DETAILED ACTION
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 Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on November 6, 2024 amending claims 4-8 and 10 and adding new claims 11-15. Accordingly, the pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 1-15. The amendments to the specification, drawings, and abstract are also accepted and entered. No new matter is added.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is respectfully required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites in part “where power is supplied to the ECU” but this “the ECU” lacks antecedent basis. For context, claim 1 recites in its entirety, with the examiner’s notes in bold brackets:
A relay control device installed in a vehicle, wherein
the relay control device [item 10 in Fig. 1] comprises a control unit configured to switch each of a plurality of relay circuits [items 30 in Fig. 1] respectively connected to a plurality of ECUs [items 20 in Fig. 1], between a relay-on state where power is supplied to the ECU and a relay-off state where no power is supplied to the ECU,
the plurality of ECUs include
a first ECU having a transition function of causing its own operating state to transition between at least two of a normal state, a sleep state, and a power-off state in accordance with a power supply state of the vehicle, and
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if there was no antecedent basis issue here. The other independent claims have the same issue, rejected for the same reason, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Claim 8 is rejected for being indefinite about whether the claim is independent or dependent. The claim recites:
A control system comprising:
the relay control device according to claim 2 [[or 3]];
a plurality of the ECUs including the first ECU; and
a plurality of the relay circuits including the first relay circuit.
The fee worksheet received June 24, 2025 lists three independent claims, apparently referring to claims 1, 9, and 10. But claim 8 is ambiguous regarding whether it is independent or dependent. By reciting at the beginning of the claim: “A control system comprising:”, the claim implies it is independent. But by then adding “the relay control device according to claim2” the claim implies it is dependent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make the claim unclear regarding its dependency.
If the applicant wishes to make claim 8 a clearly independent claim, the examiner recommends cutting and pasting claim 2 into claim 8 in a way to reference those items without reciting them by claim number. The fee worksheet should also be redone if more than three independent claims are recited.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as:
A control system comprising:
[start claim 1] A relay control device installed in a vehicle, wherein
the relay control device comprises a control unit configured to switch each of a plurality of relay circuits respectively connected to a plurality of ECUs, between a relay-on state where power is supplied to the ECU and a relay-off state where no power is supplied to the ECU,
the plurality of ECUs include
a first ECU having a transition function of causing its own operating state to transition between at least two of a normal state, a sleep state, and a power-off state in accordance with a power supply state of the vehicle, and
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state[[.]] ;
[start claim 2] wherein
if the first relay circuit is in the relay-on state, the first ECU transmits predetermined information indicating that the first ECU has the transition function, to the relay control device, and
the control unit executes the switching control based on the predetermined information[[.]] ;
wherein
[start original text of current claim]
a plurality of the ECUs including the first ECU; and
a plurality of the relay circuits including the first relay circuit.
Considering claim 8 in this way, it does not appear to particular point out the invention to recite in the last two clauses shown directly below after already having recited the contents of claims 1 and 2:
a plurality of the ECUs including the first ECU; and
a plurality of the relay circuits including the first relay circuit.
For examination purposes, the examiner believes that the rejections of claims 1 and suffice to indicate to the applicant how the examiner interprets those claims. Therefore, the examiner will only write that 35 USC 112(b) rejection for this claim.
Claim 15 is rejected for being indefinite about whether the claim is independent or dependent. The claim recites:
A control system comprising:
the relay control device according to claim 3;
a plurality of the ECUs including the first ECU; and
a plurality of the relay circuits including the first relay circuit.
The fee worksheet received June 24, 2025 lists three independent claims, apparently referring to claims 1, 9, and 10. But claim 15 is ambiguous regarding whether it is independent or dependent. By reciting at the beginning of the claim: “A control system comprising:”, the claim implies it is independent. But by then adding “the relay control device according to claim 3” the claim implies it is dependent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make the claim unclear regarding its dependency.
If the applicant wishes to make claim 15 a clearly independent claim, the examiner recommends cutting and pasting claim 3 and claims on which it is dependent into claim 15 in a way to reference those items without reciting them by claim number. The fee worksheet should also be redone if more than three independent claims are recited.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as:
A control system comprising:
[start claim 1] A relay control device installed in a vehicle, wherein
the relay control device comprises a control unit configured to switch each of a plurality of relay circuits respectively connected to a plurality of ECUs, between a relay-on state where power is supplied to the ECU and a relay-off state where no power is supplied to the ECU,
the plurality of ECUs include
a first ECU having a transition function of causing its own operating state to transition between at least two of a normal state, a sleep state, and a power-off state in accordance with a power supply state of the vehicle, and
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state[[.]] ;
[start claim 2] wherein
if the first relay circuit is in the relay-on state, the first ECU transmits predetermined information indicating that the first ECU has the transition function, to the relay control device, and
the control unit executes the switching control based on the predetermined information[[.]] ;
[start claim 3] wherein
the control unit:
maintains the first relay circuit in the relay-on state if the relay control device receives a communication message for detecting communication with the first ECU, at an interval within a predetermined time after the switching control is executed; and
switches the first relay circuit to the relay-off state if the relay control device does not revive the communication message for more than the predetermined time after the switching control is executed[[.]] ;
wherein
[start original text of current claim] a plurality of the ECUs including the first ECU; and
a plurality of the relay circuits including the first relay circuit.
Considering claim 15 in this way, it does not appear to particular point out the invention to recite in the last two clauses shown directly below after already having recited the contents of claims 1-3:
a plurality of the ECUs including the first ECU; and
a plurality of the relay circuits including the first relay circuit.
For examination purposes, the examiner believes that the rejections of claims 1-3 suffice to indicate to the applicant how the examiner interprets those claims. Therefore, the examiner will only write that 35 USC 112(b) rejection for this claim.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
One close prior art is Nakagawa (JP2016060433A), cited on the applicant’s IDS but with an English translation provided by the examiner in this detailed action.
Nakagawa discloses:
A relay control device installed in a vehicle (in the present filed disclosure, the relay control device is item 10 in Fig. 1. With that in mind, see Nakagawa Fig. 1 and page 3 of the attached English translation for “smart power supply box”, which is item 10 of Fig. 1), wherein
the relay control device comprises a control unit configured to switch each of a plurality of relay circuits respectively connected to a plurality of ECUs, between a relay-on state where power is supplied to the ECU and a relay-off state where no power is supplied to the ECU (in the present filed disclosure, the relay control device is item 30 in Fig. 1 and the plurality of ECUs are items 20 in Fig. 1. With that in mind, see Nakagawa Fig. 1 and page 3 for “microcomputer 11” that “executes control for realizing functions required for the smart power supply box 10”. See also Fig. 1 and page 3 for “electronic control units [ECUs] 21 to 24”. See page 4 for the system having a “power-on” signal to the ECS 21 to 24, which is called “normal mode”. Then there is a “sleep state” in which the ECUs “consumes very little power.” ),
the plurality of ECUs include
a first ECU having a transition function of causing its own operating state to transition between at least two of a normal state, a sleep state, and a power-off state in accordance with a power supply state of the vehicle (see page 5 for the ECUs changing states based on the “on / off of ignition generated on the vehicle side”. See page 4 for a discussion of S16 for when the system “turns off all the switching elements of the four channels for a predetermined time or more, and cuts off the power supply to all the electronic control units 21 to 24.”), and
Yet Nakagawa does not teach:
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state.
Another close prior art is Kawakami (US 11,084,438) who teaches at least switching relays to provide different conductive paths depending on the states of the power supply units. Yet Kawakami does not teach in light of the whole invention, as present claim 1 does, at least:
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Tokunaga et al. (US2015/0112510) who teaches at least a system in which ECUs are transitioned or not into a sleep mode. Yet Tokunaga does not teach in light of the whole invention, as present claim 1 does, at least:
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Teranishi (US2025/0023384) who teaches at least a controller that changes relays when a start switch is changed from off to on. Yet Teranishi does not teach in light of the whole invention, as present claim 1 does, at least:
a second ECU not having the transition function, and
the control unit executes switching control of switching a second relay circuit connected to the second ECU among the plurality of relay circuits to the relay-off state while maintaining a first relay circuit connected to the first ECU among the plurality of relay circuits in the relay-on state, when switching the second ECU from the relay-on state to the relay-off state due to a change in the power supply state if each of the plurality of relay circuits is in the relay-on state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights