CTNF 19/112,285 CTNF 89486 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claims 1-8 are rejected in the Instant Application. Priority Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of PCT/IB2023/058031 and JP2022-152932 filed 8/9/2023 and 9/26/2022, respectively. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/17/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains “a function management system (1)” and “an electrical controlling unit (40).” Claim 7 contains (a straddle type vehicle (10).” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim (s) 1-7 is/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. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “process the message [using a] processing section” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not contain an algorithm for performing the functionality. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. The above cited rejections are merely exemplary. The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors. Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaki (US Pub. 2017/0278320) in view of Kondo (US Pub. 2005/0122208) . With respect to Claim 1, Isozaki teaches a function management system (1), comprising: one or more computers configured to generate a message for enabling or disabling a function of an electrical controlling unit (40) forming an in-vehicle network mounted to a vehicle (A message for enabling or disabling a function will be taught later. Figs. 1-2, paras. 36-38, 48-53; In-vehicle gateway device has processors that communicate with ECUs in the vehicle via buses, which is messaging via an in-vehicle network of a vehicle.) process the message by using identification information assigned to each function of the electrical controlling unit; (para. 134-135; system stores firmware information of each ECU. Paras. 145-147; system determines new firmware for an ECU is available and routes it to the appropriate ECU.) But Isozaki does not explicitly teach a message for enabling or disabling a function. Kondo, however, does teach a message for enabling or disabling a function of an electrical controlling unit (Examiner asserts Isozaki may teach on its own, see para. 126; updating firmware to add functions, improve performance or remediate flaws. Adding a function is enabling a function. Improving or remediating a function is disabling of a function in its current form. Regardless, see Kondo, paras. 20-33; user calls in a car theft. A base station sends a command to the car engine ECU to disable the engine start function. The command also sets an ID associated with a key that re-enables the engine start function.) according to a user's input; (paras. 20-33; User inputs key with ID that causes re-enablement of engine.) and change a function status enabling or disabling execution of the function according to the message processed by the processing section, (para. 27; disabling and re-enabling of engine start. See also Isozaki, paras. 126-17, 134-135; updating of ECU.) wherein the one or more computers are configured to: read the function status after receiving the message; compare a request by the message with the function status and determines whether to change the function status; and generate a command to be transmitted according to the determination. (First see Isozaki, paras. 156-158; in-vehicle gateway performs verification of update package prior to transmitting to ECU for firmware change, which is determination and command. Then see Kondo, paras. 27-29; after receiving the disable message, the vehicle determines if the engine has come to a stop and disables the engine. Paras. 30-32; vehicle compares key ID to ID from message to determine if engine should be re-enabled. Both are comparisons to determine whether to change function status.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Isozaki with the enabling or disabling functions in order to improve security by remotely disabling the engine. (Kondo, para. 3) With respect to Claim 2, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Isozaki also teaches further comprising an MAC decrypter that decrypts the message to which a message authentication code has been applied by using an MAC key. (paras. 86-88, 152-158; encryption using MAC and decryption of data.) With respect to Claim 3, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Isozaki also teaches further comprising an encrypter that encrypts the command by using a common key. (para. 85; encryption with common-key AES) With respect to Claim 4, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Kondo also teaches wherein the one or more computers change the function status of the electrical controlling unit after checking that the vehicle has been stopped or parked. (para. 29; disabling of engine after car stops) The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here. With respect to Claim 7, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Isozaki also teaches wherein the vehicle is a straddle-type vehicle (10). (para. 36; motorcycle.) With respect to Claim 8, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying . 07-21 AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isozaki (US Pub. 2017/0278320) in view of Kondo (US Pub. 2005/0122208) , and further in view of Tateishi (US Pub. 2020/0183674) . With respect to Claim 5, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and the function status in each of the electrical controlling units is changed. Tateishi, however, does teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and the function status in each of the electrical controlling units is changed. (paras. 48-51; multiple ECUs to be updated and each ECU is commanded, such as a command to stop communicating with other ECUs.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Isozaki with the changing of multiple function statuses in order to perform updates on multiple ECUs at once. With respect to Claim 6, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and an individual command for each of the electrical controlling units is generated. Tateishi, however, does teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and an individual command for each of the electrical controlling units is generated. (paras. 48-51; multiple ECUs to be updated and each ECU is commanded, such as a command to stop communicating with other ECUs. Para. 55; update may be performed in sequence or in parallel, which is an individual command for each unit.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Isozaki with the individual commands in order to selectively update ECUs to make sure each one correctly updates. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5. 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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. /NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449 Application/Control Number: 19/112,285 Page 2 Art Unit: 2449 Application/Control Number: 19/112,285 Page 3 Art Unit: 2449 Application/Control Number: 19/112,285 Page 4 Art Unit: 2449 Application/Control Number: 19/112,285 Page 6 Art Unit: 2449
Prosecution Insights