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 .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/438,826 filed on 02/12/2024, in which the amendments and arguments filed on 09/23/2025.
Claims 1-2 has been amended.
Claims 4 have been added.
No claims been cancelled.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
3. 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. JP2023-025070, filed on
02/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2024 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/15/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 4-8 filed on 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1-3 under USC 103 is persuasive. Therefore, a new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment as being unpatentable over Fox (US 10387139 B2) in view of Ishikawa (JP 6547666 B2) further in view of (US 20200114905 A1) to Ueta et al. (hereinafter Ueta) and further in view of Takahashi (US 20200166981 A1).
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.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 10387139 B2) in view of Ishikawa (JP 6547666 B2).
Regarding claim 1, An in-vehicle control device provided in a host vehicle, comprising: a first electronic control unit including a first processor, wherein the first electronic control unit is not configured to communicate with an update server, and the first processor is configured to transmit a first control signal for controlling a target in-vehicle device mounted on the host vehicle; (Fox Column 18, line number 33-45: “Processor 114 may monitor an operational status of vehicle 104-b to determine whether vehicle 104-b is in a first mode of operation in which an ECU software update is prohibited. Vehicle 104-b may be in the first mode of operation when vehicle 104-b cannot establish a stable connection with server 102. Vehicle 104-b may also be in the first mode of operation when the wireless communications strength is below a threshold level. Furthermore, vehicle 104-b may be in the first mode of operation when vehicle is in a restricted area,”) (Note: The vehicle is able to continue to use the ECU even though an update is not permitted) (Fox Column 14, line number 31-33: “ECU 118 and ECU 112 may also be deemed comparable based on their control functions and/or rules associated with ECU software running on ECU 118 and ECU 112.”) (Fox Column 1, line number 25-28: “Some cars may be equipped with ECUs configured to enhance the driving experience, and some may be equipped with ECUs configured to provide advanced (or automated) driving assistance.”) a second electronic control unit including a second processor, wherein the second electronic control unit is configured to communicate with the update server, the update server is configured to update software that is executed by the second processor included in the second electronic control unit, and the second processor is configured to transmit a second control signal for controlling the target in-vehicle device; (Fox Column 18, line number 57-60: “Processor 114 may continue to monitor the operational status of vehicle 104-b to determine whether vehicle 104-b transitions into a second mode of operation in which the ECU software update is permitted.”) (Fox Column 18, line number 63-Column 19, line number 2: “Processor 114 may determine that vehicle 104-b is in the second mode of operation when, for example, vehicle 104-b enters one of the predetermined safe operating conditions, such as traveling at a speed below a threshold level, operating a low-power or a power-down status, operating in a preselected environmental condition, idling, or the like.”) (Fox Column 14, line number 22-28: “In some embodiments, orchestrator 114 may be configured to monitor real-time processing activities of multiple ECUs in vehicle 104-b. For example, in some embodiments, orchestrator 114 may be configured to receive comparable data relating to processing activities of at least one other ECU 118 deemed comparable to ECU 112.”) (Fox Column 18, line number 26-29: “It is also contemplated, however, that in certain situations, one or more processors 114 located on a vehicle 104 may decide to perform the update opportunistically.”) (Fox Column 24, line number 7-10: “The orchestrator may be configured to perform the monitoring, accessing, comparing, and implementing for multiple ECUs (e.g., both ECU 112 and ECU 118) in the vehicle.”)
Fox does not teach […] and a control signal selection unit configured to receive the first control signal and the second control signal, and send only the second control signal to the target in-vehicle device in response to receiving both the first control signal and the second control signal within a predetermined time of each other
However, Ishikawa does reach […] and a control signal selection unit configured to receive the first control signal and the second control signal, and send only the second control signal to the target in-vehicle device in response to receiving both the first control signal and the second control signal within a predetermined time of each other. (Ishikawa Paragraph 0020: “An acquisition unit for acquiring the first control signal transmitted from the first receiver through a line, and the second after the acquisition unit acquires the first control signal until a set time elapses A determination unit that determines whether a control signal has been received If it is determined that the second control signal is received after the set time has elapsed, or if the second control signal is received without obtaining the first control signal, the received second control signal is A signal transmission unit for transmitting to a communication line, and a prohibition unit for prohibiting transmission of the second control signal to the communication line when it is determined that the second control signal has been received before the set time has elapsed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox to include […] and a control signal selection unit configured to receive the first control signal and the second control signal, and send only the second control signal to the target in-vehicle device in response to receiving both the first control signal and the second control signal within a predetermined time of each other taught by Ishikawa. This would have been for the benefit to provide the keyless entry system, when the user operates the operation unit (lock button or unlock button) provided on the portable device, a control signal is transmitted from the portable device to the on-vehicle device, and the on-vehicle device receives the control signal. [Ishikawa Paragraph 0002]
Regarding claim 2, Fox discloses The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the first control signal and the second control signal control power consumption of the target in-vehicle device in accordance with power consumption of another in-vehicle device mounted on the host vehicle. (Fox Column 24, line number 49-53: “The anomalies may correspond to at least one peak in data processing by a processor of the ECU. The anomalies may also correspond to at least one anomaly in power consumption of the ECU.”) (Fox Column 24, line number 54-63: “At step 1506, process 1500 may implement a control action for the ECU when the at least one anomaly is identified. In some embodiments, the control action may include issuing a prompt to adjust the ECU from executing a first version of ECU software to a second version of ECU software (e.g., rolling back a version of ECU software running on the ECU to a prior version of ECU software). The control action may also include sending an alert associated with the ECU. Further, the control action may include blocking an instruction sent from the ECU.”)
7. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 10387139 B2) in view of Ishikawa (JP 6547666 B2) and further in view of (US 20200114905 A1) to Ueta et al. (hereinafter Ueta).
Regarding claim 3, Fox in view of Ishikawa teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Fox in view of Ishikawa does not teach The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the control signal selection unit is located in the first electronic control unit.
However, Ueta does teach The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the control signal selection unit is located in the first electronic control unit. (Ueta Paragraph 0025: “Further, the autonomous travelling control unit 2, the auxiliary control unit 106, the brake control unit 107, the engine control unit 108, and the power steering control unit 109 are connected so as to be able to communicate with each other by a controller area network (CAN).”) (Ueta Paragraph 0041: “An example of the case where the autonomous travelling control unit 2 includes the information collection unit 202, the mode selection unit 203,”) (Note: The first ECU can be the autonomous traveling control unit)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox in view of Ishikawa to include The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the control signal selection unit is located in the first electronic control unit taught by Ueta. This would have been for the benefit to provide The electronic control apparatus includes an information collection unit which collects information; and a processing determination unit which determines a combination of processing information to be executed by the logic circuit, from a processing information storage unit that stores a plurality of pieces of processing information, on the basis of the collected information. The logic circuit is reconfigured on the basis of the combination of processing information determined by the processing determination unit. [Ueta Paragraph 0006]
8. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 10387139 B2) in view of Ishikawa (JP 6547666 B2) and further in view of Takahashi (US 20200166981 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fox in view of Ishikawa teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Fox in view of Ishikawa does not teach The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time is within the range of several milliseconds to several tines of milliseconds.
However. Takahashi The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time is within the range of several milliseconds to several tines of milliseconds. (Takahashi Paragraph 0030: “predetermined time interval (e.g., every few milliseconds).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fox in view of Ishikawa to include The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time is within the range of several milliseconds to several tines of milliseconds taught by Takahashi. This would have been for the benefit by providing a microcomputer input/output circuit having a novel structure that is able to determine operating information corresponding to divided voltage values in a stable manner, without requiring additional components that lead to increased costs or complex computational processing. [Takahashi Paragraph 0008]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights