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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination and Amendment filed May 20, 2026.
3. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
4. Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been examined and are pending with this action.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, filed May 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 5-6, previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US 2014/0229462 A1) in view of Cotton et al. (US 2018/0108058 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2001/0002450 A1). Mizutani has been cited to better teach the amended limitation of acquiring first data by communicating with the vehicle. Please see rejections below.
For these reasons above, and the rejections set forth below, claims 1 and 5-6 have been rejected and pending.
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.
6. Claims 5 and 6 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.
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation "the vehicle" in the first element of the claims, emphasis added. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
7. Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US 2014/0229462 A1) in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2001/0002450 A1)
As per claim 1, Lo teaches an information processing device comprising a processor configured to:
acquire first data (see Lo, Abstract: “A system and method that includes providing a query platform with a normalized query tool and a collection interface presenting result items of a collection; adding result items produced by the query tool to a collection, wherein adding a result item to the collection comprising: receiving a query input in a query syntax normalized across multiple query services, retrieving result data of the first query input through a service provider application programming interface (API),… and adding the result item to the collection; and adding at least a second result item to the collection, wherein the second result card is retrieved from a second external service provider API according to the context parameter.”; [0027]: “A card stream interface 110 functions as a collection of digital query result items (e.g., "cards"). The card stream interface 110 is a user interface for interaction with the query platform system.”; and [0051]: “The query platform can use machine learning and other data analysis techniques to predict similar services and queries. Customized services can preferably be fully integrated into the query platform. By enabling outside entities to create and integrate new services, the query platform can grow to supply an ever-increasing range of data formats. Services may additionally be monetized by accounting, metering, charging, measuring, or monitoring usage of a particular service.”);
generate second data by converting the first data such that the second data is on a format supported by a first terminal associated with a first user (see Lo, FIGURE 9, S300; and [0029]: “Normalized query inputs are generalized to common format that can be converted to a native query input supplied to an associated service API module.”; and [0053]: “Additionally, between any two cards there can exist an associative trail of metadata, where context of one card is used to augment or modify another card.”);
determine whether the request is sent from the first terminal or the second terminal (see Lo, [0068]: “a collection and more specifically at least one result card may be rendered differently depending on who is accessing the collection. The augmentation of the collection is preferably automatic based on settings of the user, usage patterns of the user, or detected properties of the user.”),
transmit the second data to the first terminal in a case where the processor determined that the request is sent from the first terminal (see Lo, [0027]: “The card stream interface 110 is preferably presented in a website but may alternatively or additionally be implemented as a mobile application, a desktop application or any suitable application rendering a user interface… The cards are preferably rendered in the stream as a vertically scrollable list of cards. A user can review the previous queries and results (explicitly saved or from query history) by scrolling through the cards and optionally expanding upon queries through interacting with previous cards.”; and [0034]: “In one variation, a card is rendered in a consistent manner across queries to a particular service or more preferably to queries to similar services… ”); and
generate third data by deleting the information from the second data in a case where the processor determines that the request is sent from the second terminal (see Lo, [0068]: “In a variation of a preferred embodiment, modifying a collection can include presenting and augmenting the collection according to a second user S330, as shown in FIG. 18… a collection and more specifically at least one result card may be rendered differently depending on who is accessing the collection. The augmentation of the collection is preferably automatic based on settings of the user, usage patterns of the user, or detected properties of the user… In this way sensitive data may be removed and non-sensitive data of the result card still presented. Enforcing the permissions may be used such that result cards may be used for retrieving personal or sensitive information that would not be appropriate for displaying to other viewers of a collection.”), and
transmit the third data to the second terminal in response to generating the third data (see Lo, [0068]: “… and non-sensitive data of the result card still presented”).
Lo does not explicitly teach that the first data is acquired by communicating with the vehicle.
Mizutani teach that the first data is acquired by communicating with the vehicle (see Mizutani, [0002]: “This invention relates to a vehicle trouble diagnosis method, a vehicle trouble diagnosis apparatus and a computer-readable record medium recording a trouble diagnosis program for diagnosing the trouble state of a vehicle while communicating with an electronic control unit of the vehicle.”; and [0012]: “An automatic vehicle data acquisition section automatically acquires vehicle data from an electronic control unit of the vehicle via a vehicle connection interface in response to the instruction of the diagnostic routine instruction section and displays the acquired vehicle data on the display section.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lo in view of Mizutani so that the first data is acquired by communicating with the vehicle. One would be motivated to do so because it is well-known, widely-implemented, routine, and conventional to acquire data from any networking devices so long as the devices can be physically or wirelessly connected.
As per claim 5, Lo and Mizutani teach an information processing method comprising:
acquiring first data by communicating with the vehicle (see Claim 1 rejection above);
generating second data by converting the first data such that the second data is on a format supported by a first terminal associated with first user (see Claim 1 rejection above);
determining whether the request is sent from the first terminal or the second terminal (see Claim 1 rejection above);
transmitting the second data to the first terminal in a case where the request is determined to be sent from the first terminal (see Claim 1 rejection above);
generating third data by deleting the information from the second data in a case where the processor determines that the request is sent from the second terminal (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
transmitting the third data to the second terminal in response to generating the third data (see Claim 1 rejection above).
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Lo and Mizutani further teach wherein the first data is not in a format supported by either the first terminal or the second terminal (see Lo, [0029]: “Normalized query inputs are generalized to common format that can be converted to a native query input supplied to an associated service API module.”).
Conclusion
8. For the reasons above, claims 1 and 5-6 have been rejected and remain pending.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y WON whose telephone number is (571)272-3993. The examiner can normally be reached on Wk.1: M-F: 8-5 PST & Wk.2: M-Th: 8-7 PST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/Michael Won/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights