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
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on July 6, 2026. Claims 1-8 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, and 6 have been amended and claims 7 and 8 have been newly added.
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 7 and 8 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 7 recites that the information terminal “further comprises a first input unit and a first communication unit,” while claim 8 recites the control device “further comprises a second input unit and a second communication unit.” However, original claims 2 and 4, together with the corresponding disclosure in the specification, associate the first input/communication components with the control device and the second input/communication components with the information terminal. Thus, new claims 7 and 8 appear to reverse the first/second designation of the input and communication components between the control device and the information terminal.
Accordingly, when claims 7 and 8 are read in light of the specification, it is unclear whether the recitations of the “first” and “second” input units and communication units are intended to correspond to the first and second input/communication circuits disclosed for the control device and information terminal, respectively, or whether claims 7 and 8 intentionally redefine the first and second components in the opposite manner. Therefore, claims 7 and 8 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita (Japanese Publication No. JP2019097024A; machine translation provided by Applicant with the 10/28/2025 IDS) in view of Tanahashi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0224852; hereinafter “Tanahashi”), and further in view of Breed (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0090055).
As per claim 1, Narita teaches a control system (see, e.g., Figs. 1-12; para. [0019]-[0091]) comprising:
a control device (on-vehicle device 10) provided in a moving object (vehicle 1); and
an information terminal (smartphone 60) carriable by a user (user P1) of the moving object, wherein the control device includes:
a second movement controller (see e.g., para. [0029]: remote control unit 21) configured to second movement control for moving the moving object in a state where the user is not present in the moving object (see e.g., para. [0029]: “When the remote control unit 21 receives a remote operation signal from the smartphone 60 via the communication unit 45, the remote control unit 21 performs remote control of operating the vehicular mechanism unit 3 and the like via the vehicular ECU2 in accordance with an instruction content by the remote operation signal. By remote control, the remote control unit 21 executes, for example, remote automatic entry in which the vehicle 1 is caused to travel by the automated driving control and is stopped in a parking space, remote automated exit in which the vehicle 1 is caused to travel by the automated driving control and is caused to exit from the parking space…”),
in response to a request to execute the second movement control from the user (e.g., para. [0041]: when the remote control application 81 is activated on the smartphone 60), the information terminal executes second determination processing for determining execution authority of the user for the second movement control (see e.g., Fig. 8; para. [0041]: authenticate whether or not the operator of the smartphone 60 is the user P1 of the vehicle 1), and causes the control device to execute the second movement control based on a result of the second determination processing (see e.g., Fig. 8; para. [0042]-[0044] & [0061]-[0066]: when the operator of the smartphone 60 is authenticated as the user P1 of the vehicle 1, the remote operation unit 71 transmits an instruction signal for remote operation to the vehicle 1, for example, to execute automated parking or exit processing).
Narita does not explicitly teach “a first movement controller configured to execute first movement control for moving the moving object in a state where the user is present in the moving object” and “in response to a request to execute the first movement control from the user, the first movement controller executes first determination processing for determining execution authority of the user for the first movement control, and executes the first movement control based on a result of the first determination processing”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tanahashi (see e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 6; para. [0059]-[0061], [0067]-[0079] & [0092]) teaches:
a first movement controller configured to execute first movement control (automatic traveling) for moving the moving object in a state where the user is present in the moving object; and in response to a request to execute the first movement control from the user, the first movement controller executes first determination processing for determining execution authority of the user for the first movement control (see e.g., Fig. 3: S20; para. [0059]-[0061], [0069]-[0070]: identifying whether or not the driver is an authorized user who can use the automatic driving function), and
executes the first movement control based on a result of the first determination processing (when the driver is an authorized user: see e.g., para. [0073] & [0097]-[0100]; when S20 in Fig. 3 is YES, when S102 in Fig. 6 is YES, and S104 in Fig. 6).
Narita and Tanahashi have a common function of determining whether or not to execute automatic driving according to the determination result of the user. In addition, Narita suggests that user authentication can also be performed by the in-vehicle device 10 (see, in particular, para. [0042], [0055], and Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narita to incorporate the teachings of Tanahashi to provide a first movement controller configured to execute first movement control for moving the vehicle in a state where the user is present in the vehicle, so that when the user is in the vehicle, the in-vehicle device receives a request for execution of automatic dispatch processing or the like, determines the execution authority of the user, and executes the automatic dispatch processing or the like based on the determination.
Narita teaches an embodiment that permits the information terminal to download biometric information from a server (para. [0085] & [0090]), however, Narita in view Tanahashi, does not disclose that the information terminal performs the second determination processing for determining execution authority of the user for the second movement control, without communication with the control device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Breed teaches: in response to a request to execute the second movement control from the user, the information terminal executes, without communicating with the control device, second determination processing for determining execution authority of the user for the second movement control, and causes the control device to execute the second movement control based on a result of the second determination processing (see e.g., para. [0128]: “the determination of whether the received biometric data corresponds to biometric data of an authorized user of the vehicle 20 entails storing biometric data about at least one authorized user of the vehicle at at least one site remote from the smartphone 10, e.g., at the server 16, and transmitting the received biometric data to the at least one remote site using, at least partly, wireless communication equipment. The received biometric data is analyzed relative to the stored biometric data by a processor 38 at the remote site to determine a degree of correspondence, which analysis may be any known and available biometric data verification technique or method. Only when the degree of correspondence is above a threshold as determined the processor 38, the received biometric data is considered to correspond to biometric data of an authorized user of the vehicle 20, and thus entry into and use of the vehicle is authorized.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Narita’s server-based biometric information in the remote authorization architecture taught by Breed, thereby having the information terminal/smartphone interact with the remote server for determining whether the user is authorized to perform the vehicle operation.
Method claim 6 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 6 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed teaches: wherein the control device includes a first input circuit in which an execution instruction of the first movement control is receivable, the control device enables the first input circuit to receive the execution instruction of the first movement control, when the execution authority of the user for the first movement control is determined to be valid by the first determination processing, the information terminal includes a second input circuit in which an execution instruction of the second movement control is receivable, and the control device enables the second input circuit to receive the execution instruction of the second movement control, when the execution authority of the user for the second movement control is determined to be valid by the second determination processing (see Narita, e.g., Fig. 3; para. [0035] & [0042]: The information terminal is provided with a second input unit (touch panel 90) capable of receiving an execution instruction of the second movement control (operation of an entry instruction key 110 and an exit instruction key 111), and when it is determined by the second determination process that the execution authority of the user related to the second movement control is valid, the information terminal is controlled to a state in which the execution instruction of the second movement control is received by the second input unit; In addition, Tanahashi (e.g., Fig. 4; para. [0049]-[0052] & [0077]) also describes: a first input unit (HCU81) capable of receiving an execution instruction of the first movement control is provided. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narita to incorporate the teachings of Tanahashi to make a configuration in which when the user is in the vehicle, the execution instruction of the first movement control is input to the in-vehicle device 10 of Narita).
As per claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed teaches: wherein when the execution authority of the user for the first movement control is not determined to be valid by the first determination processing, the control device does not enable the first input circuit to receive the execution instruction of the first movement control, and when the execution authority of the user for the second movement control is not determined to be valid by the second determination processing, the information terminal does not enable the second input circuit to receive the execution instruction of the second movement control (see Narita, e.g., Fig. 8; para. [0031] & [0065]-[0066]: when it is determined that the operator of the smartphone 60 is not the user P1 of the vehicle 1, a screen indicating that authentication is disabled is displayed on the touch panel 90, a guidance voice indicating that authentication is disabled is output from the speaker 94, and the remote control of the vehicle 1 by the smartphone 60 is prohibited; In addition, it could have been easily conceived by a person skilled in the art to have modified Narita to incorporate the teachings of Tanahashi to make a configuration in which the control device does not enable execution instruction of the first movement control, when the user is in the vehicle).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed teaches: wherein the control device includes a first communication circuit communicable with a first server, and executes the first determination processing by querying the first server via the first communication circuit, and the information terminal includes a second communication circuit communicable with a second server that is same as or different from the first server, and executes the second determination processing by querying the second server via the second communication circuit (see Narita, e.g., para. [0085] & [0090]: teaches a mode in which user authentication is performed by communication between the in-vehicle device 10 or the smartphone 60 and the server; In addition, a person skilled in the art could have appropriately selected whether the servers are the same or different depending on the device to be communicated; and Breed, e.g., para. [0128]: teaches remote/server-based biometric authorization in a smartphone-based vehicle control system).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed teaches: wherein the information terminal further comprises a first input unit and a first communication unit configured to communicate with an external server, and the information terminal performs the second determination processing for determining the execution authority of the user by sending an inquiry for the second movement control to the external server using the first communication unit without communicating with the control device, when receiving an execution request to perform the second movement control from the user not being present in the moving object (see Narita, e.g., Fig. 3; para. [0035] & [0042]: The information terminal is provided with a second input unit (touch panel 90) capable of receiving an execution instruction of the second movement control (operation of an entry instruction key 110 and an exit instruction key 111), and when it is determined by the second determination process that the execution authority of the user related to the second movement control is valid, the information terminal is controlled to a state in which the execution instruction of the second movement control is received by the second input unit; para. [0085] & [0090]: teaches an embodiment that permits the information terminal to download biometric information from a server; also see Breed, e.g., para. [0128]: “the determination of whether the received biometric data corresponds to biometric data of an authorized user of the vehicle 20 entails storing biometric data about at least one authorized user of the vehicle at at least one site remote from the smartphone 10, e.g., at the server 16, and transmitting the received biometric data to the at least one remote site using, at least partly, wireless communication equipment. The received biometric data is analyzed relative to the stored biometric data by a processor 38 at the remote site to determine a degree of correspondence, which analysis may be any known and available biometric data verification technique or method. Only when the degree of correspondence is above a threshold as determined the processor 38, the received biometric data is considered to correspond to biometric data of an authorized user of the vehicle 20, and thus entry into and use of the vehicle is authorized.”).
As per claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated and Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed teaches: wherein the control device further comprises a second input unit and a second communication unit configured to communicate with the external server, and the control device performs the first determination processing for determining the execution authority of the user by sending an inquiry for the first movement control to the external server using the first communication unit without communicating with the information terminal, when receiving an execution request to perform the first movement control from the user being present in the moving object (see Narita, e.g., Fig. 3; para. [0035] & [0042]: The information terminal is provided with a second input unit (touch panel 90) capable of receiving an execution instruction of the second movement control (operation of an entry instruction key 110 and an exit instruction key 111), and when it is determined by the second determination process that the execution authority of the user related to the second movement control is valid, the information terminal is controlled to a state in which the execution instruction of the second movement control is received by the second input unit; In addition, Tanahashi (e.g., Fig. 4; para. [0049]-[0052] & [0077]) also describes: a first input unit (HCU81) capable of receiving an execution instruction of the first movement control is provided. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narita to incorporate the teachings of Tanahashi to make a configuration in which when the user is in the vehicle, the execution instruction of the first movement control is input to the in-vehicle device 10 of Narita).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed, and further in view of Kimura et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2010049568A; machine translation provided by Applicant with the 4/1/2026 IDS; hereinafter “Kimura”).
As per claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated and Narita teaches: wherein the information terminal includes a storage that stores a result of the second determination processing (see e.g., para. [0034] & [0090]: describes that in a smartphone 60, a remote control application 81 may be downloaded, loaded on a memory 80 such as a RAM, and executed by a CPU70).
Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed does not explicitly teach: wherein the information terminal includes a storage that stores a result of the second determination processing in a past time, and the information terminal causes the control device to execute the second movement control based on the result of the second determination processing stored in the storage when communication with the second server is not available.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches: wherein the information terminal includes a storage that stores a result of the second determination processing in a past time, and the information terminal causes the control device to execute the second movement control based on the result of the second determination processing stored in the storage when communication with the second server is not available (see e.g., Figs. 2, 12, 13; para. [0014], [0035]-[0036], [0056]-[0057], [0061], [0067] & [0071]-[0092]: describes that the results of past authentications are stored in a storage unit, and when communication with an external server cannot be performed, authentication is performed based on the results of authentications stored in the storage unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed to incorporate the teachings of Kimura to provide a storage that stores a result of the second determination processing in a past time, so that that the remote control application 81 of Narita stores the authentication result of the past user and executes the authentication process using the authentication result when the communication with the server cannot be performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 6, 2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment. Narita in view of Tanahashi and Breed is demonstrated to meet the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Porteret et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0299932) discloses a method for the remote control of a locking equipment for a vehicle via a mobile terminal comprising the comparison between a candidate biometric datum and at least one reference biometric datum.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights