DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 1/31/2025.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority. All of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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 references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 1/31/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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, sixth paragraph:
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “storage unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language “to store terminal device information” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “in-vehicle device management unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language “to transmit a terminal device use request” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “drive recorder execution unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language “to execute a drive recorder function” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-5 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the at least one corresponding structure described in the specification for each of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“storage unit” : Storage Unit 11
“in-vehicle device management unit” : In-Vehicle Device Manager 12
“drive recorder execution unit” : App 13
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 , sixth paragraph, 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, sixth paragraph, 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, sixth paragraph.
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 Mapping Notation
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
[0005] (Paragraph number [0005])
C5 (Column 5)
Pa5 (Page 5)
S5 (Section 5)
Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 20120028680 A1) in view of Chiu (US 20110173338 A1).
Regarding the claim 1, Breed discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Breed discloses,
1. An in-vehicle apparatus to be mounted on a vehicle, the in-vehicle apparatus comprising:
“[0443]…PDA or similar portable device 100 could be mounted through a snap-in attachment system 102, for example, wherein the portable device 100 is firmly attached to the vehicle 104. The vehicle monitoring device 106 can at that point, for example, obtain an ID number from the container through a variety of methods such as a RFID, SAW or hardwired based system.”
a storage unit configured to store terminal device information for use of a terminal device that is a device of a terminal that establishes communicative connection to the in-vehicle apparatus; and
“[0458] In these embodiments, when a smartphone is brought into a vehicle, it will be connected to a vehicle bus via a coupling element (similar to snap-in attachment system 102 in FIG. 25), and the vehicle bus contains data from a variety of vehicle resident sensors and other peripherals including various actuators, antennas and displays. Preferably, the power and data connections will be accomplished wirelessly. For example, power can be transferred to the smartphone inductively and data by the Bluetooth or equivalent protocol.”
…
… terminal, data is acquired by the terminal device and is input from the terminal device to the in-vehicle apparatus.
“[0020] Method for enabling interaction with a vehicle including coupling a smartphone to the vehicle via a coupling element whereby the smartphone is removable from the coupling element and thus removable from the vehicle, and transferring data between the smartphone and the vehicle while the smartphone is coupled to the vehicle via the coupling element. The data transfer enables a large number of operations to be performed when the smartphone is coupled to the vehicle, including vehicle ignition authorization, accident prediction, collision avoidance, vehicular diagnostics and prognostics, remote communication capabilities, and optimization of emergency response personnel.”
Breed does not specifically disclose,
an…device management unit configured to transmit a…device use request that is a request to use the…device to the…based on the…device information stored in the storage unit,
wherein when the…device use request is transmitted from the…device management unit to the…
Chiu discloses,
an…device management unit configured to transmit a…device use request that is a request to use the…device to the…based on the…device information stored in the storage unit,
“[0025] The control unit 213 generates connection requests according to request messages issued by the user computer 20, and generates disconnection requests according to that the detection unit 212 has detected that the request messages stored in the queue area 24 are clear.”
“[0022] A comparison unit 211 acquires device information of the remote USB device 22 via the USB server 23, and compares the acquired device information with driver information of the USB device driver program 25 of the user computer 20, to find out the remote USB device 22 that may be used by the user computer 20.”
wherein when the…device use request is transmitted from the…device management unit to the…
“[0010]…3) the USB device executing corresponding services according to the request messages issued by the user computer; and (4) after detecting that the USB device has finished the corresponding services according to the request messages issued by the user computer, enabling the USB server to disconnect the user computer from the USB device.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Chiu and apply them on the teachings of Breed to incorporate the connection request and use request based on the device information when using the smart phone as a terminal for the vehicle system to utilize the assets of the smart phone in Breed.
One would have been motivated as implementing such connection and exchange of data is well known in the art and would have been expected to be implanted in order to have an efficient communication between the smart phone and the vehicle system.
Unless stated otherwise, the same explanation for the rationale for the following dependent claims applies as given for the independent claim.
2. The in-vehicle apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminal device information includes at least one of a type and/or a name of the terminal device, the number of the terminal devices, and a usage status of the terminal device.
Breed “[0443]…PDA or similar portable device 100 could be mounted through a snap-in attachment system 102, for example, wherein the portable device 100 is firmly attached to the vehicle 104. The vehicle monitoring device 106 can at that point, for example, obtain an ID number from the container through a variety of methods such as a RFID, SAW or hardwired based system.”
Chiu “[0022]…In practice, the USB server 23 captures various device information, such as vendor ID, product ID and serial number, of the remote USB device. Since the USB server 23 is connected to the USB device 22 via a USB interface, the aforesaid device information may be captured according to a USB specification standard, and then compared with the device driver information in the user computer 20.”
Usage status is implicitly disclosed in Chiu.
3. The in-vehicle apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminal device information transmitted from the terminal is stored in the storage unit in at least either of a case where the in-vehicle apparatus and the terminal establish the communicative connection to each other and a case where the terminal that establishes the communicative connection to the in-vehicle apparatus is powered ON.
Breed “[0443]…PDA or similar portable device 100 could be mounted through a snap-in attachment system 102, for example, wherein the portable device 100 is firmly attached to the vehicle 104. The vehicle monitoring device 106 can at that point, for example, obtain an ID number from the container through a variety of methods such as a RFID, SAW or hardwired based system.”
Breed “[0458] In these embodiments, when a smartphone is brought into a vehicle, it will be connected to a vehicle bus via a coupling element (similar to snap-in attachment system 102 in FIG. 25), and the vehicle bus contains data from a variety of vehicle resident sensors and other peripherals including various actuators, antennas and displays. Preferably, the power and data connections will be accomplished wirelessly. For example, power can be transferred to the smartphone inductively and data by the Bluetooth or equivalent protocol.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed-Chiu in view of Fornshell et al (US11233836B2).
Regarding the claim 4, Breed-Chiu discloses the invention substantially as claimed as mentioned above for the claim 1.
Breed-Chiu does not disclose,
4. The in-vehicle apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminal device information stored in the storage unit is deleted in at least either of a case where the communicative connection between the in-vehicle apparatus and the terminal that establish the communicative connection to each other is terminated and a case where the terminal that establishes the communicative connection to the in-vehicle apparatus is powered OFF.
Fornshell discloses,
4. The in-vehicle apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the terminal device information stored in the storage unit is deleted in at least either of a case where the communicative connection between the in-vehicle apparatus and the terminal that establish the communicative connection to each other is terminated and a case where the terminal that establishes the communicative connection to the in-vehicle apparatus is powered OFF.
S2-3 “The pairing of the user's device to the other user's wireless audio output device may be referred to as ‘temporary’ because after the other user's wireless audio output device disconnects from the user's electronic device, the user's electronic device automatically, and without user input, deletes the pairing information (e.g., link key) corresponding to the other user's wireless audio output device, such as after the expiration of a timeout period. In this manner, the other user's wireless audio output device cannot subsequently reconnect to the user's electronic device without again pairing. In one or more implementations, the other user's wireless audio output device also may automatically, and without user input, delete the pairing information corresponding to the user's electronic device after disconnecting, such as after the expiration of the timeout period.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Fornshell and apply them on the teachings of Breed-Chiu to incorporate the deletion of the terminal device information when the connection of the devices in Breed-Chiu is disconnected as taught by Forsnell.
One would have been motivated for the benefit of improving security of the devices as taught by Forsnell..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the claim 5, applicants uniquely claimed distinct features, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in an obvious combination of all the limitation of the claim, the distinct features being… a drive recorder execution unit configured to execute a drive recorder function of the vehicle,
wherein the terminal device information includes information for use of a camera of the terminal, when a request to use the device is given from the drive recorder execution unit to the in-vehicle device management unit, a camera use request that is the terminal device use request to use the camera of the terminal is transmitted from the in-vehicle device management unit to the terminal based on the terminal device information, and
when the camera use request is transmitted from the in-vehicle device management unit to the terminal, the camera is activated to acquire video data and the video data is input from the terminal to the drive recorder execution unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Addepalli et al. (US 9083581 B1) and Shi (US 20240157958 A1) disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N. NOH whose telephone number is (571) 270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. 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.
/JAE N NOH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481