DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on April 6, 2026. Claims 1, 3 and 4 have been amended, claim 2 has been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3 and 4 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited WO 2013/124990 A1 to Nakagawa, via corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0330453 A1 (herein after "Nakagawa publication"), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0192867 A1 to Fang et al. (herein after “Fang et al. publication") and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343154 A1 to Clasen et al. (herein after “Clasen et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 1,
the Nakagawa publication discloses a vehicle control system (see FIG. 1) that provides a remote operation service for remotely operating a device (130, 180) mounted on a vehicle (100) by using a terminal (300) located outside the vehicle (100)(see ¶60, where “the mobile terminal 300 owned by the user [is], for example, a smartphone or a cellar phone”; see also ¶64, where “the air-conditioning device 180 and the battery charging device 130, which are in-vehicle devices, can be remotely controlled via the server 210”), wherein:
the terminal (300) includes a display control unit (304) (see ¶60, where “[t]he mobile terminal 300 includes . . . a touch-panel type liquid crystal display 304 serving as both a display and an operation device”; see also ¶69, where “the mobile terminal 300 performs display indicating that the pre-air-conditioning has been started on a display screen of the touch-panel type liquid crystal display 304”, which is similar to the informative function of displaying on a display screen to indicate why the remote operation service is unavailable).
The Nakagawa publication, however, fails to specifically disclose
the vehicle (100) including a service control unit configured to stop the remote operation service in response to an amount of power consumption of an in-vehicle battery exceeding a threshold when the vehicle is unable to generate electric power, and
the terminal (300) including a display control unit (304) configured to, in response to the remote operation service of the in-vehicle device having stopped in response to the amount of power consumption of the in-vehicle battery exceeding the threshold, display on a display screen a reason why the remote operation service is unavailable, wherein: the display control unit is configured to display high power consumption of the vehicle on the display screen as the reason why the remote operation service is unavailable.
Employing a service control unit configured to stop a remote operation service in response to an amount of power consumption exceeding/falling below a threshold value is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Fang et al. publication who discloses “the remote control manager[/service control unit that] shuts down the vehicle and disables remote control support in response to[/when] the battery charge falling to the first threshold value or another charge value (e.g., lower than the first threshold value). In certain embodiments, the user is prompted and/or can request that the vehicle be started to recharge the battery, for example in response to the message sent when the battery charge condition falls below the first threshold value.” (See ¶333.)
Such disclosure suggests the vehicle including a service control unit configured to stop the remote operation service in response to an amount of power consumption of an in-vehicle battery exceeding a threshold when the vehicle is unable to generate electric power.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Nakagawa publication so that the vehicle including a service control unit configured to stop the remote operation service in response to an amount of power consumption of an in-vehicle battery exceeding a threshold when the vehicle is unable to generate electric power, as suggested by the Fang et al. publication, in order to preserve the charge state of the in-vehicle battery.
The modified Nakagawa publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the terminal (300) including a display control unit (304) configured to, in response to the remote operation service of the in-vehicle device having stopped in response to the amount of power consumption of the in-vehicle battery exceeding the threshold, display on a display screen a reason why the remote operation service is unavailable, wherein: the display control unit is configured to display high power consumption of the vehicle on the display screen as the reason why the remote operation service is unavailable.
Displaying information once certain conditions are met is old and well-known and within the skill of the art, as demonstrated by Clasen et al. publication who discloses that “the ignition controller 248 . . . may display the message according to a set of rules (e.g., a schedule, program, algorithm) that dictate a conditional display (e.g., duration, timing, etc.) of the message. For example, a rule may include displaying the message for a period of time following a change to the applied user profile (e.g., when a different user profile is selected). In some embodiments, a rule may include displaying the message until a passcode, key, signal, etc., is received by the ignition controller 248, which may indicate that a corresponding compliance task has been completed.” (See ¶92.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the display control unit (304) being configured to, in response to the remote operation service of the in-vehicle device having stopped in response to the amount of power consumption of the in-vehicle battery exceeding the threshold, display on a display screen a reason why the remote operation service is unavailable, wherein: the display control unit is configured to display high power consumption of the vehicle on the display screen as the reason why the remote operation service is unavailable.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Nakagawa publication so that the display control unit is configured to, in response to the remote operation service of the in-vehicle device having stopped in response to the amount of power consumption of the in-vehicle battery exceeding the threshold, display on a display screen a reason why the remote operation service is unavailable, wherein: the display control unit is configured to display high power consumption of the vehicle on the display screen as the reason why the remote operation service is unavailable, as suggested by the Clasen et al. publication, in order to preserve the charge state of the in-vehicle battery.
As to claim 3,
the Nakagawa publication, as further modified by the Fang et al. publication, is considered to disclose the display control unit being configured to display the high power consumption of the vehicle by an illustration on the display screen.
As to claim 4,
the modified Nakagawa publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the display control unit being configured to display a visual representation of the remote operation service on the display screen in a display form different from other vehicle services that are not stopped.
In ¶69, the Nakagawa publication discloses that “the mobile terminal 300 performs display indicating that the pre-air-conditioning has been started on a display screen of the touch-panel type liquid crystal display 304”, which is similar to the informative function of displaying the remote operation service on a display screen. Displaying the remote operation service in a different form from other vehicle services that are not stopped is considered to be within the skill of the art, and not a patentable distinction absent a disclosure of criticality.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Nakagawa publication so that the display control unit is configured to display the remote operation service on the display screen in a display form different from other vehicle services that are not stopped, as suggested by the Nakagawa publication, in order to clearly communication which vehicle service has stopped.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights