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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment of 05/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 line 24 “the starting process being” should be omitted.
At claim 6 lines 21-22 “the a normal process” should read --a normal process--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the power-on state” in line 25. It is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different than the power-on event disclosed as S100 in Fig. 3 and described as “a process in which, during power-off, the start switch 48 is turned on to turn the power on” (0037 lines 1-2) (see also concomitant rejection under 112(b) below). In the event Applicant intends an interpretation of the limitation other than the event of turning power on as disclosed in the original specification, the limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reason, mutatis mutandis, as provided for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 7 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-7 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 recites the limitation “the power-on state” in line 25. It is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different than the power-on event disclosed as S100 in Fig. 3 and described as “a process in which, during power-off, the start switch 48 is turned on to turn the power on” (0037 lines 1-2) (see also concomitant rejection under 112(a) above). For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --power-on--.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reason, mutatis mutandis, as provided for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the lighting request output process applies the recited mental process of the abnormality detection process in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
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.
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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAKINO (JP S63-275468) in view of YAGI (US 2014/0379200, provided by Applicant on 10/29/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, MAKINO discloses a control device for an in-vehicle unit (ABS system 10, p. 6 l. 6) that is applied to the in-vehicle unit (Fig. 1) installed in a vehicle (p. 6 l. 13) having a warning light (19, p. 6 ll. 10-11) and that is configured to output a lighting request to the warning light to notify a driver of a state of the in-vehicle unit (i.a. p. 5 ll. 18-19), the control device comprising:
a control circuit (14, p. 6 l. 8) configured to execute at least a process relating to the output of the lighting request (p. 7 ll. 15-17); and
a storage circuit (15, p. 6 ll. 8-9) configured to store at least information that is used in the process executed by the control circuit (p. 6 ll. 8-9), wherein:
the control circuit is configured to execute an abnormality detection process for detecting an abnormality of the in-vehicle unit (3rd block down in center flowchart of Fig. 2, p. 9 ll. 4-8), a detection result write-in process (right side of Fig. 2, p. 9 ll. 9-10) for, when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit is detected by the abnormality detection process (if a fault is detected, p. 9 l. 9), writing a detection history showing the detection of the abnormality into history information of the storage circuit (p. 9 ll. 13-14), and a lighting request output process for outputting the lighting request (warning lamp blinking display program, left flowchart Fig. 2, p. 7 ll. 15-16, p. 8 l. 15);
the storage circuit is configured to retain contents of the history information even when the in-vehicle unit is powered on or powered off (implied, EEPROM, p. 6 ll. 8-9);
the control circuit is configured to retrieve the contents of the history information from the storage circuit when the in-vehicle unit is powered on (p. 5 ll. 13-15);
the control circuit is configured to, when the detection history is written in the retrieved contents (p. 10 ll. 12-13), output the lighting request (p. 10 ll. 13-15) even when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit fails to be detected by the abnormality detection process (p. 5 l. 21 - p. 6 l. 2);
the control circuit is configured to execute a starting process when the in-vehicle unit is powered on (upper left flowchart, Fig. 2; when the ignition switch is turned on the left flowchart of Fig. 2 is immediately started, p. 8 ll. 13-15; “starting” process because left flowchart of Fig. 2 is performed upon ignition-on to penultimate conditional block whereupon the program loops through the W/L on and off blocks, Fig. 2, p. 8 l. 13 - p. 10 l. 15), the starting process being (b) a process distinct from power-on (power-on being when the ignition switch is turned ON, power is immediately supplied to the ABS control circuit 10, p. 8 ll. 13-14; both the left and center flowcharts of Fig. 2 start immediately when the ignition switch is turned on, p. 8 ll. 13-15, p. 8 l. 21 - p. 9 l. 3; power-on inasmuch as Applicant’s 0037 ll. 1-2 where start switch 48 is turned on to turn the power on; see also rejection under 112(b) above) and being a part of a normal process (2nd block down in center flowchart of Fig. 2, the control program of the in-vehicle unit, p. 9 ll. 1-4); and
the control circuit is configured to retrieve the contents of the history information from the storage circuit during the starting process (both the left and center flowcharts of Fig. 2 start immediately when the ignition switch is turned on, p. 8 ll. 13-15, p. 8 l. 21 - p. 9 l. 3; the left flowchart retrieves fault codes at 3rd block down, p. 8 ll. 13-18),
to ensure that the presence or absence of a fault in any part of the electronic control system is indicated by flashing warning lamps, thereby warning the driver at least one when starting the vehicle, and making it clear that there is a fault in any part of the electronic control system, thus facilitating early detection and repair of the electronic control device (p. 5 ll. 1-5).
MAKINO further discloses the fault code control strategy can be applied to exemplary in-vehicle ECUs such as ABS control devices, traction control devices, and automatic transmission devices (p. 2 ll. 4-10).
MAKINO does not disclose the control strategy applied to in-vehicle units related to steering of a vehicle as claimed (claim 1 l. 24).
YAGI teaches a control device (EPS ECU 28, 0044 l. 1) for an in-vehicle unit that is applied to the in-vehicle unit (EPS system, 0044 ll. 2-end) installed in a vehicle (12) having a warning light (152, 0060 l. 4) and that is configured to output a lighting request to the warning light to notify a driver of a state of the in-vehicle unit (0060 ll. 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the control strategy disclosed by MAKINO to an EPS system as taught by YAGI to ensure that the presence or absence of a fault in any part of the electronic control system is indicated by flashing warning lamps, thereby warning the driver at least once when starting the vehicle, and making it clear that there is a fault in any part of the electronic control system, thus facilitating early detection and repair of the electronic control device.
Regarding claim 2, MAKINO as modified teaches the control device for the in-vehicle unit according to claim 1.
MAKINO further discloses the control circuit (14, p. 6 l. 8) is configured to, when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit is detected by the abnormality detection process (p. 9 ll. 9-10), retrieve the contents of the history information from the storage circuit (implied in “if a fault code is stored in the fault code memory”, p. 10 ll. 12-13, which follows interrupt to center/right flowcharts of Fig. 2, p. 8 ll. 19-20, and return to left flowchart of Fig. 2, p. 9 l. 18); and
the control circuit is configured to output the lighting request based on the detection history written in the retrieved contents (p. 10 ll. 12-13).
Regarding claim 6, MAKINO discloses a control method of an in-vehicle unit (ABS system 10, p. 6 l. 6) installed in a vehicle (p. 6 l. 13) having a warning light (19, p. 6 ll. 10-11), the in-vehicle unit including a control circuit (14, p. 6 l. 8) configured to execute at least a process relating to output of a lighting request (p. 7 ll. 15-17) to the warning light for notifying a driver of a state of the in-vehicle unit (i.a. p. 5 ll. 18-19), and a storage circuit (15, p. 6 ll. 8-9) configured to store at least information that is used in the process executed by the control circuit (p. 6 ll. 8-9),
the control method comprising:
detecting, by the control circuit, an abnormality of the in-vehicle unit (3rd block down in center flowchart of Fig. 2, p. 9 ll. 4-8);
when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit is detected (if a fault is detected, p. 9 l. 9), writing, by the control circuit, a detection history showing the detection of the abnormality into history information of the storage circuit (p. 9 ll. 13-14);
outputting, by the control circuit, the lighting request (warning lamp blinking display program, left flowchart Fig. 2, p. 7 ll. 15-16, p. 8 l. 15);
retaining, by the storage circuit, contents of the history information even when the in-vehicle unit is powered on or powered off (implied, EEPROM, p. 6 ll. 8-9);
when the in-vehicle unit is powered on, retrieving, by the control circuit, the contents of the history information from the storage circuit (p. 5 ll. 13-15);
when the detection history is written in the retrieved contents (p. 10 ll. 12-13), outputting, by the control circuit, the lighting request (p. 10 ll. 13-15) even when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit fails to be detected (p. 5 l. 21 - p. 6 l. 2);
executing a starting process when the in-vehicle unit is powered on (upper left flowchart, Fig. 2; when the ignition switch is turned on the left flowchart of Fig. 2 is immediately started, p. 8 ll. 13-15; “starting” process because left flowchart of Fig. 2 is performed upon ignition-on to penultimate conditional block whereupon the program loops through the W/L on and off blocks, Fig. 2, p. 8 l. 13 - p. 10 l. 15), the starting process being (b) a process distinct from power-on (power-on being when the ignition switch is turned ON, power is immediately supplied to the ABS control circuit 10, p. 8 ll. 13-14; both the left and center flowcharts of Fig. 2 start immediately when the ignition switch is turned on, p. 8 ll. 13-15, p. 8 l. 21 - p. 9 l. 3; power-on inasmuch as Applicant’s 0037 ll. 1-2 where start switch 48 is turned on to turn the power on; see also rejection under 112(b) above) and being a part of a normal process (2nd block down in center flowchart of Fig. 2, the control program of the in-vehicle unit, p. 9 ll. 1-4); and
retrieving the contents of the history information from the storage circuit during the starting process (both the left and center flowcharts of Fig. 2 start immediately when the ignition switch is turned on, p. 8 ll. 13-15, p. 8 l. 21 - p. 9 l. 3; the left flowchart retrieves fault codes at 3rd block down, p. 8 ll. 13-18),
to ensure that the presence or absence of a fault in any part of the electronic control system is indicated by flashing warning lamps, thereby warning the driver at least one when starting the vehicle, and making it clear that there is a fault in any part of the electronic control system, thus facilitating early detection and repair of the electronic control device (p. 5 ll. 1-5).
MAKINO further discloses the fault code method can be applied to exemplary in-vehicle ECUs such as ABS control devices, traction control devices, and automatic transmission devices (p. 2 ll. 4-10).
MAKINO does not disclose the method applied to in-vehicle units related to steering of a vehicle as claimed (claim 1 l. 24).
YAGI teaches a method for an in-vehicle unit (EPS system, 0044 ll. 2-end) installed in a vehicle (12) having a warning light (152, 0060 l. 4) and that is configured to output a lighting request to the warning light to notify a driver of a state of the in-vehicle unit (0060 ll. 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method disclosed by MAKINO to an EPS system as taught by YAGI to ensure that the presence or absence of a fault in any part of the electronic control system is indicated by flashing warning lamps, thereby warning the driver at least once when starting the vehicle, and making it clear that there is a fault in any part of the electronic control system, thus facilitating early detection and repair of the electronic control device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
MAKINO (JP S63-275468), YAGI (US 2014/0379200, provided by Applicant on 10/29/2024 IDS) and SMITH (US 5,671,141) are the closest prior art of record.
MAKINO as modified teaches the control device for the in-vehicle unit according to claim 1.
MAKINO discloses the detection history is diagnostic information into which, when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit is detected by the abnormality detection process (if a fault is detected, p. 9 l. 9), a diagnosis (p. 2 l. 19 - p. 3 l. 1) indicating the detection of the abnormality is written (p. 9 ll. 13-14).
Therefore, MAKINO does not disclose the storage circuit is configured to store diagnostic information, the diagnostic information being information which is not used in the process relating to the output of the lighting request executed by the control circuit as claimed.
SMITH teaches a storage circuit (KAM, i.a. Fig. 6) configured to store history information (sys_MIL_ON flags, col. 10 ll. 20-21; history because retained in KAM between ignition cycles, implied, col. 15 ll. 5-10), the history information being information which is used in a process relating to the output of a lighting request (col. 8 ll. 22-24) executed by a control circuit (implied by “computer”, col. 1 lines 12-15 and 52-55);
the storage circuit is further configured to store diagnostic information (fault codes, col. 6 lines 2-3), the diagnostic information being information which is not used in the process relating to the output of the lighting request executed by the control circuit (since MIL is lit based on sys_MIL_ON flag, col. 10 lines 20-23) and into which, when the abnormality of the in-vehicle unit is detected by the abnormality detection process, a diagnosis (fault codes, i.a. col. 2 line 3) indicating the detection of the abnormality is written (col. 2 lines 1-3); and
the storage circuit is configured to delete contents of the diagnostic information and the history information through operation from a diagnostic tool that is connected to the vehicle from an outside (col. 3 lines 6-10, col. 9 lines 49-52, col. 10 lines 9-10, Fig. 5).
Absent hindsight guidance from Applicant’s disclosure, it would not be obvious to modify MAKINO based on the teachings of SMITH.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 05/29/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights