CTNF 19/232,616 CTNF 95260 DETAILED ACTION 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 and 04/01/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner. 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. 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: A cellular communication device in claims 1 and 9 A Short-range wireless communication device in claims 1 and 9 A positioning device in claims 1 and 9 An external storage medium connection unit in claim 4 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. After further review of the specifications, it appears that the positioning device is a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) as shown in Para. 0022 of the specifications filed 06/09/2025, which appears to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Additionally, it appears that the external storage medium connection unit is an SD card slot (see Para. 0022), which appears to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. However, the specifications appear to be silent with regards to the cellular communication device and the short-range wireless communication device, and fails to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, these limitations are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as shown below. 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 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “cellular communication device” and the “short-range wireless communication device” of claims 1 and 9, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonable convey to one skilled in the art that one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph for being dependent on a rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above. 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 1-9 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 claims 1 and 9, the limitations recite “a vehicle connector connectable to a transmission cable ”, “a camera connector connectable to a transmission cable ”, “an antenna connector connectable to a transmission cable ”, and “an expansion connector connectable to a transmission cable ”. It is unclear to the examiner if these are different transmission cables or if they are the same transmission cable. To fix the issue, the claims can be amended such that they are a first, second, third, and fourth transmission cables or by being clear that they are different or the same transmission cable. As currently presented, the claim fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. The examiner will interpret these limitations as different transmission cables. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claims 1 and 9, the limitations recite “a processing request for an application from the management server and executing an application corresponding to the processing request”. It is not clear to the examiner if the application that is executed is the same application as the application for the processing request. The examiner recommends changing the limitation to “executing the application ”. As currently presented, the claim fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. The examiner will interpret this limitation as the same application that is used for the processing request as the application that is executed. Appropriate correction is required. 07-34-23 With respect to claims 1 and 9, the claim limitations “cellular communication device” and the “short-range wireless communication device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is not clear to the examiner if said claim limitations are geared towards hardware structures of the device/server or if they are geared towards software codes or blocks. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitations are vague and ill-defined which renders the claims indefinite. Furthermore, 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. 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. Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph for being dependent on a rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above. 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante US20090157255A1 in view of Park et al. US20160249277A1 (henceforth Park ), Koepf et al. US20080147245A1 (henceforth Koepf ) and Fujikawa et al. US20090299572A1 (henceforth Fujikawa ) . Regarding claim 1, Plante discloses: A vehicle information processing system that is connected to an in- vehicle network and capable of communicating with a management server that manages vehicle data via a communication network, having a function of transmitting the vehicle data to the management server. (See at least Fig. 5 and Para. 0080, which provides a vehicle information processing system that is connect to the in-vehicle network (i.e. the on-board data bus). Further see Para. 0055, “ A vehicle event recorder system constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention relates to at least one fleet of vehicles and includes a recorder unit that may be connected to a download space, a wireless radio having a broadband network connection, and a server computer system arranged to provide application specific functionality.” The in-vehicle network is connected to a management server.) the vehicle information processing system comprising: an electronic control unit; (See at least Para. 0081.) an exterior camera capturing exterior of the vehicle, (See at least Para. 0087, “An electronic video camera may be arranged such that it has a field-of-view which includes an environment about a vehicle. For example, the forward space ahead of a car is an area generally of great importance in consideration of accidents which occur from time-to-time “ and Para. 0088, “mounting cameras on the exterior the vehicle, for example, at a rooftop or coupled with a bumper.” An exterior camera captures the exterior of the vehicle (i.e. the vehicle’s environment.)) and an interior camera capturing interior of the vehicle, (See at least Para. 0078, “ In some versions a second camera has a field-of-view includes the space which contains the vehicle operator” and Para. 0097, “a vehicle event recorder system may additionally deploy a second camera as a vehicle driver compartment video camera”. An interior camera captures the interior of the vehicle.) as resources providing a service, (See at least Para. 0055 and 0078.) wherein the electronic control unit includes: a cellular communication device performing cellular communication with the management server; (See at least Para. 0105, “wireless mobile phone networks may also be used for the communication link“ and Para. 0147, wherein it communicates with the management server.) a short-range wireless communication device performing short-range wireless communication with a portable information terminal; (See at least Para. 0048, “Bluetooth link” and Para. 0092, “WIFI transceivers”.) a positioning device performing positioning of a vehicle position; (See at least Fig. 5, “GPS 511” and Para. 0100, “ At all times, a GPS receiving system can provide a position signal to the microprocessor for recording. Position determination results can be recorded by these versions of vehicle event recorders to associate measured location with accident video.” A GPS is used to perform positioning of a vehicle position.) an impact detection sensor detecting impact applied to the vehicle; (See at least Para. 0147, “an `impact detector` might trigger a transmission of a limited amount of video data, for example three seconds of video prior to the impact and up to three seconds after the impact.” Additionally, see Para. 0089.) an antenna for cellular communication, (Para. 0105, “wireless mobile phone networks”.), an antenna for short-range wireless communication, (See at least Fig. 5 and radio 58. Further see Para. 0049 and 0058, “WIFI type radio transceiver”.), and an antenna for positioning (Para. 0095 and Para. 0100, “GPS receiving system 510”.) a vehicle connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting a power signal, and a vehicle signal; (See at least Para. 0078, “Electrical couplings such as power supply and data connections with the vehicles electronic systems may be made through standard connectors and interfaces”, Para. 0080, “Such OBD systems are coupled to sensors at vehicle subsystems 49”, and Para. 0094, “the vehicle on- board data bus system or OBD is also coupled to the vehicle event recorder microprocessor. An on-board data bus is an electronic system coupled to a plurality of transducers and sensors throughout the vehicle, each of which collects data related to vehicle characteristics and performance”. A vehicle connector connectable to a transmission cable transmits a power signal, and a vehicle signal.) a camera connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting power to the exterior camera and the interior camera and transmitting a video signal including an image captured by the exterior camera and the interior camera; (See at least Para. 0078 and 0088, wherein power is supplied to the cameras, and the cameras can transmit an image captured to the microprocessor.) and the resources cooperate to execute the application corresponding to the service. (See at least Para. 0082, “`event handling`, wherein an event trigger causes execution of a computer routine and an image or image series collected by a camera is transferred from a temporary short-term buffer memory to a durable and lasting memory, where it may be stored for a considerable period of time.” Further see Para. 0055. The resources in Fig. 5 (see Para. 0095) cooperate to execute the application corresponding to the service. Plante does not specifically state a function of receiving a processing request for an application from the management server and executing an application corresponding to the processing request, and the resources cooperate to execute the application corresponding to the service. However, Park teaches: a function of receiving a processing request for an application from the management server and executing an application corresponding to the processing request, and the resources cooperate to execute the application corresponding to the service. (See at least Para. 0041 and 43-44, wherein a processing request from the server is received such that an application is executed. Additionally, see Para. 0046-0048, wherein a different processing request from the server is received such that an application is executed. The resources that cooperate to execute the application includes GPS (Para. 0043) and resources that comprises the telematics terminal (Para. 0044).) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Park to include “a function of receiving a processing request for an application from the management server and executing an application corresponding to the processing request, and the resources cooperate to execute the application corresponding to the service” since “when an additional service is needed, user convenience may be enhanced by providing the service without changing software of a component mounted in a vehicle. When software of a component mounted in a vehicle is not changed, device efficiency is enhanced, and cost reduction is expected . In addition, it is possible to construct a flexible network system for vehicle data analysis and enhance dynamic extension of a vehicle network”, which would create a more robust system by allowing additional services to be requested and executed without changing vehicle software. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Park . The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Plante does not specifically state an antenna array, a vehicle connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting vehicle battery power, and an antenna connector connectable to a transmission cable of an external antenna; However, Koepf teaches: an antenna array (See at least Para. 0043, which includes an antenna array that comprise a communications antenna and a GPS antenna, both included in a mechanical housing.) a vehicle connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting vehicle battery power. (See at least Para. 0053, “VIM platform 10 comprises a VIM hardware board 35 disposed within a mechanical enclosure having connectors to the vehicle network(s), the vehicle battery and ground” and Para. 0055, “snap-on 16 pin connector” and “a pin for battery voltage”, wherein a vehicle connector is connectable to a transmission cable transmitting vehicle battery power. Additionally, see Para. 0056, “ the VIM platform 10 may be configured to use the vehicle battery as the power source, for example using the OBD-II connector”.) an antenna connector connectable to a transmission cable of an external antenna; (See at least Para. 0057, “The platform 10 may further comprise a robust snap-on coaxial connector for an active external GPS antenna, as well as a robust snap-on coaxial connector for an external cellular antenna. The coaxial antenna connectors are grounded to the circuit ground inside the VIM platform 10”. The antenna connector is connectable to a transmission cable of an external antenna.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Koepf to include “an antenna array, a vehicle connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting vehicle battery power, and an antenna connector connectable to a transmission cable of an external antenna” for “provisioning a vehicle interface module, at the manufacturer level, at the dealership level, and at the telematics services provider level” (Para. 0001, Koepf ). Furthermore, it would create a more robust vehicle system by incorporating these structures into the vehicle and would be beneficial for providing telematics services. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Koepf . The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Plante does not specifically state an expansion connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting a data signal between an expansion device contributing to functional expansion. However, Fujikawa teaches: an expansion connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting a data signal between an expansion device contributing to functional expansion. (See at least Para. 0011, “an in-vehicle apparatus which includes a first module having a first connector for connection for adding a first function; a second module having a second connector for connection for adding a second function, a first slot for connecting the first module”. An expansion connect is connectable to a transmission cable transmitting a data signal (see Fig. 1) between an expansion device contributing to functional expansion.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Fujikawa to include “an expansion connector connectable to a transmission cable transmitting a data signal between an expansion device contributing to functional expansion” since “it becomes possible to provide a variety of capabilities to the in-vehicle apparatus by combining the functions added by the plurality of-modules” (Para. 0012, Fujikawa ) and “it also becomes possible to sufficiently expand new capabilities to accommodate new technology by the functions added by the plurality of module” (Para. 0013, Fujikawa ). This would create a more robust system for providing a variety of capabilities to the in-vehicle apparatus and to accommodate new technologies by the functions added via the expansion device. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Fujikawa . The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Regarding claim 2, Plante does not specifically state further comprising the expansion device as the resources. However, Fujikawa teaches: t he expansion device as the resources. (See at least Para. 0015, “ since a plurality of modules can be used, it becomes possible to add a combination of functions that suits the user's preferences or needs, which serves to enhance the customizability” and Para. 0104, “The process flow shown in FIG. 5 is executed primarily by the control unit 101 operating the various modules and/or elements of the in-vehicle system 1 in a cooperative manner in accordance with a program prestored in the ROM 103”.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Fujikawa to include “the expansion device as the resources” since “it becomes possible to provide a variety of capabilities to the in-vehicle apparatus by combining the functions added by the plurality of-modules” (Para. 0012, Fujikawa ) and “it also becomes possible to sufficiently expand new capabilities to accommodate new technology by the functions added by the plurality of module” (Para. 0013, Fujikawa ). This would create a more robust system for providing a variety of capabilities to the in-vehicle apparatus and to accommodate new technologies by the functions added via the expansion device. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Fujikawa . The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Hsu et al. US20130107070A1 (henceforth Hsu ) . Regarding claim 3, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state wherein the application is capable of providing the service while parked, as the resource and the vehicle information processing system further comprises an auxiliary battery supplying power to the electronic control unit while parked. However, Hsu teaches: wherein the application is capable of providing the service while parked, as the resource and the vehicle information processing system further comprises an auxiliary battery supplying power to the electronic control unit while parked. (See at least Para. 0018, “ In the parking mode, all devices in the EDR 200 are first de-activated and the power supply module 160 may be provided by the built-in or installed batteries of the EDR 200, or by an automotive battery. Next, the timing circuit 23 of the image-recording module 250 is configured to periodically activate the image-capturing circuit 20 for detecting environmental changes around the car, based on which the processing circuit 24 is configured to determine whether a specific event has occurred. Upon detecting the specific event, the processing circuit 24 may send the wakeup signal MD for activating the control module 240, which may in turn activate other devices in the EDR 200 for performing video recording function”. The application is capable of providing the service while parked, and the vehicle processing system comprises a battery supplying power to the electronic control unit while parked.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Hsu to include “wherein the application is capable of providing the service while parked, as the resource and the vehicle information processing system further comprises an auxiliary battery supplying power to the electronic control unit while parked” since “Police, crash investigators, and others can download the data from the EDR's memory to help them better understand what happened to the vehicle and how the safety systems performed, and in some cases, help establish culpability” (Para. 0004, Hsu ), and therefore would create a more robust system for recording an event outside of the vehicle when parked. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Hsu . The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Howard et al. US20080309762A1 (henceforth Howard ) Regarding claim 4, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state further comprising an external storage medium connection unit connectable to an external storage medium, as the resource. However, Howard teaches: further comprising an external storage medium connection unit connectable to an external storage medium, as the resource. (See at least Para. 0028, “Memory units used to store the recorded images and navigation data can include secure digital multi-media cards (SD/MMC) 64, synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM) cards 66 or flash memory cards and devices 68 such as thumb drives, memory sticks, etc. Memory devices such as these are small and can be easily transported from the vehicle to a remotely located computer for review and storage as needed.” Thumb drives and memory sticks are external storage medium connection units. Since the cameras record while saving to the external storage medium simultaneously, then they are used as the resource.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Howard to include “further comprising an external storage medium connection unit connectable to an external storage medium, as the resource” for “combining images recorded by a digital video recorder on a vehicle with GPS mapping data correlated to and simultaneously with the time the images were recorded” (Para. 0003, Howard ), and “there is currently no means for correlating the occurrence of events within or outside the vehicle with the specific location of the vehicle at the time of the events” (Para. 0004, Howard ). This would create a more robust system for recording data from video cameras in a vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Howard . The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Korta et al. US20220071053A1 (henceforth Korta ) . Regarding claim 5, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state further comprising a cooling mechanism cooling an electronic component mounted on the electronic control unit, as the resource. However, Korta teaches: comprising a cooling mechanism cooling an electronic component mounted on the electronic control unit, as the resource. (See at least Para. 0021, “including: an ECU having a plurality of components mounted to a circuit board; a casing for covering the ECU and having a heat absorbing face for absorbing heat from the components and a heat dissipating face for dissipating absorbed heat; a plurality of fans mounted to the heat dissipating face and arranged for directing airflow over respective regions of the heat dissipating face; and a controller for independently controlling the fans to drive them at different speeds for varying the cooling of the respective regions of the heat dissipating face”. A cooling mechanism cools electronic components mounted on the ECU.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Korta to include “a cooling mechanism cooling an electronic component mounted on the electronic control unit, as the resource” since “processing demands of electronic components are high and maintaining operating integrity is particularly essential” (Para. 0003, Korta ). Furthermore, the cooling mechanism is a component of the vehicle ECU that cooperates with other resources to enable the system to execute its applications, by keeping the components cool. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Korta. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Avalos et al. US20180042101A1 (henceforth Avalos ) Regarding claim 6, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state wherein each of the connectors is arranged on same surface of a housing of the electronic control unit. However, Avalos teaches: wherein each of the connectors is arranged on same surface of a housing of the electronic control unit. (See at least Fig. 1, wherein the connectors are arranged on the same surface of a housing of the ECU.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Avalos to include “wherein each of the connectors is arranged on same surface of a housing of the electronic control unit” since it would simplify wiring harness routing. A wire bundle would reduce strain and wiring complexity. Furthermore, having connectors on the same surface would keep the remaining surfaces available for heat dissipation (Para. 0001, Avalos ). Therefore, this would create a more robust system for arranging connectors on a housing of an ECU. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Avalos. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Kikushi et al. US20210188116A1 (henceforth Kikushi ) . Regarding claim 7, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state wherein the electronic control unit is capable of being arranged in at least one of under a vehicle seat, within a vehicle trunk, or within a vehicle center console. However, Kikushi teaches: wherein the electronic control unit is capable of being arranged in at least one of under a vehicle seat, within a vehicle trunk, or within a vehicle center console. (See at least Para. 0101, “For example, the gate ECU 60 may be installed in a trunk on the rear side of the vehicle 100, or installed on an inner side of an exterior of the vehicle 100, such as the roof and a pillar. Alternatively, for example, when the battery pack 10 is installed under the trunk on the rear side of vehicle 100, the gate ECU 60 may be installed under a seat, in the center of the vehicle 100, or the like.” The ECU is capable of being arranged under a seat or within a trunk.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Kikushi to include “wherein the electronic control unit is capable of being arranged in at least one of under a vehicle seat, within a vehicle trunk, or within a vehicle center console” since “it is possible to avoid damage to the gate ECU 60 caused by an accident” (Para. 0101, Kikushi ). It would therefore create a more robust system by protecting the ECU from damage. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Kikushi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Kim et al. US20200185818A1 (henceforth Kim ) and Takano et al. US20210050647A1 (henceforth Takano ) . Regarding claim 8, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state wherein the antenna array includes an internal antenna array built into the housing, the internal antenna array is mounted on a communication board arranged above a main board, and a cover that covers the communication board and the main board from above. However, Kim teaches: wherein the antenna array includes an internal antenna array built into the housing, the internal antenna array is mounted on a communication board arranged above a main board, and a cover that covers the communication board and the main board from above is made of a dielectric material. (See at least Para. 0023, “the antenna PCB may be provided with a top cover disposed on an upper portion thereof, and the antenna PCB may be provided with a main PCB disposed on a lower portion thereof.” Further see Para. 0054-0055, wherein the cover that covers the communication board and the main board from above is a dielectric material.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Kim to include “wherein the antenna array includes an internal antenna array built into the housing, the internal antenna array is mounted on a communication board arranged above a main board, and a cover that covers the communication board and the main board from above is made of a dielectric material” in order to “provide a flat vehicle antenna capable of providing next generation communication services as well as existing mobile communication services, and an antenna arrangement structure having optimized isolation” (Para. 0011, Kim ). This would create a more robust structure for the antenna array system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Kim. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable. Kim does not specifically state wherein the material is specifically a resin material. However, Takano teaches: the material is resin (See at least Para. 0060, “The antenna case 5 is made from a synthetic resin having radio wave transmittivity”.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Takano to include “the material is resin” since resins have “radio wave transmittivity” (Para. 0060, Takano ), which would create a more robust system for an antenna array such interference in radio waves are reduced. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante, Kim, and Takano. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa further in view of Wunsche et al. US20200151476A1 (henceforth Wunsche ) . Regarding claim 9, Plante, Park, Koepf, and Fujikawa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Plante does not specifically state a service in cooperation with the exterior camera and the interior camera. However, Wunsche teaches: a service in cooperation with the exterior camera and the interior camera (See at least Figs. 5A and 5B, wherein the cameras are in cooperation for a service. Further see Para. 0045, wherein the cleanliness analysis module uses both cameras for its service.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante to incorporate the teachings of Wunsche to include “a service in cooperation with the exterior camera and the interior camera” in order to create a more robust monitoring application that uses multiple cameras connected to a central ECU, since more effective camera services is needed (Para. 0004, Wunsche ). This would create a more robust vehicle system that uses cameras that cooperate. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Plante and Wunsche. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ninagawa US20190280893A1 discloses a vehicle control device installed in a vehicle and having a gateway function of relaying data communication among a plurality of ECUs connected via an in-vehicle network and data communication between the plurality of ECUs and an external device, which is a device outside the vehicle. The vehicle control device includes: an application execution section configured to execute an application for realizing a predetermined function; and an application management section configured to manage obtainment and erasure of a specific application which is a part of the application. The application management section flexibly adds or deletes a predetermined function by obtaining or erasing the specific application (See abstract). Mitchell et al. US20160117868A1 discloses gathering vehicle data from a vehicle engine computer installed in an engine of a vehicle and a plurality of sensors disposed about the vehicle and providing functionality for a third-party to install and then execute custom scripts within a telematics application to change default functionalities of the telematics application when processing the vehicle data. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT. 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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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. /Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /G.J.L./ Examiner Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 14 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 15 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 16 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 17 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 18 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 19 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 20 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 21 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 22 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 23 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 24 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 25 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 26 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 27 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 28 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 29 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/232,616 Page 30 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights