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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 and 6, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 and 6-10 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “set[ting] the check timing” based on a condition fulfilled; however, it is not clear what is meant by setting the check timing (e.g., setting to check at a particular time, setting a timing interval). Similarly, it appears that the setting or not-setting of the check timing is a process which further occurs after activating the vehicle at the check timing; it is thus not clear whether or not the setting of the check timing has any correlation to activation of the vehicle at the check timing. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as indicating that, based on the predetermined condition being satisfied, the check timing is set such that the activation of the vehicle is performed at the check timing; in a situation where the predetermined condition is not satisfied, the claims interpreted as indicating that the check timing and activation of the vehicle are not performed.
Claims 2-4 and 7-10 fail to cure the deficiencies listed above and are thus indefinite for at least the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4 and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 6: As discussed in the previous action, the combination of DeCia et al., Kawakami et al., and Vogt et al. teaches all the limitations of unamended claim 1, as well as acquiring information about scheduled leaving timing of a vehicle. Furthermore, Telpaz et al. teaches setting the check timing in a case where a predetermined condition that the scheduled leaving time is later than a first timing, at which the remaining battery level decreases to the remote activation lower limit, is satisfied. However, the art of record fails to teach a second timing set after a predetermined period has elapsed from the first timing, or that the check timing is set in a condition that the scheduled leaving timing is later than the first timing and earlier than the second timing.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 7-10: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claims 1 and 6, and are thus allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights