DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 26 February 2026. Claims 1, 3 and 5 have been examined.
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, 3, and 5 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.
Claim 1 includes “a plurality of sensors that detect a traveling state of the vehicle … and all safety conditions based on detection results obtained from the plurality of sensors are satisfied.” The claim makes it clear that the purpose of the sensors is to “detect a traveling state of the vehicle”. In view of this, it is not clear then what the claimed “detection result” is – a traveling state is not a result of something. Even more unclear is the fact that safety conditions (all of them) are based on these detection results, and all these safety conditions have to be satisfied (which implies they may not be satisfied at times). What are these safety conditions? How do they relate to the sensors that function just to detect traveling state? How many safety conditions are there? What does it mean to satisfy each of them? Claims 3 and 5 are also rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., Pub. No.: US 20230094805 A1, hereinafter Sharma in view of Dupuis et al., Pub. No.: US 20100262357 A1, hereinafter Dupuis.
As per claim 1, Sharma discloses a vehicle control device having a driving assistance function, comprising:
a communication circuit that communicates with a server (fig. 1; pars. 67, 72-77, 79, 81, 88, 125-132 disclose multiple examples of communication units that communicate with servers);
a controller that controls the vehicle based on a validated vehicle function (at least pars. 87, 98, 101 disclose all ECU firmware is tested/verified and includes vehicle control software); and
a plurality of sensors that detect a traveling state of the vehicle (pars. 2, 63-64, 71, 134, 142-145, 149, 160 disclose sensed vehicle traveling states including determining if vehicle is stopped/stationary/not moving, parking brake engaged, engine is off, RPM is 0, etc.), wherein, when the communication unit receives update information for invalidating the vehicle function from the server while the vehicle is traveling, the controller prohibits invalidation of the validated vehicle function (see pars. cited above as well as 146-149), and when the traveling of the vehicle has ended, […], and all safety conditions based on detection results obtained from the plurality of sensors are satisfied, the controller cancels the prohibition of invalidation (see rejection above as well as pars. 9, 100, 134, 140-149 which disclose waiting and/or activation command is only sent after the vehicles operating conditions are deemed safe, and note that multiple conditions are required to be satisfied including engine being off).
Sharma does not expressly disclose a predetermined time has elapsed. However, Dupuis discloses this in at least pars. 5-7, 52-54, 59. Dupuis par. 36 says “Systematic engine shutdown process relies on a multi-signal consensus process that requires a resolution of all primary sensor signals be positive in order to support a systematic engine shutdown. Automatic system overrides are built in to the system to prevent false positives” and par. 22 says “…automatically stops an internal combustion engine when at idle and after a period of prolonged engine idling provided all sensory signals are positive preventing wasteful use of energy and a cause of pollution”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Dupuis would have allowed Sharma to incorporate a predetermined time delay in order to configure Sharma’s controller to cancel the update prohibition only after a predetermined time has elapsed after end of traveling is detected. This would help to prevent false triggering of the cancellation on temporary stops as opposed to an actual end of travel event. The combination involves no more than the application of a known technique (time confirmation window after detected a stopped state) to a known system (Sharm’s prohibition/cancellation logic) to achieve the predictable result of more reliably determining that travel has truly ended before canceling the prohibition of invalidation.
As per claim 3, Sharma as modified discloses The control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensor includes a vehicle speed sensor that detects a vehicle speed of the vehicle, a shift position sensor that detects a shift position of the vehicle, an activation sensor that detects start of activation of the vehicle or stop of activation of the vehicle, and a side brake sensor that detects whether a side brake of the vehicle is operated, and when all of a plurality of states are detected as the safety conditions, the states including: a state in which the vehicle speed becomes zero; a state in which the shift position is shifted to a parking range; a state in which start and stop of the vehicle are detected; and a state in which the operation of the side brake is detected, the controller determines that the end of traveling of the vehicle is detected, cancels the prohibition of the invalidation, and invalidates the vehicle function (see rejection of claims 1 including at least Sharma pars. 2, 63-64, 71, 134, 140-145, 149, 160; see also, Dupuis pars. 6, 34, 38, 49).
As per claim 5, Sharma as modified discloses a vehicle comprising the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 as well as par. 56, 105, 111).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 Februrary 2026 have been fully considered. Pub. No.: US 20100262357 A1, Dupuis et al., has been applied in response to claim amendments.
Page 5 of the remarks includes “Applicant asserts that Sharma fails to teach or suggest prohibiting invalidation of a validated vehicle function during traveling as a distinct control action.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per the rejection above, Sharma in at least pars. 146-149 discloses the controller prohibits invalidation of the validated vehicle function. This limitation does not include anything about “as a distinct control action”; the remarks do not further clarify what this conclusory statement means and how it relates to the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights