DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/15/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6),
Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraphs are not numbered as requested by 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6). Examiner notes that numbering the paragraphs in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) assists with interviews and citations to the instant specification. Examiner kindly requests Applicant submit a new specification which follows the guidance under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 first obtainer that obtains…a control request…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found on page 10, which includes a computer circuit);
“a second obtainer that obtains a vehicle status…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found on page 10, which includes a computer circuit);
“a determiner that determines whether to approve the control request…” (claim 1; no structural support can be found in the specification; See § 112 rejections below);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (3) recited above use the generic placeholder “obtainer” and “determiner” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “obtainer” and “determiner” in (1)-(3) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(3) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “obtainer” and “determiner” in (1)-(3) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 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.
It is unclear if the “determiner” is provided upon hardware or software, and is described in the specification only by its function and not any structure to support what is performing the function. Therefore claim 1 fails to the written description requirement. Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, fails for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim limitation “determiner” of claim 1 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. While the term “determiner” is recited throughout the specification, it is only described by what is does and not by what it is. Specifically, there is no description in the present specification that provides sufficient structure that perform the claimed function that the “determiner” is performing. 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. Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0234665 to Matsuyuki et al.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuyuki et al. discloses:
A control device provided to a vehicle (Figure 1, Ref. No. 1, in-vehicle device), the control device comprising:
a first obtainer that obtains, from a user application, a control request for controlling a vehicle device of the vehicle; a second obtainer that obtains a vehicle status of the vehicle; and a determiner that determines whether to approve the control request, based on the vehicle status (¶¶ [0060] – [0067] describing receiving a control request from a user device, obtaining a status of the vehicle, and determining whether to approve the control request based on the status of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Matsuyuki et al. further discloses:
wherein the determiner determines whether to approve the control request, based on whether execution of the control request in the vehicle status places the vehicle in a dangerous state (¶ [0060] describing not approving certain applications based on whether the request would distract the driver’s attention and affect driving safety, i.e., create a dangerous state).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Matsuyuki et al. further discloses:
wherein when the execution of the control request in the vehicle status places the vehicle in the dangerous state, the determiner determines not to approve the control request (¶ [0060] describing not approving certain applications based on whether the request would distract the driver’s attention and affect driving safety, i.e., create a dangerous state).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Matsuyuki et al. further discloses:
wherein the vehicle status includes at least one of a speed, a position, a steering angle, a traveling direction, a surrounding environment, or a traveling mode of the vehicle (¶ [0067] describing the vehicle mode to be traveling and not stopped; see also ¶ [0028] describing that the determination as to whether the vehicle is traveling or stopped is based on the vehicle’s speed; see also ¶ [0043] describing determining vehicle direction from the navigation application selected on the user device).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Matsuyuki et al. further discloses:
wherein the user application is different from an application that is preinstalled in the vehicle (Figure 4 depicting the applications on the user device being different from the in-vehicle device; see also ¶ [0077] describing the application selected on the user device being different from the application currently running on the in-vehicle device).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Matsuyuki et al. further discloses:
wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling and the control request includes displaying an image to a driver of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request (¶¶ [0068], [0069] describing that the vehicle status indicates traveling and the control request includes displaying an image to a driver, and the controller determines not to approve the request to display an image).
Claim 19 contains all the limitations of claim 1 (eg., there are no additional limitations recited in claim 19). Therefore, the supporting rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 20 contains all the limitations of claim 19, but with the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer program, and computer (¶ [0122] describing the computer, computer-readable medium, and instructions). Therefore, the supporting rationale for the rejection of claim 19 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyuki et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0202380 to Ikuta.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Matsuyuki et al. does not expressly disclose wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling and the control request includes beam switching of a headlight of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request.
Ikuta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling and the control request includes beam switching of a headlight of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request (¶ [0049] describing preventing the headlights from switching to the high beam when the vehicle is traveling faster than a predetermined speed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate preventing the high beams from activating based on the vehicle traveling faster than a predetermined speed, as taught by Ikuta, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the high beam from being switched on when entering a specific area, such as a bright urban area (Ikuta at ¶ [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Matsuyuki et al. does not expressly disclose wherein when a speed of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold value and the control request includes beam switching of a headlight of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request.
Ikuta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when a speed of the vehicle is greater than a threshold value and the control request includes beam switching of a headlight of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request (¶ [0049] describing preventing the headlights from switching to the high beam when the vehicle is traveling faster than a predetermined speed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate preventing the high beams from activating based on the vehicle traveling faster than a predetermined speed, as taught by Ikuta, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the high beam from being switched on when entering a specific area, such as a bright urban area (Ikuta at ¶ [0048]).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyuki et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0370838 to Englander et al.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Matsuyuki et al. does not expressly disclose wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is moving in reverse and the control request includes superimposing a display item on a rearview monitor of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request.
Englander et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is moving in reverse and the control request includes superimposing a display item on a rearview monitor of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request (¶¶ [0099], [0100] describing that when the vehicle is detected to be moving in reverse the mirror will always show the camera view, denying manual input from the driver).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate denying control input from the driver while traveling in reverse, as taught by Englander et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in maximizing safe usage of the rearview mirror by automating when the mirror/monitor will display images and when the driver will have full view of the rearview mirror (Englander et al. at ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Matsuyuki et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle includes an electronic mirror switchable between a video displaying function and a mirror function, and when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling and the control request includes turning on the mirror function of the electronic mirror, the determiner determines not to approve the control request.
Englander et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicle includes an electronic mirror switchable between a video displaying function and a mirror function, and when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling and the control request includes turning on the mirror function of the electronic mirror, the determiner determines not to approve the control request (¶¶ [0099], [0100] describing that when the vehicle is detected to be traveling in reverse the mirror will always show the camera view, denying manual input from the driver to switch to electronic mirror view).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate denying control input from the driver while traveling in reverse, as taught by Englander et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in maximizing safe usage of the rearview mirror by automating when the mirror/monitor will display images and when the driver will have full view of the rearview mirror (Englander et al. at ¶ [0006]).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyuki et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0358325 to Morita et al.
Regarding claim 12, Matsuyuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Matsuyuki et al. further discloses:
wherein the vehicle includes a plurality of applications for controlling the vehicle device of the vehicle, the plurality of applications including the user application (Figure 1 depicting a plurality of applications 12a-12e on the in-vehicle device),
the first obtainer obtains, from applications among the plurality of applications, a plurality of control requests for controlling the vehicle device, the plurality of control requests each being the control request (¶ [0024] describing obtaining a control request from the plurality of control requests available to the user), and
when the control request obtained from the applications satisfy a predetermined condition, the determiner determines, for each of the plurality of control requests, whether to approve the control request, based on the plurality of control requests (¶¶ [0061] – [0069] describing receiving the control request, determining whether the predetermined condition of vehicle travel is satisfied, and determining whether to approve the control request).
Matsuyuki et al. does not expressly disclose that the device receives more than one control request.
Morita et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches the in-vehicle device receiving multiple control requests simultaneously (¶¶ [0060], [0070] describing the plurality of applications presented to the user that the user can select one or more of the applications to perform operations; see also Figure 3 depicting the plurality of applications available for user selection; ¶ [0105] describing the user can select any of the applications permitted to be selected; ¶ [0112] describing a plurality of applications executed in parallel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate receiving more than one control request at the same time, as taught by Morita et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to execute as many operations as are permitted (Morita et al. at ¶ [0105]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matsuyuki et al. and Morita et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12. Matsuyuki et al., as modified by Morita et al., further discloses:
wherein the determiner determines, for each of the plurality of control requests obtained from the two or more applications, whether to approve the control request, based on whether executions of the plurality of control requests place the vehicle in a dangerous state (¶ [0060] describing not approving certain applications based on whether the request would distract the driver’s attention and affect driving safety, i.e., create a dangerous state).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Matsuyuki et al. and Morita et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12. Matsuyuki et al., as modified by Morita et al., further discloses:
wherein when the executions of the plurality of control requests obtained from the two or more applications place the vehicle in a dangerous state, the determiner determines not to approve at least one of the plurality of control requests (¶ [0060] describing not approving certain applications based on whether the request would distract the driver’s attention and affect driving safety, i.e., create a dangerous state).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Matsuyuki et al. and Morita et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12. Matsuyuki et al., as modified by Morita et al. further discloses:
wherein the determiner determines, for each of the plurality of control requests obtained from the two or more applications, whether to approve the control request, based on control details of the plurality of control requests (¶¶ [0061] – [0069] describing the security policy control details that are used to determine whether to approve the control request or not).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Matsuyuki et al. and Morita et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12. Matsuyuki et al., as modified by Morita et al., further discloses:
wherein the plurality of applications include a first application and a second application (Figure 1 depicting applications 12a-12e, any of which could be a first or second application), and the predetermined condition includes that the first obtainer obtains the control request for controlling the vehicle device from the second application while the vehicle device is executing the control request from the first application (¶¶ [0076], [0077] describing receiving a control request from one application while another different application is already running).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Matsuyuki et al. and Morita et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12. Morita et al. further discloses:
wherein the predetermined condition includes that the first obtainer obtains the plurality of control requests for controlling the vehicle device from the two or more applications within a predetermined time period (¶ [0110] describing the plurality of control requests being received at the predetermined period of time that the vehicle is actuate; ¶ [0112] describing a plurality of applications/control requests being received with a predetermined period of time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate receiving more than one control request within a predetermined period of time, as taught by Morita et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing guide information to a user at the same time the user is receiving driving-related information, such as detection of pedestrians (Morita et al. at ¶ [0112]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Matsuyuki et al. and Morita et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12. Morita et al. further discloses:
wherein the predetermined condition includes that the first obtainer obtains at least a predetermined number of control requests for controlling the vehicle device from the two or more applications within a predetermined time period (¶ [0110] describing the predetermined number of driving-related control requests being received at the same time that the vehicle is actuate; ¶ [0112] describing a plurality of applications/control requests being received with a predetermined period of time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuyuki et al.’s invention to incorporate receiving a predetermined number of control request within a predetermined period of time, as taught by Morita et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing guide information to a user at the same time the user is receiving driving-related information, such as detection of pedestrians (Morita et al. at ¶ [0112]).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, if amended to overcome the § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of claim limitations of wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling in a dark environment and the control request includes turning on an interior light of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request of claim 9, when considered with the other claim features, renders the independent claims, as well as their dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art, Matsuyuki teaches obtaining a control request from a user, obtaining a vehicle status, and determining whether to approve the control request based on the vehicle status. Furthermore, U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0247315 to Fourtis et al. teaches a controller turning an interior light off while a vehicle is traveling and the environment is dark (¶¶ [0033], [0034]). However, Fourtis does not teach receiving a control request to turn on an interior light of the vehicle while traveling in a dark environment and not approving the request, as required by claim 9.
As such, the combination of Matsuyuki and Fourtis does not teach the combination of wherein when the vehicle status indicates that the vehicle is traveling in a dark environment and the control request includes turning on an interior light of the vehicle, the determiner determines not to approve the control request, as required by independent claim 9. No other prior art has been found which remedies the deficiencies of the Matsuyuki and Fourtis combination. Therefore, the claim is allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0375635 to Ludovici et al. teaches receiving a user control request, and controlling the vehicle according to the requested based on the state of the vehicle (¶¶ [0010] – [0011]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0132079 to Medina teaches obtaining a user control request to operate a certain function, and executing that function based on the state of the vehicle (¶¶ [0098] – [0102]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0298052 to Nara et al. teaches receiving a control request from a user application, setting restriction information on whether to perform the control, and determines to allow or disallow the operation (¶¶ [0007], [0008]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
