DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 02/18/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The new claims 8 and 9 include elements from claims 2 and 5 that have been previously determined to be allowable subject matter, so claims 8 and 9 are determined to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argued the following:
On page 1-3, the applicant asserts that Sugiyama in view of BERRUNCHACH fails to teach that the processor is accessible to a memory in which the terminal information for a terminal allowed to remotely control autonomous movement of the vehicle is stored in association with the vehicle.
Examiner respectfully disagreed.
As per point (a), the examiner has reviewed the arguments put forth by the applicant for the 103 rejection issue based on the amendments and it is concluded that the rejection will be maintained. The change of the limitation “for a terminal allowed to remotely control autonomous movement of the vehicle” does not change the scope of the claim from the previous limitation. Sugiyama teaches on page 3 it states “The remote parking instruction transmitted by the first remote controller 1 and the second remote controller 2 generally includes a parking start instruction and a parking stop instruction, and the remote parking device 10 receives the parking start instruction. The parking of the own vehicle is controlled from the time until the parking stop instruction is received.” The applicant states that it was not taught that the terminal is a remote device. However, Sugiyama teaches that a remote controller drives the autonomous movement of the vehicle. For these reasons the scope of the claims has not changed to be allowable and the 103 rejection stands with the updated citations below for the amendments to the limitations.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and therefore the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (JP 6884181 B2) in view of BERRUNBACH et al. (CN 109391470 A) (citations are based on the page of the combined translation NPL documents).
Sugiyama and BERRUNBACH have been cited in previous office actions.
Regarding claim 1,
Sugiyama teaches:
A control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising:
a processor configured to start the vehicle in response to operation of one of a plurality of types of keys, wherein
(Sugiyama – On page 2 it states “The remote parking device 10 accepts remote control from a plurality of remote controllers. In the present embodiment, it is assumed that the remote parking device 10 can be remotely controlled from the first remote controller 1 and the second remote controller 2. However, there may be three or more remote controllers capable of remotely controlling the remote parking device 10.” Note: The examiner interprets the remote controllers as keys.)
the processor is accessible to a memory a terminal allowed to remotely control autonomous movement of the vehicle
(Sugiyama – On page 3 it states “The remote parking instruction transmitted by the first remote controller 1 and the second remote controller 2 generally includes a parking start instruction and a parking stop instruction, and the remote parking device 10 receives the parking start instruction. The parking of the own vehicle is controlled from the time until the parking stop instruction is received.” On page 11 it states “…The processor 51 realizes the functions of each part by reading and executing the program stored in the memory 52.” Note: The examiner interprets the storage unit as a memory system.)
the processor is configured to control the autonomous movement of the vehicle in response to an operation of the terminal
(Sugiyama – On page 3 it states “The remote parking instruction transmitted by the first remote controller 1 and the second remote controller 2 generally includes a parking start instruction and a parking stop instruction, and the remote parking device 10 receives the parking start instruction. The parking of the own vehicle is controlled from the time until the parking stop instruction is received.”)
Sugiyama teaches a remote terminal system for controlling a vehicle. However, Sugiyama does not teach terminal information is stored in a memory and the processor is configured to perform limitation of the terminal information in the memory based on the type of the key used to start the vehicle.
BERRUNBACH teaches:
the processor is accessible to a memory in which terminal information for a terminal allowed to remotely control of the vehicle is stored in association with the vehicle,
(BERRUNBACH – On page 2 it states “According to one embodiment of the invention, the vehicle comprises the database, and the system further comprising a processor remote from the vehicle, and the processor is configured to: in response to receiving a new key or for one of updating the first key or the second key, the new key or the update is sent to the vehicle through the wireless network.” On page 2 it further states “In another exemplary embodiment, a system comprises a database, the database having a plurality of first keys and a plurality of second key operation of the vehicle. the second key of the first key and the second key each of the ride sharing service allocated to the subscriber, and vehicle function in the database for the first key but not in the database is enabled. the system further comprises a vehicle, said vehicle being configured in response to receiving one of the first key to start the vehicle function.” Note: The examiner interprets the first keys and second keys as different types of keys. The examiner also interprets these keys as the terminal.)
the processor is configured to control the vehicle in response to an operation of the terminal whose terminal information is stored in the memory, and
(BERRUNBACH – On page 2 it further states “In another exemplary embodiment, a system comprises a database, the database having a plurality of first keys and a plurality of second key operation of the vehicle. the second key of the first key and the second key each of the ride sharing service allocated to the subscriber, and vehicle function in the database for the first key but not in the database is enabled. the system further comprises a vehicle, said vehicle being configured in response to receiving one of the first key to start the vehicle function.” Note: The examiner interprets the first keys and second keys as different types of keys. The examiner also interprets these keys as the terminal.)
the processor is configured to perform limitation of the terminal information in the memory based on the type of the key used to start the vehicle.
(BERRUNBACH – On page 3 it states “each key in the database of the state (i.e., the secondary state or associated management states), and/or in the database of one or more vehicle functions to limit and/or associated vehicle function permission.” On page 6 it further states “the software application during execution of the processor is to access controller 110 enable the processor enabled for key management of the vehicle 102.” On page 2 it further states “the system further comprises a vehicle, said vehicle being configured in response to receiving one of the first key to start the vehicle function.” Note: The examiner interprets the first keys and second keys as different types of keys. The examiner also interprets these keys as the terminal. The examiner interprets the “limitation” as management in the claim based on the specification.)
Sugiyama and BERRUNBACH are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control and management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama with BERRUNBACH. It would have been obvious to combine a remote terminal system for controlling a vehicle with the management of the terminal information in the vehicle because it allows for changes to the permissions allowed to users of the vehicle. This also allows for more customization of the system and security of the system as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, and 5 and their dependent claims 3-4, and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 and 9 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668