CTNF 19/132,896 CTNF 100411 DETAILED ACTION This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-14 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on 5/27/2025 has been reviewed and considered. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 4, line 1, it is unclear how the example of a plurality of services executed in an onboard network are related to the prior art communication system discussed in paragraph 3 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: In claim 2, line 2, the semicolon should be replaced with a colon. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claim 1, line 3, “a detecting unit that detects a type of service”. In claim 2, line 3, “an acquiring unit that acquires service information”. In claim 3, line 6, “a monitoring unit that monitors the operation”. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-6 and 9-14 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. Regarding claim 1 , line 3, the limitation “a detecting unit” 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. Although paragraph 61 discloses the processing unit of the integrated ECU includes a detecting unit, and the processing unit may be implemented by means of processing circuitry, there does not appear to be explicit disclosure that the detecting unit is implemented as processing circuitry. Paragraph 159 further discloses the detecting unit may be included in an on-board apparatus other than the integrated ECU. 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. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the detecting unit is one or more instructions executed by a processor to detect a type of service. Regarding claim 2 , line 3, the limitation “an acquiring unit” 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. Although paragraph 61 discloses the processing unit of the integrated ECU includes an acquiring unit, and the processing unit may be implemented by means of processing circuitry, there does not appear to be explicit disclosure that the acquiring unit is implemented as processing circuitry. Paragraph 159 further discloses the acquiring unit may be included in an on-board apparatus other than the integrated ECU. 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. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the acquiring unit is one or more instructions executed by a processor to acquire service information. Regarding claim 3 , line 6, the limitation “a monitoring unit” 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. Although paragraph 61 discloses the processing unit of the integrated ECU includes a monitoring unit, and the processing unit may be implemented by means of processing circuitry, there does not appear to be explicit disclosure that the monitoring unit is implemented as processing circuitry. Paragraph 159 further discloses the monitoring unit may be included in an on-board apparatus other than the integrated ECU. 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. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the monitoring unit is one or more instructions executed by a processor to monitor the apparatuses. 07-34-23 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. Regarding claim 2 , line 2, the limitation “indicates, for the individual service” renders the claim indefinite because the individual service lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, therefore, the relationship between the individual service and the service whose type is detected, in claim 1, line 3, is unclear. It is further unclear if the scope of claim 1 includes a plurality of services. Figure 3 discloses management information for a plurality of services, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 2 is directed to acquiring service information of each individual service of a plurality of services whose types are detected by the detecting unit. Regarding claim 3 , line 8, the limitation “acquires the service information created based on a monitoring result” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the service information is created based on a monitoring result, or previously created service information is acquired based on a monitoring result. Claim 2 recites the service information indicates which of the apparatuses are to be in operation and which are to be stopped during executing of the service. Figures 3-8 similarly appear to disclose the service information is a listing of device operating states associated with each service. It is unclear how the monitoring result is used to create the service information, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to previously created service information that is acquired based on a monitoring result. Claims 2-6 and 9-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry. STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03 , or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04 STEP 2A (PRONG ONE) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1) STEP 2A (PRONG TWO) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05 Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim 1 is directed to an on-board control apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites: An on-board control apparatus for use in an on-board network including a plurality of on-board apparatuses, the on-board control apparatus comprising: a detecting unit that detects a type of service to be executed in the on-board network [mental process/step]; and a controlling unit that, in a state in which a plurality of service-associated apparatuses, which are predetermined ones of the on-board apparatuses that correspond to the type of service detected by the detecting unit, are in operation, selects a subset of the service-associated apparatuses [mental process/step] and performs stop control for stopping the operation of the selected service-associated apparatuses. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detects a type of service…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a type of service by reviewing service start information that indicates the type of service (see paras. 65-66). The limitation “…selects a subset of the service-associated apparatuses” in the context of this claim encompasses the person choosing one or more of the devices in the vehicle that are associated with the determined type of service. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) . It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”): An on-board control apparatus for use in an on-board network including a plurality of on-board apparatuses, the on-board control apparatus comprising [generic computer components]: a detecting unit that [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component] detects a type of service to be executed in the on-board network ; and a controlling unit that [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component], in a state in which a plurality of service-associated apparatuses, which are predetermined ones of the on-board apparatuses that correspond to the type of service detected by the detecting unit, are in operation, selects a subset of the service-associated apparatuses and performs stop control for stopping the operation of the selected service-associated apparatuses [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)]. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “performs stop control…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controlling unit) to perform the process. In particular, the stop control step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of transmitting information requesting to stop the transmission of detection data, see para. 102), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “detecting unit” and “controlling unit” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of parsing data and transmitting data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The on-board network, on-board apparatuses, and on-board control apparatus are generically recited computer components that generally link the use of the judicial exception to occur onboard a generic vehicle. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05 . Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a detecting unit and a controlling unit to perform the detecting and selecting amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “performs stop control…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Claim(s) 7 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a method (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above. Dependent claim(s) 2-6 and 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 and 9-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-14 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Horihata (US 2015/0025704) . Regarding claim 8 , Horihata discloses a communication system comprising: an on-board control apparatus (Horihata; fig. 8: GW device 3); and a management apparatus (Horihata; fig. 8: server 101), wherein the on-board control apparatus transmits, to the management apparatus, monitoring information indicating a monitoring result relating to operation of a plurality of service- associated apparatuses (Horihata; para. 96: control part 30 of the GW device 3 calculates power consumption in a vehicle based on power supply control information corresponding to the determined vehicle state (step S61). The control part 30 transmits the information of calculated power consumption with the stored user identification information from the out-of-vehicle communication part 37 to the server), which are predetermined ones of a plurality of on-board apparatuses included in an on-board network that correspond to a type of service executed in the on-board network (Horihata; para. 50: switches 41 to 45 are respectively connected to the ECU 23, the ECU 24, and the loads 63 to 65 that are the subjects for power supply control), and the management apparatus receives the monitoring information from the on-board control apparatus (Horihata; para. 97: server 101 or the cloud server 102 receives the transmitted information of power consumption and user identification information (step S63), and stores the received information in association with each other), and transmits, to the on-board control apparatus, service information (Horihata; para. 86: an initial power supply state table for each of different vehicle models, destinations or the like is stored in the server 101. The power supply state table 53 stored in the GW device 3 may be the one transmitted from the server 101 to the GW device 3, and received by the GW device 3 from the out-of-vehicle communication part 37 to be stored at the time of delivery) indicating one or more of the service-associated apparatuses to be in operation during execution of the service and one or more of the service-associated apparatuses operation of which is to be stopped during execution of the service (Horihata; para. 54: power supply state table 53 shows the correspondence between the information for specifying a vehicle state and the control information for providing an instruction to turn on/off of the object for power control corresponding to each state) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US 2023/0415684) . Regarding claims 1 and 7 , as best understood, Ikeda discloses an on-board control apparatus (Ikeda; fig. 1: power-supply management device 1) for use in an on-board network (Ikeda; para. 18: in FIG. 1, the simple overview of a communication system for communication between individual parts is illustrated by dotted lines. The communication system of the vehicle 100 may include various communication lines for, such as controller area network (CAN) with flexible data rate (CAN FD), for example. The same is applied to FIG. 4 described later) including a plurality of on-board apparatuses (Ikeda; fig. 4: service modules SM), the on-board control apparatus comprising: a detecting unit that detects a type of service to be executed in the on-board network (Ikeda; para. 38: service module identification unit 20B is a part having a function capable of executing a module type identification process of identifying a type of each of the service modules); and a controlling unit that, in a state in which a plurality of service-associated apparatuses, which are predetermined ones of the on-board apparatuses that correspond to the type of service detected by the detecting unit, are in operation (Ikeda; paras. 42-43: the power-supply management processing unit 20C can execute the power-supply management processing based on an operationally required electric power amount corresponding to the state of the vehicle 100 recognized by the vehicle state recognition unit 20A and the types of the service modules SM identified by the service module identification unit 20B. Here, the operationally required electric power amount is the amount of electric power required for the operations of the service modules SM, and corresponds to the power consumption consumed by the service modules SM during its operation.), selects a subset of the service-associated apparatuses (Ikeda; para. 47: the power-supply management processing unit 20C determines and ascertains, based on the management table 10A, the operationally required electric power amount corresponding to the state of the vehicle 100 recognized by the vehicle state recognition unit 20A and the types of the service modules SM identified by the service module identification unit) and performs stop control for stopping the operation of the selected service-associated apparatuses (Ikeda; para. 54: management table 10A in FIG. 5 also specifies the priority to power-supply interruption (OFF) by associating the importance level corresponding to the types of the service modules; para. 55: The power-supply management processing unit 20C then limits power supply to the service modules SM by interrupting electric power supplied to the service modules SM based on the determined priority to power-supply interruption). Regarding claim 2 , as best understood, Ikeda discloses an acquiring unit that acquires service information (Ikeda; para. 47: power-supply management processing unit 20C … executes the power-supply management processing based on the management table 10A stored in the memory unit 10 [i.e., the power-supply management processing unit includes code that retrieves the management table from memory]; para. 50: the importance level corresponding to the types of the service modules SM and the impact level due to power-supply interruption are predetermined for each type of the service modules SM and stored in the memory unit 10) that indicates, for the individual service, one or more of the service-associated apparatuses to be in operation during execution of the service and one or more of the service- associated apparatuses operation of which is to be stopped during execution of the service (Ikeda; para. 50: memory unit 10 of the present embodiment also uses the management table 10A illustrated in FIG. 5 to store the importance level of the service modules SM and the impact level due to power-supply interruption for each type of the service modules), wherein the controlling unit selects the service-associated apparatuses to be subjected to the stop control based on the service information acquired by the acquiring unit (Ikeda; para. 47: the power-supply management processing unit 20C determines and ascertains, based on the management table 10A, the operationally required electric power amount corresponding to the state of the vehicle 100 recognized by the vehicle state recognition unit 20A and the types of the service modules SM identified by the service module identification unit). Regarding claim 3 , as best understood, Ikeda discloses the controlling unit performs control for activating the plurality of service- associated apparatuses corresponding to the type of service once the type of service is detected by the detecting unit (Ikeda; fig. 6: S4 is performed after S1), the on-board control apparatus further comprises a monitoring unit that monitors the operation of the plurality of service-associated apparatuses (Ikeda; paras. 35-36: the vehicle state recognition unit 20A of the present embodiment can distinguish and recognize, as the state of the vehicle 100, at least a travel and movement state and a service provision state … the service provision state is a state in which a service is being provided by the service modules), and the acquiring unit acquires the service information created based on a monitoring result obtained by the monitoring unit (Ikeda; para. 59: the power-supply management processing unit 20C of the processing unit 20 determines and ascertains an operationally required electric power amount according to the current state of the vehicle 100 recognized by the vehicle state recognition unit 20A and the types of the service modules SM identified by the service module identification unit 20B (step S3). The power-supply management processing unit 20C determines and ascertains, based on the management table 10A stored in the memory unit the operationally required electric power amount corresponding to the types of the service modules SM identified at step S1 and the state of the vehicle 100 recognized at step S2). Regarding claims 5 and 11-12 , as best understood, Ikeda discloses the plurality of service-associated apparatuses include ones of the service- associated apparatuses provided in correspondence with installation positions of on-board devices in a vehicle in which the on-board network is installed (Ikeda; para. 24: Each of the module installation parts 120A is a part of the cargo 120 of the vehicle 100 where the service modules SM are interchangeably installed … a plurality of the module installation parts 120A (herein, three) are provided in the cargo 120, and the service modules SM individually installed in each of the module installation parts 120A are interchangeable. That is, in the cargo 120, the service modules SM installed in the module installation parts 120A can be recombined with various combinations.). Regarding claims 6 and 13-14 , as best understood, Ikeda discloses the plurality of service-associated apparatuses include ones of the service- associated apparatuses provided in correspondence with doors of a vehicle in which the on-board network is installed (Ikeda; para. 26: The power-supply management device 1 is a device that manages power supply from the power source 110A to the service modules SM. This power-supply management device 1 of the present embodiment can also manage power supply to the individual parts of the vehicle 100 other than the service modules SM.; para. 27: the cargo 120 of the present embodiment also includes … a door ECU 120J … door ECU 120J is a processing unit that executes processing related to the operation of an electric sliding door) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Yousefi et al. (US 2012/0110356), hereinafter Yousefi . Regarding claims 4 and 9-10 , as best understood, Ikeda discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above. Although Ikeda is primarily directed to an autonomous vehicle, Ikeda discloses the vehicle may be manually operated by a driver (Ikeda; para. 80), and would therefore include seats. However, Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the plurality of service- associated apparatuses include ones of the service- associated apparatuses provided in correspondence with seats in a vehicle in which the on-board network is installed. Yousefi, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle power distribution), discloses a plurality of service-associated apparatuses include service- associated apparatuses provided in correspondence with seats in a vehicle in which an on-board network is installed (Yousefi; para. 143: power manager 42 functions in concert with the network manager 40 to optimize power consumption of the unified network fabric 32 and/or the devices coupled thereto … Such power management includes … an on-off power mode; para. 157: The devices may include … a seat electronic control unit 168, a seat actuator 170, a seat sensor 172 … a rear seat entertainment interface and/or unit 224). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the power-supply management device of Ikeda to control devices installed in or on the vehicle’s seats, as disclosed by Yousefi, to yield the predictable result of managing the power consumed by the devices installed on a vehicle with seats. Supplemental References 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khan et al. (US 2023/0073015) disclose a remote network that transmits power saving information to a vehicle so the vehicle can maintain a connection to the network for a desired amount of time. Ito et al. (US 2022/0258713) disclose an integrated power manager that arbitrates the power demands of a plurality of subsystem power managers based on their priority and the amount of power available in the vehicle. Boss et al. (US 2010/0141431) disclose a vehicle power management system that detects information about devices the vehicle is providing power to and responsively performs actions such as turning off the power supplied to the device. Weed et al. (US 2023/0182660) disclose a vehicle controller configured to identify accessories that are powered by the vehicle and to terminate power to certain accessories based on the state of the vehicle and user priorities . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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. /JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 9 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 10 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 11 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 12 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 13 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 14 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 15 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 16 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 17 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 18 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 19 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 20 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 21 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 22 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/132,896 Page 23 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights