, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for prohibiting the specific relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is in the OFF state”) [Pg. 8 Paragraph 4]). Prohibiting relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is off teaches blocking communication in the OFF state. Following up with, (“When determining that the communication requested by the external tool 50 is not security communication (normal communication) (S104: NO), the CPU 11 shifts the processing to S105. In S105, the CPU 11 executes normal relay processing for relaying normal communication performed between the external tool 50 and the ECU” [Pg. 4 Paragraph 5]). Normal communication is prevented during security communication teaching preventing from transitioning to the normal operation state.
the electronic control unit is configured to selectively switch between a normal operation state, in which each controlled device is operated, and a power-saving state, in which each controlled device is not operated, and. (After further search and consideration, the examiner will now rely on Harata et al. to teach the amended limitation, (“The state transition control unit 81c can change a state of the ECU 19, and control the ECU 19 in a stop state or a sleep state to transition to an active state (wake-up state), or control the ECU 19 in the active state to transition to the stop state or the sleep state. The state transition control unit 81c causes the ECU 19 in a normal operating state to transition to a power saving operating state or causes the ECU 19 in the power saving operating state to transition to the normal operating state” [0595]).
the electronic control unit is transitioned from the power-saving state to the normal operation state based on communication from the external device. (After further search and consideration, the examiner will now rely on Harata et al. to teach the amended limitation, (“The state transition control unit 81c causes the ECU 19 in a normal operating state to transition to a power saving operating state or causes the ECU 19 in the power saving operating state to transition to the normal operating state” [0595]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroiwa (March 14, 2012 /Machine translation of JP 2013192090 A has been relied on and is included with this correspondence) in view of Uehara (March 3, 2012 / Machine translation of JP 2018093370 A has been relied on and is included with this correspondence) in further view of Harata et al. (February 5, 2021 US 20210255805 A1).
8. Regarding claim 1, Kuroiwa teaches, a relay apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the relay apparatus being configured to relay a communication between an external device provided outside the vehicle and an electronic control unit mounted on the vehicle, the relay apparatus comprising, (“The present invention relates to a technique for performing communication between an external device and an in-vehicle device” [Pg. 1 Paragraph 2]). Following up with, (“CPU 11 to execute relay processing for relaying communication performed between the external tool 50 and the ECU 20” [Pg. 3 Paragraph 3]).
In further,
an external communication connector configured to communicably couple the external device; and, (“the vehicle is provided with a connector for connecting an external tool (external device)” [Pg. 2 Paragraph 2]). The vehicle is provided a connector for connecting an external tool teaches communicably couple the external device.
In further,
a communication processor configured to control the communication between the external device coupled to the external communication connector and the electronic control unit, the communication processor being configured to block the communication between the external device and the electronic control unit after an ignition of the vehicle makes a transition to an off state, (“the CPU 11 is configured to be able to detect whether the ignition switch of the vehicle is on or off” [Pg. 3 Paragraph 2]). Following up with, (“In addition, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for prohibiting the specific relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is in the OFF state” [Pg. 8 Paragraph 4]). Prohibiting the relay process when the vehicle is off indicates a form of blocking communication.
In further,
wherein the communication processor is configured to block the communication between the external device and the electronic control unit after a predetermined time elapses from the transition of the ignition of the vehicle to the off state, (“the repro of the communication application 120 is performed when security communication is performed, and is not performed when normal communication is performed” [Pg. 5 Paragraph 3]). Following up with, (“In S111, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the elapsed time after the repro is performed is within the time limit (for example, within 10 minutes), and if it is determined that it is within the time limit (S111: YES)” [Pg. 6 Paragraph 2]). Following up with, (“In particular, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for limiting the executable time of the specific relay process” [Pg. 8 Paragraph 3]). Following up with, (“In addition, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for prohibiting the specific relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is in the OFF state” [Pg. 8 Paragraph 4]). Following up with, (“In the communication system according to the present embodiment, communication performed between the external tool 50 and the ECU 20 is roughly classified into normal communication and security communication, and the communication application 120 is not reproposed for normal communication” [Pg. 8-9, Last paragraph-first paragraph]).
In further,
after the vehicle ignition transitions to the OFF state, communication between the external device and the electronic control unit (ECU) is blocked, such that the ECU is prevented from transitioning to the normal operation state, (“In addition, the condition for terminating the security communication includes a condition for prohibiting the specific relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is in the OFF state”) [Pg. 8 Paragraph 4]). Prohibiting relay process when the ignition switch of the vehicle is off teaches blocking communication in the OFF state. Following up with, (“When determining that the communication requested by the external tool 50 is not security communication (normal communication) (S104: NO), the CPU 11 shifts the processing to S105. In S105, the CPU 11 executes normal relay processing for relaying normal communication performed between the external tool 50 and the ECU” [Pg. 4 Paragraph 5]). Normal communication is prevented during security communication teaching preventing from transitioning to the normal operation state.
However, Kuroiwa does not explicitly teach,
the electronic control unit is configured to selectively switch between a normal operation state, in which each controlled device is operated, and a power-saving state, in which each controlled device is not operated,
and the electronic control unit is transitioned from the power-saving state to the normal operation state based on communication from the external device.
In the same field of endeavor of including,
the electronic control unit is configured to selectively switch between a normal operation state, in which each controlled device is operated, and a power-saving state, in which each controlled device is not operated, Harata et al. teaches, (“The state transition control unit 81c can change a state of the ECU 19, and control the ECU 19 in a stop state or a sleep state to transition to an active state (wake-up state), or control the ECU 19 in the active state to transition to the stop state or the sleep state. The state transition control unit 81c causes the ECU 19 in a normal operating state to transition to a power saving operating state or causes the ECU 19 in the power saving operating state to transition to the normal operating state” [0595]).
In further,
and the electronic control unit is transitioned from the power-saving state to the normal operation state based on communication from the external device, Harata et al. teaches, (“The state transition control unit 81c causes the ECU 19 in a normal operating state to transition to a power saving operating state or causes the ECU 19 in the power saving operating state to transition to the normal operating state” [0595]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kuroiwa to include the electronic control unit is configured to selectively switch between a normal operation state, in which each controlled device is operated, and a power-saving state, in which each controlled device is not operated, and the electronic control unit is transitioned from the power-saving state to the normal operation state based on communication from the external device as taught by Harata. The suggestion/motivation to do so would allow (“the state transition control unit 81c controls at least one non-rewrite target ECU 19 to be in the stop state, the sleep state, or the power saving operating state” [0595]).
9. Regarding claim 3, Kuroiwa teaches, wherein the communication processor is configured to block the communication between the external device and the electronic control unit by refraining from relaying, to the electronic control unit, a communication request made by the external device in response to the communication request made by the external device, ("a communication request made by the external device in response to the communication request made by the external device" [ Pg. 5 Paragraph 4]). The CPU recognizes a request from the external device. Following up with, "when the external tool 50 is an unauthorized (non-regular) external tool that does not have the complementary application 520, security communication cannot be performed" [Pg.5 paragraph 6]. The communication is refraining itself from communicating when the user is not properly authenticated. Following up with, (“which is a program for causing the CPU 11 to execute a specific relay process for relaying security communication performed between the external tool 50 and the ECU 20” [Pg. 3 paragraph 3]).
10. Regarding claim 5, Kuroiwa teaches, wherein the communication processor is configured to block the communication between the external device and the electronic control, ("which is a program for causing the CPU 11 to execute a specific relay process for relaying security communication performed between the external tool 50 and the ECU 20" [paragraph 3]). Following up with, "when the external tool 50 is an unauthorized (non-regular) external tool that does not have the complementary application 520, security communication cannot be performed." [Pg.5 paragraph 6]. The communication is blocked from communicating when the user is not properly authenticated.
However, Kuroiwa does not explicitly teach, a method to block the communication between the external device and the ECU by making a rejection response to a communication request made by the external device.
In the same field of endeavor of teaching a rejection response to a communication request made by the external device, Uehara teaches, "transmits the negative response which refuses authentication to an external device" [Pg. 8 paragraph 4]. The negative response of the device is a form of a rejection response, refusing to authenticate with the external device, as a result blocking communication between the external device and the ECU.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kuroiwa to include the transmission of a negative response, which is a form a rejection response, to a communication request made by the external device as taught by Uehara. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to implement a rejection response in the form of a negative response to notify the user of the external device, a failed authentication process [Pg. 9 paragraph 2].
11. Regarding claim 7, Kuroiwa teaches the relay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication processor is configured to refrain from blocking the communication between the external device and the electronic control unit when the vehicle is in a predetermined state, ("That is, since turning on the ignition switch is one condition for permitting communication, the security can be enhanced as compared with the configuration permitting communication regardless of the state of the ignition switch" [Pg. 8 Paragraph 4]). The phrase "permitting communication regardless of the state of the ignition switch" teaches the vehicle is in a predetermined state.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL THANH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 8:00am-5:00pm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL THANH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/PAUL THANH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
May 19, 2026
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights