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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (US 2012/0185876).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a vehicle control device mounted on a vehicle and configured to control the vehicle, the vehicle control device 10 comprising
a cooperation control section 182 configured to implement cooperation between
an application 16 configured to provide a service to the vehicle and a functional block 184 configured to perform predetermined processing in the vehicle,
wherein
the functional block includes an output section configured to convert a first
command represented in a form independent of the vehicle and transmitted from the
application into a second command in a form dependent on the vehicle and output
the second command to an operation control section for controlling an object to be
controlled (paragraph 57),
the cooperation control section is configured to transfer the first command
transmitted from the application to the functional block (p. 57), and
the vehicle control device further comprises:
an acceptance determination section 19 configured to determine whether the first command meets an intention of a user (p. 80-p.82); and
an output control section configured not to cause the output section to output the second command in a case where the acceptance determination section determines that the first command does not meet the intention of the user (p. 84-p. 86).
Regarding claim 2, Abe discloses wherein the acceptance determination section determines whether the first command meets the intention of the user on a basis of at least one of vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a vehicle environment (p. 80-p.82).
Regarding claim 9, Abe discloses wherein the acceptance determination section further includes a determination target determination section that determines whether the first command transmitted from the application is a determination target of the acceptance determination section (p. 84-p. 86), and in a case where the determination target determination section determines that the first command is the determination target, the acceptance determination section determines whether the first command meets an intention of a user (p. 84-p. 86).
Regarding claim 10, Abe discloses a vehicle control system comprising:
a plurality of electronic control devices (161-164) that control an object to be controlled that is vehicle equipment; and
a vehicle control device 10 communicably connected to the plurality of
electronic control devices (figures 1-2),
wherein
the vehicle control device includes a cooperation control section 182 configured to implement cooperation between an application 16 configured to provide a service to the vehicle and a functional block 184 configured to perform predetermined processing in a vehicle,
the functional block includes an output section configured to convert a first command represented in a form independent of the vehicle and transmitted from the application into a second command in a form dependent on the vehicle and output the second command to the electronic control device for controlling the object to be controlled (p. 57),
the cooperation control section is configured to transfer the first command transmitted from the application to the functional block (p. 57), and
the vehicle control device further includes an acceptance determination section 19 configured to determine whether the first command meets an intention of a user (p. 80-p.82), and
an output control section configured not to cause the output section to output the second command in a case where the acceptance determination section determines that the first command does not meet the intention of the user (p. 84-p. 86), and
at least one of the plurality of electronic control devices includes a target
control section that accepts the second command and controls the object to be
controlled (p. 55, p. 68).
Regarding claim 11, Abe discloses an acceptance determination method performed by a vehicle control device 10 mounted on a vehicle 1 and configured to control the vehicle, the acceptance determination method comprising:
when a first command from an application is input, outputting a second command based on the first command to an operation control section for controlling
an object to be controlled (p. 57);
determining whether the first command meets an intention of a user (p. 80-p. 82); and
not outputting the second command in a case where it is determined that
the first command does not meet the intention of the user (p. 84-p. 86).
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer mounted on a vehicle 1 (figures 1-2) to implement:
a function of, when a first command from an application is input, outputting
a second command based on the first command to an operation control section for
controlling an object to be controlled (p. 57);
a function of determining whether the first command meets an intention of a
user (p. 80-p. 82); and
a function of not outputting the second command in a case where it is
determined that the first command does not meet the intention of the user (p. 84-p. 86).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Oba (US 2022/0212685).
Regarding claim 8, Abe discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a safety determination section that determines whether vehicle safety is maintained when the first command is accepted and the acceptance determination section determining whether the first command meets an intention of a user in a case where the safety determination section determines that the vehicle safety is maintained when the first command is
accepted. Oba teaches the use of a safety determination section that determines whether vehicle safety is maintained when a first command is accepted (p. 128, p. 132) and an acceptance determination section determining whether the first command meets an intention of a user in a case where the safety determination section determines that the vehicle safety is maintained when the first command is accepted (p. 138, p. 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a safety determination section that determines whether vehicle safety is maintained when the first command is accepted and the acceptance determination section determining whether the first command meets an intention of a user in a case where the safety determination section determines that the vehicle safety is maintained when the first command is
accepted to the vehicle control device of Abe as taught by Oba for the purpose of effectively monitoring vehicle safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
Kim, Honda, Jeong, and Hanawa disclose information processing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights