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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/650,740 filed on February 17, 2026.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are amended.
Claims 2-11 were previously.
Claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 21 is cancelled.
Claims 14 and 15 were added.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (CN 108263383 A) in view of CHOI (US 2019/0193749).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a vehicle control device (page 07, line 8, “control device”), comprising an information processing device including a memory and a processor coupled to the memory (page 34, line35-36, “processor, memory unit... memory unit can be realized in the processor. Memory cell... coupled to the processor”), wherein the processor (page 34, line 36, “processor”) is configured to:
acquire ID information output from a terminal installed at a traveling subject vehicle (page 23, lines 20-23, “the vehicle 700 can receive Cp2 as vehicle Cp1 of a target ID 20 information (e.g., ID-2)… installed on the TTCGTTTTCT system 700 on the vehicle 300 the operation 22 management unit 333”);
on the basis of the acquired ID information, specify vehicle information associated with the ID information in advance, and enable the specified vehicle information (page 23, lines 22-24, “installed on the TTCGTTTTCT system 700 on the vehicle 300 the operation 22 management unit 333 using the received ID information to know the target vehicle Cp1 of 23 the target vehicle Cp2”); and
control the traveling subject vehicle on the basis of the vehicle information that has been made enabled (page 23, lines 24-26, “use the travel information received from vehicle Cp1 and 24 driving information is received from the vehicle Cp2 to control the running speed of 25 the vehicle 700.”).
Kim does not explicitly, but Choi teaches wherein, when the terminal inside the traveling subject vehicle is replaced with a different terminal so that the different terminal is installed inside the traveling subject vehicle (abstract, “one or more terminals are positioned inside the vehicle… a processor configured to select any one terminal from among the one or more terminals according to a preset reference”), the processor controls the traveling subject vehicle based on different vehicle information associated with the different terminal (¶0299, “The processor 830 instructs the terminal 900 to receive high-precision map data that supports the autonomous traveling ”, FIG. 9, S910, select any one of the terminals .. inside the vehicle.., S950, generate autonomous traveling command using information received from selected terminal.., S970, … perform at leas one function limited in selected terminal ..).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the different terminals taught in CHOI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing various convenience functions and safety functions with the highest priority being placed on the safety.
Regarding claim 6, KIM discloses a plurality of items of the vehicle information are stored in advance in the memory, and the processor is configured to, among the plurality of items of vehicle information, enable the vehicle information that was associated with the ID information in advance (page 30, lines 17-22, “previously stored in storage unit… pre-stored in the storage unit”).
Regarding claims 11-13, KIM discloses a vehicle, comprising the vehicle control device of claim 1 (page 7, line 8, control device...).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (
CN 108263383 A)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (CN 108263383 A) in view of CHOI (US 2019/0193749) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of in view of SUN (CN109268117A).
Regarding claim 2, KIM does not explicitly disclose but, SUN teaches wherein: the vehicle information comprises driving characteristics information that expresses driving characteristics of a vehicle, and the processor is configured to: based on the acquired ID information, specify a vehicle type that is a reproduction target expressed by the ID information, and, by reflecting the driving characteristics information, which corresponds to the specified vehicle type of the reproduction target, in the driving characteristics information of the traveling subject vehicle, enable the driving characteristics information; and control the traveling subject vehicle on the basis of the driving characteristics information that has been made enabled (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the reproduction target taught in SUN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a reduction in potential safety risks caused by vehicles.
Regarding claim 3, KIM discloses the traveling subject vehicle is an electric vehicle, and information relating to acceleration response characteristics is included in the driving characteristics information (page 13, line 11, “electric vehicle”, page 16, line 34-35, “speed and acceleration .. of the vehicle”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (
CN 108263383 A) in view of CHOI (US 2019/0193749), SUN (CN109268117A), and further in view of FUJITA (US 20230042441 A1).
Regarding claim 4, KIM does not explicitly disclose but, FUJITA teaches wherein: the traveling subject vehicle is an electric vehicle, and information regarding a gear ratio of a manual transmission is included in the driving characteristics information (¶0023).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the electric vehicle information taught in FUJITA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a secure function of redundancy in an electric brake mechanism, and yet restrain a component cost increase.
Regarding claim 5, KIM discloses wherein, in a case in which at least two items of the ID information have been acquired, the processor reflects, in the driving characteristics information of the traveling subject vehicle, a combination of driving characteristics information associated with first ID information among the two items of ID information, and driving characteristics information associated with to second ID information among the two items of ID information (page 23, lines 14-26, “using the received ID information to know the target vehicle Cp1 of 23 the target vehicle Cp2, and can use the travel information received from vehicle Cp1 and 24 driving information is received from the vehicle Cp2 to control the running speed of 25 the vehicle 700.., page 23, lines 30-34, “The selected 29 target vehicle, the target vehicle selecting unit 335 can only coincide with each other or the 30 two kinds of information satisfies the verification condition. In particular, in not only based 31 on the transport information of the target vehicle and based on the transport information of 32 the target vehicle to control the speed of the target vehicle should accurately confirm target 33 vehicle target vehicle”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (
CN 108263383 A), CHOI (US 2019/0193749), and further in view of Suzuki (US 20190080596 A1).
Regarding claim 7, KIM does not explicitly disclose but, Suzuki teaches a plurality of items of the vehicle information are stored in advance in the memory, and each of the plurality of items vehicle information stored in the memory is information that was downloaded in advance from a server before the terminal was installed in the traveling subject vehicle (¶0074).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the information being stored in advance taught in Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancement in driver’s convenience by providing information suitable for a corresponding vehicle user by simply providing information matching the vehicle user's preferences since the state of a driving vehicle changes continuously.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki further teaches wherein: a plurality of items of the vehicle information are stored in advance in the memory, the plurality of items of vehicle information are respectively stored in the memory at different timings from each other, in a case in which vehicle information associated with the acquired ID information is not stored in the memory, the processor transmits an instruction signal to a server, in response to receipt of the instruction signal, the server transmits, to the vehicle control device, the vehicle information associated with the acquired ID information, and the processor enables the vehicle information transmitted from the server (¶0007).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the information being stored in advance taught in Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancement in driver’s convenience by providing information suitable for a corresponding vehicle user by simply providing information matching the vehicle user's preferences since the state of a driving vehicle changes continuously.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (
CN 108263383 A) in view of CHOI (US 2019/0193749), and further in view of CHEN (CN 105944386 A).
Regarding claim 9, KIM does not explicitly disclose but, Chen teaches wherein the terminal is a toy that is equipped with an ID tag and that models a vehicle (page 2, lines 1-2, lines 13-14).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the toy controller taught in Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more precise and friendly user control of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Chen wherein the terminal is a portable terminal (page 2, lines 13-14).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the toy controller taught in Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more precise and friendly user control of the vehicle.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM ( CN 108263383 A) in view of ESHED (WO2014013492A1).
Regarding claim 14, KIM does not explicitly disclose but, ESHED teaches the terminal is placed on a center console of the traveling subject vehicle, and a reader is provided in an interior of the center console so that the reader reads the ID information outputted by an ID tag embedded in the terminal (page 06, lines 20-23, “console 106, telephone 104, access point 102, or cloud device 111. Game console 106 may be connected to, for example, a display device 110 and a controller 112. As shown in FIG. 2, the access point 102 may be connected to terminal 100 through a wired connection and to terminal 108”, page 10, lines 32-35, “If the action figure 300 is positioned to be seated on the vehicle 400, in contact with the RFID tag 401, the RFID reader 53 may communicate that contact to the CPU 12 of the action figure 300”, ).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the toy controller taught in ESHED with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more precise and friendly user control of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, ESHED teaches wherein: the terminal is a toy having a shape of a vehicle, and a display device inside the traveling subject vehicle displays an image of the toy (page 12, lines 5-8, “features the interactive device as an action figure and vehicle, one having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the interactive device can be formed of various sizes, shapes, and functionalities, depending on the desired application and functionality of the device”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device disclosed in KIM with the toy controller taught in ESHED with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more precise and friendly user control of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jarvis discloses (US 9867067 B2) a system for measuring the quality of a wireless communications network includes a measurement module coupled to a mobile device, such as a cell phone. The mobile device is provisioned for typical use on the wireless communications network. The measurement module receives measurement data from the mobile device over a first interface. The measurement module organizes the measurement data into a second format and transmits that data back to the mobile device over a second interface. The measurement module includes a real-time clock so that the data is transmitted back to the mobile device in order to be joined with other measurement data concurrently gathered by the mobile device (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667