DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe 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
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/760,454 filed on 07/01/2024. Claims 1-5 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 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to:
detect that a specific switch among a plurality of existing switches for operating a plurality of devices existing in a vehicle is operated by a predetermined method in which a function of a corresponding device is not exerted; and
transmit, in response to detection of an operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method, a command for causing a user terminal used by a user associated with the vehicle to perform a predetermined action."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a control unit configured to: detect … transmit …”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“a control unit configured to: detect … transmit …”
“a plurality of existing switches for operating …”
“a command for causing …”
“the vehicle to perform …”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"An information processing device comprising a processor configured to:
detect, that a specific switch among a plurality of existing switches that operate a plurality of devices existing in a vehicle, is operated by a predetermined method in which a function of a corresponding device is not exerted; and
transmit, in response to detection of an operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method, a command that causes a user terminal used by a user associated with the vehicle to perform a predetermined action."
Claims 2-5 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 2 recites: "The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection of the operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method includes:
acquiring, when any one of the existing switches is operated, a type and an operation method of a target switch that is the operated existing switch;
checking, based on the type of the target switch, whether the target switch corresponds to the specific switch;
checking, based on the operation method of the target switch, whether the operation method of the target switch corresponds to the predetermined method; and
determining that the specific switch is operated by the predetermined method in response to successful check on the type and the operation method of the target switch."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Idiomatic Language: The language of the claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. This language appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example:
“acquiring, when any one of the existing switches is operated, a type and an operation method of a target switch that is the operated existing switch;”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection of the operation of the specific switch by the predetermined method includes:
acquiring, via the processor, when any one of the existing switches is operated, a type and an operation method of a target switch that is the operated existing switch;
checking, via the processor, based on the type of the target switch, whether the target switch corresponds to the specific switch;
checking, via the processor, based on the operation method of the target switch, whether the operation method of the target switch corresponds to the predetermined method; and
determining, via the processor, that the specific switch is operated by the predetermined method in response to successful check on the type and the operation method of the target switch."
Claims 3-4 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The information processing device according to claim 2, further comprising a storage unit configured to store association information in which the type and the predetermined method of the specific switch are associated, wherein the control unit is configured to check the type and the operation method of the target switch based on the association information in the storage unit."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The information processing device according to claim 2, further comprising a storage unit configured to store association information in which the type and the predetermined method of the specific switch are associated, wherein the processor is configured to check the type and the operation method of the target switch based on the association information in the storage unit."
Claim 4 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 4 recites: "The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein:
the association information stored in the storage unit is information in which the predetermined action is associated with the type and the predetermined method of the specific switch; and
the control unit is configured to transmit, to the user terminal, the command for causing the user terminal to perform the predetermined action included in the association information in the storage unit when the operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method is detected.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein:
the association information stored in the storage unit is information in which the predetermined action is associated with the type and the predetermined method of the specific switch; and
the processor is configured to transmit, to the user terminal, the command that causes the user terminal to perform the predetermined action included in the association information in the storage unit when the operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method is detected.”
Claim 5 recites: “The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the specific switch is a power window switch; and
the predetermined method is an operation method for closing the power window switch in a state in which a window of the vehicle is fully closed.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
“The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the specific switch is a power window switch; and
the predetermined method is an operation method that includes closing the power window switch in a state in which a window of the vehicle is fully closed.”
Claim Rejections - 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 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-4 are directed to the abstract idea of an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites an information processing device configured to detect an operation of switch by a predetermined method and transmitting a command to perform a predetermined action. These steps relate to an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as “collecting information (e.g. detecting operation of a switch), analyzing it (e.g. determining a operation of the switch by a predetermined method), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. transmitting a corresponding command)," as described in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350. As such, the description in claims 1-20 of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract idea (Note: The fact that the recited claims does not expressly display information is not determinative to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the abstract idea is identified in the step of analyzing information. If the claim as a whole, is limited to, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information,” without “significantly more” the claim is an abstract idea as held by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350).
Moreover, the specification does not provide any particulars of the claim elements that would alter the claims from being interpreted as directed to an abstraction of “collecting information (e.g. detecting operation of a switch), analyzing it (e.g. determining a operation of the switch by a predetermined method), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. transmitting a corresponding command)." As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a device, control unit (e.g. processor), and switches. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-4 are dependent on claim 1 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-4 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimoto (US 2021/0377711 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto discloses an information processing device comprising a processor (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-5, and related text) configured to:
detect, that a specific switch among a plurality of existing switches that operate a plurality of devices existing in a vehicle, is operated by a predetermined method in which a function of a corresponding device is not exerted (see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 25, Fig. 3, 5, and related text, disclosing a specific operation, e.g. long-pressing, double clicking, of a lamp switch 4a-4d, that activates a predetermined operation, e.g. toggling lamp 3a-3d ON/OFF, pairing operation of a wireless unit 2 with a mobile device 1); and
transmit, in response to detection of an operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method, a command that causes a user terminal used by a user associated with the vehicle to perform a predetermined action (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 30-39, Fig. 1-5, and related text, transmitting signals from the wireless unit 2 to/from the mobile device 1, and activating an imaging unit 14).
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto discloses that the detection of the operation of the specific switch by the predetermined method includes:
acquiring, via the processor, when any one of the existing switches is operated, a type and an operation method of a target switch that is the operated existing switch (see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 25, Fig. 3, 5, and related text);
checking, via the processor, based on the type of the target switch, whether the target switch corresponds to the specific switch (id.);
checking, via the processor, based on the operation method of the target switch, whether the operation method of the target switch corresponds to the predetermined method (id.); and
determining, via the processor, that the specific switch is operated by the predetermined method in response to successful check on the type and the operation method of the target switch (id.).
Regarding claim 3, Sugimoto discloses that the processor is configured to check the type and the operation method of the target switch based on the association information in the storage unit (see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 25, Fig. 3, 5, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto discloses that:
the association information stored in the storage unit is information in which the predetermined action is associated with the type and the predetermined method of the specific switch (see e.g. at least ¶ 8, 25, Fig. 3, 5, and related text); and
the processor is configured to transmit, to the user terminal, the command that causes the user terminal to perform the predetermined action included in the association information in the storage unit when the operation on the specific switch by the predetermined method is detected (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 30-39, Fig. 1-5, and related text).
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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US 2021/0377711 A1) in view of Fuke (US 2019/0053021 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fuke teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Sugimoto including namely: that a specific switch is a power window switch (e.g. at least power window switch, see e.g. at least ¶ 42); and
a predetermined method is an operation method that includes closing the power window switch in a state in which a window of the vehicle is fully closed (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Sugimoto by configuring that the specific switch is a power window switch; and the predetermined method is an operation method that includes closing the power window switch in a state in which a window of the vehicle is fully closed as taught by Fuke in order to improve the convenience and safety of vehicle operations by automatically switching between validation and restriction of a specific function (Fuke: ¶ 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662