DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are currently 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 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. In particular, claim 1 recites “an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle”, however it is unclear. For prosecution purposes the examiner will interpreted that any device that is capable of being mounted to a vehicle will address the limitation. Claims 2-10 have th same issue due to dependency
In particular, claim 11 recites “control method for controlling a vehicle including a wireless communication module for performing wireless communication and an audio output device configured to output audio”. However, it is unclear because the method relates to supplying power, not performing a specific vehicle control function. It appears that the applicant meant to claim a method for controlling power supply functions of a vehicle, for prosecution purposes the examiner will interpret the claim in this manner. Claims 12-19 have the same issues due to dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12165517 in view of Singh et al. (“Singh”, US 9741224 B1). In particular, the patent inventive concept of base claims 1, 10 and 18 involves an in-vehicle device, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a method of use for providing power supply to an in-vehicle device when a trigger of a passenger getting on the vehicle is detected until when a first operation of powering on a power supply of the vehicle is performed. The distinguishing difference between the patent and the instant application’s base claims 1, 11 and 20, respectively is that the patent does not claim a wireless communication module for performing wireless communication that is to be powered, as claimed. However, in the art of providing power to in-vehicle device, Singh discloses, in Col. 6, lines 28-42 with reference to Fig. 3, the concept of providing power to an in-vehicle device with a wireless communication module.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing power to an in-vehicle device with a wireless communication module, with the motivation to enhance the features of the in-vehicle device.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (“Yamada”, US 2022/0266799 A1, IDS) in view of Singh and Nishidai et al. (“Nishidai”, US 20170253216 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 11, Yamada discloses an in-vehicle device to be mounted on a vehicle (Yamada: ¶0024 with reference Fig. 1: central control device 3) including a wireless communication module for performing wireless communication (with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Singh, in the double patent rejection of claims 1, and 11 above see the analysis of the double patent rejection) and an audio output device (Yamada: Figs. 1 and 3-4: D23 audio device) configured to output audio (Yamada: ¶27). As per the limitation wherein the in-vehicle device is configured to supply power to the wireless communication module and to the audio output device during a first period from when a trigger of a passenger getting on the vehicle is detected until when a first operation of powering on a power supply of the vehicle is performed. Nishida discloses, in ¶¶57-61 with reference to Figs. 4F & 6, the concept of detecting a passenger getting on a vehicle (S101, corresponding to a trigger that an passenger is getting on the vehicle, see S105)), and then supplying power to multiple in-vehicle device until the passenger has been detected starting the vehicle (corresponding to until when a first operation of powering on a power supply of the vehicle is performed).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate , the concept of detecting a passenger getting on a vehicle and then supplying power to in-vehicle device until the passenger has been detected starting the vehicle, with the motivation to enhance to the power management features if the system. 2) Regarding claims 2 and 12, wherein the first period is started at a timing at which a door of the vehicle is unlocked (Yamada: ¶11; also see Nishida: Fig. 4F). 3) Regarding claim 20, with motivation to combine the teaching by Singh and Nishida in the rejection of claims 1 and 11, Yamada, Singh and Nishidai teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Yamada: ¶40) recorded with a program for causing a computer to execute a control method for controlling a vehicle including a wireless communication module for performing wireless communication and an audio output device configured to output audio (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 11), wherein the control method comprises supplying power to the wireless communication module and to the audio output device during a first period from when a trigger of a passenger getting on the vehicle is detected until when first operation of powering on a power supply of the vehicle is performed (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 11).
Claim(s) 3 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Singh and Nishidai, and in further view of Nordgaard (NO 316197 B1). 1) Regarding claims 3 and 13, wherein in a case where time-out occurs without the first operation being performed after the trigger is detected, a power supply of the audio output device is shut down. Nordgaard discloses, in page 5: ¶2, the concept of detected a time period after a driver door is opened and determining that the driver has not powered on the vehicle via the ignition switched and subsequently powering off supplied power. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of detected a time period after a driver door is opened and determining that the driver has not powered the vehicle via the ignition switched and subsequently powering off supplied power, with the motivation to enhance to enhance the power supply features of the system.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 14-5 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Singh and Nishidai, and in further view of Sano et al. (“Sano”, US 2004/0225417 A1, IDS) and Kenji Takeda et al. (“Kenji”, JP 4509215 B2). 1) Regarding claims 4 and 14, wherein the vehicle further includes an image output device (Yamada: ¶¶26-27 with regard to the navigation device) configured to output an image (Yamada: ¶27). As per the limitation wherein the in-vehicle device is further configured to supply power to the audio output device and to the image output device during a second period from when second operation of shutting down the power supply of the vehicle is performed until when the passenger getting off the vehicle is detected. In the art of control power supply, Sano discloses, in ¶¶33-34 with reference to Figs. 1-3, the concept of controlling a first ECU of plurality of ECU by providing power to accessories when the ignition switch is positioned at ACC switch position, which indicates that the vehicle has not yet be powered on by the ignition switch driver interaction which can be interpreted as a time period prior to an operation of powering a power supply). Notice, as illustrated in Figs. 2-3, that once ignition which is switched to the IG2 on position, the first ECU supplying power to the ACC stops powering the accessories and a second ECU starts supplying power (a first operation of powering on a power supply of the vehicle). Kenji discloses, on page 4: ¶3, the concept of turning off power to a navigation device when a door is detected as being opened (corresponding to a time when a passenger is getting off the vehicle). Notice that Kenji discloses, on page 9: ¶4, that the navigation device uses an audio amplifier, hence an image output device and audio output device would be powered off. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of controlling a first ECU of plurality of ECU by providing power to accessories when the ignition switch is positioned at ACC switch position controlling the amount of time the audio devices are powered by the ECU 23 and sharing the power supply operation amount a plurality of ECU and the concept of turning off power to a navigation device when a door is detected as being opened, with the motivation to enhance the power supply features of the system. 2) Regarding claims 5 and 15, wherein the vehicle further includes an image output device (Yamada: ¶¶26-27 with regard to the navigation device) configured to output an image (Yamada: ¶¶26-27 with regard to the navigation device). As per the limitation wherein the in-vehicle device is further configured to supply power to the wireless communication module, the audio output device, and the image output device. Yamada and Nishida each discloses, powering a plurality of in-vehicle devices, see Yamada, Fig. 3 and Nishida, Fig. 4F.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to power the wireless communication module, the audio output device, and the image output device, with the motivation to enhance the power management features of the system. As per the limitation during a second period from when second operation of shutting down the power supply of the vehicle is performed until when the passenger getting off the vehicle is detected. In the art of control power supply via the use of multiple ECUs, Sano discloses, in ¶¶33-34 with reference to Figs. 1-3, the concept of controlling a first ECU of plurality of ECU by providing power to accessories when the ignition switch is positioned at ACC switch position, which indicates that the vehicle has not yet be powered on by the ignition switch driver interaction which can be interpreted as a time period prior to an operation of powering a power supply). Notice, as illustrated in Figs. 2-3, that once ignition which is switched to the IG2 on position, the first ECU supplying power to the ACC stops powering the accessories and a second ECU starts supplying power (a first operation of powering on a power supply of the vehicle). Kenji discloses, on page 4: ¶3, the concept of turning off power to a navigation device when a door is detected as being opened (corresponding to a time when a passenger is getting off the vehicle). Notice that Kenji discloses, on page 9: ¶4, that the navigation device uses an audio amplifier, hence an image output device and audio output device would be powered off. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of controlling a first ECU of plurality of ECU by providing power to accessories when the ignition switch is positioned at ACC switch position controlling the amount of time the audio devices are powered by the ECU 23 and sharing the power supply operation amount a plurality of ECU and the concept of turning off power to a navigation device when a door is detected as being opened, with the motivation to enhance the power supply features of the system. 3) Regarding claims 6, wherein the second period is finished at a timing at which a door of the vehicle is open (Kenji discloses, on page 4: ¶3) or at a timing at which operation of locking a door of the vehicle is performed. 5) Regarding claims 8 and 17, wherein power is not supplied to the image output device during the first period (Yamada discloses, in claim 1, the concept of powering only one electronic device, hence the to the image output device (navigation device) may not be powered on).
Claim(s) 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Singh, Nishidai, Sano and Kenji, and in further view of Kinoshita (CN 103322179 A). 1) Regarding claims 7 and 16, wherein in a case where time-out occurs without getting-off of the passenger being detected after the second operation is performed, power supplies of the audio output device and the image output device are shut down. Kinoshita discloses, in claim 10, the concept of powering off power once an ignition switch operation (corresponding to an ignition power off condition) has been detected and a subsequent amount of time has elapsed. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of powering off power once an ignition switch operation has been detected and a subsequent amount of time has elapsed, with the motivation to enhance the power supply features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220371527 A1; US 20140045531 A1, system with in-vehicle devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685