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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2025 and 9/17/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
In claims 1 the claim limitation "a communication unit configured to receive…a setting unit configured to perform setting processing” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit/s” coupled with functional language “receive and perform setting, respectively” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Rather, the terms "communication" in the limitation "communication unit” and “setting in “setting unit” merely reiterate a portion of the required function without reciting any structure capable of carrying it out.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, claim(s) 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claims 2-3,6-7,11-15 recite similar “communication unit” and/or “setting unit” as mention in claim 1 above, therefore have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as similar to claim 1.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 limitation: setting unit 12 and communication unit 31 [Specification Fig. 5].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 2-7, 10-15 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 2 recites, “…setting information for performing, in respective vehicles, operation setting whose content differs for at least one of each vehicle model and each vehicle year” this limitation is grammatically confusing and the examiner is unclear what applicant intent to claim. For the purpose of examination examiner assumes that the setting information for different type of vehicles.
Claim 3 recites, “…setting performed so that vehicle information…” this limitation is confusing, is it performed setting? the phrase "so that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4-7, 10-15 are depended on the rejected base claims 2-3, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 6-7, recite “…the setting processing…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 depended on claim 6, therefore rejected for the same rationale since it depended on the rejected base claim.
Claim 6 recites, “the communication unit acquires the vehicle information from a frame based on data position information included in the setting information and used to specify the vehicle information in the frame transmitted or received in the vehicle, and transmits the acquired vehicle information to the management device” the language bolded above is very confusing, examiner is unclear what applicant intent to claim. For the purpose of examination the above limitations interpret as “acquire vehicle information in frame and transmitting vehicle information to the management device”.
Claims 11,12 recites similar limitation as claim 6 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
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 (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 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)(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 1-3,8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (us 2019/0306799).
As regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a communication unit configured to receive, from a management device, setting information corresponding to a selected function and related to an in-vehicle component of the vehicle (see Nakagawa 0023-0024,0034-0035 information center (i.e. management server) transmit vehicle information which can be a command to control the vehicle by control devices on the vehicle to the communication unit of the vehicle, this is the same as the communication unit receives vehicle information from the management device); and a setting unit configured to perform setting processing regarding the in-vehicle component based on the setting information received by the communication unit (see Nakagawa 0035,0043,0068, the control device/s receive vehicle information such as command and perform various controls on the vehicle).
As regarding claim 2, Nakagawa discloses the communication unit receives the setting information for performing, in respective vehicles, operation setting whose content differs for at least one of each vehicle model and each vehicle year (see Nakagawa 0023, 0034-0035, vehicle information of plurality of plurality of vehicles manages by the server and send to the communication unit of the vehicle).
As regarding claim 3, Nakagawa discloses the setting unit uses the setting information in setting performed so that vehicle information regarding the vehicle is transmitted from the vehicle to the management device (see Nakagawa 0021-0022, on board device transmits vehicle state to information center).
As regarding claims 8,9, the limitations of claims 8-9 similar to limitations of rejected claim 1 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
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 4-5,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawa (us 2019/0306799) in view of Kawahara et al (us 2016/0272199) (hereinafter Kawahara).
As regarding claim 4, Nakagawa discloses invention as claim in claim 3 above but is silent in regard to the concept of information regarding traveling of the vehicle.
Kawahara teaches the concept of information regarding traveling of the vehicle (see Kawahara 0012, vehicle transmits position, traveling (Kawahara 0032) information to the server).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kawahara to Nakagawa because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa with Kawahara’s teaching for the purpose of allowing the server to efficiently controlling the vehicle (see Kawahara 0002-0003).
As regarding claim 5, Nakagawa discloses invention as claim in claim 3 above but is silent in regard to the concept of information indicating a measurement result obtained in the vehicle.
Kawahara teaches the concept of information indicating a measurement result obtained in the vehicle (see Kawahara 0012, 0030,0032, vehicle speed, amount of pedal depression, steering angle etc.,). The same motivation was utilized in claim 4 applied equally well to claim 5.
As regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 similar to limitations of rejected claim 5 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 6,11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawa (us 2019/0306799) in view of Kawahara (us 20160272199) and further in view of Maeda et al (us 2018/0152341) (hereinfate Maeda).
As regarding claim 6, Nakagawa discloses invention as claim in claim 3 above. but is silent in regard to the concept of the communication unit acquires the vehicle information based on data position information included in the setting information and used to specify the vehicle information transmitted or received in the vehicle, and transmits the acquired vehicle information to the management device.
Kawahara teaches the concept of the communication unit acquires the vehicle information based on data position information included in the setting information and used to specify the vehicle information transmitted or received in the vehicle, and transmits the acquired vehicle information to the management device (see Kawahara 0012, vehicle transmits position, traveling (Kawahara 0032) information to the server, it is obvious that it must acquire that information before transmitting to the server).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kawahara to Nakagawa because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa with Kawahara’s teaching for the purpose of allowing the server to efficiently controlling the vehicle (see Kawahara 0002-0003).
The combination of Nakagawa-Kawahara is silent in regard to the concept of acquire vehicle information in frame data.
Maeda teaches the concept of sending vehicle information in frame (see Maeda 0130-0135, acquire frame data with vehicle information and transmit to the server).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Maeda to Nakagawa-Kawahara because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa-Kawahara with Maeda’s teaching for the purpose of reducing wire complexity and providing low latency in the vehicle.
As regarding claims 11-12, the limitations of claims 11-12 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 6 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawa (us 2019/0306799) in view of Sukurai et al (us 11,579,865) (hereinafter Sukurai).
As regarding claim 7, Nakagawa discloses invention as claim in claim 3 above but is silent in regard to the concept of transmits the vehicle information to the management device at a transmission timing indicated by transmission timing information included in the setting information and indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device.
Sakurai teaches the concept of transmits the vehicle information to the management device at a transmission timing indicated by transmission timing information included in the setting information and indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device (see Sakurai col.33, lines 14-31, the vehicle system send vehicle information to the center apparatus, and the center apparatus storing the vehicle information together with its sending date and time associated with the vehicle, it is obvious that the transmission timing is the time of the vehicle sending data to the server which the server will store the sending date and time along with the vehicle information).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakurai to Nakagawa because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa with Sakurai’s teaching for the purpose of providing efficient managing of vehicle information.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawa-Kawahara as applied to claims 4,5 above and further in view of Sukurai et al (us 11,579,865) (hereinafter Sukurai).
As regarding claim 13, Nakagawa-Kawahara discloses invention as claim in claim 4 above but is silent in regard to the concept of transmits the vehicle information to the management device at a transmission timing indicated by transmission timing information included in the setting information and indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device.
Sakurai teaches the concept of transmits the vehicle information to the management device at a transmission timing indicated by transmission timing information included in the setting information and indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device (see Sakurai col.33, lines 14-31, the vehicle system send vehicle information to the center apparatus, and the center apparatus storing the vehicle information together with its sending date and time associated with the vehicle, it is obvious that the transmission timing is the time of the vehicle sending data to the server which the server will store the sending date and time along with the vehicle information).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakurai to Nakagawa-Kawahara because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa-Kawahara with Sakurai’s teaching for the purpose of providing efficient managing of vehicle information.
As regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 13 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawa-Kawahara-Maeda as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Sukurai et al (us 11,579,865) (hereinafter Sukurai).
As regarding claim 15, Nakagawa-Kawahara-Maeda discloses invention as claim in claim 6 above but is silent in regard to the concept of transmits the vehicle information to the management device at a transmission timing indicated by transmission timing information included in the setting information and indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device.
Sakurai teaches the concept of transmits the vehicle information to the management device at a transmission timing indicated by transmission timing information included in the setting information and indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device (see Sakurai col.33, lines 14-31, the vehicle system send vehicle information to the center apparatus, and the center apparatus storing the vehicle information together with its sending date and time associated with the vehicle, it is obvious that the transmission timing is the time of the vehicle sending data to the server which the server will store the sending date and time along with the vehicle information).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakurai to Nakagawa-Kawahara-Maeda because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa-Kawahara-Maeda with Sakurai’s teaching for the purpose of providing efficient managing of vehicle information.
As regarding claim 6, Nakagawa discloses invention as claim in claim 3 above. but is silent in regard to the concept of the communication unit acquires the vehicle information based on data position information included in the setting information and used to specify the vehicle information transmitted or received in the vehicle, and transmits the acquired vehicle information to the management device.
Kawahara teaches the concept of the communication unit acquires the vehicle information based on data position information included in the setting information and used to specify the vehicle information transmitted or received in the vehicle, and transmits the acquired vehicle information to the management device (see Kawahara 0012, vehicle transmits position, traveling (Kawahara 0032) information to the server, it is obvious that it must acquire that information before transmitting to the server).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kawahara to Nakagawa because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa with Kawahara’s teaching for the purpose of allowing the server to efficiently controlling the vehicle (see Kawahara 0002-0003).
The combination of Nakagawa-Kawahara is silent in regard to the concept of acquire vehicle information in frame data.
Maeda teaches the concept of sending vehicle information in frame (see Maeda 0130-0135, acquire frame data with vehicle information and transmit to the server).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Maeda to Nakagawa-Kawahara because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Nakagawa-Kawahara with Maeda’s teaching for the purpose of reducing wire complexity and providing low latency in the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459