DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-6 remain pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/13/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derouen U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0318767A1 (hereinafter, Derouen), in view of Mimura et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 20170297587A1 (hereinafter, Mimura).
Regarding Claim 1, Derouen describes an accessory control system that controls an accessory installed in a vehicle (control system within a vehicle, Derouen, Paragraphs 0046-0049), the accessory control system comprising:
-a vehicle state determining section that determines a state of the vehicle (vehicle state determining section (e.g., monitor health of systems such as the brakes), Derouen, Paragraph 0108); …
-a remote instruction receiving section that receives, from an external apparatus, instruction information for operating the accessory (ability for a server to send instruction information for operating the accessory (i.e., vehicle controller), Derouen, Paragraphs 0007-0009);
-an accessory control section that performs control of an operation of the accessory based on a determination result of the vehicle state determining section (vehicle can drive to an appointment that is created based on the vehicle state (e.g., requiring maintenance), Derouen, Paragraphs 0007-0009 and 0071), … and the instruction information received by the remote instruction receiving section (ability for a server to send instruction information to the vehicle, Derouen, Paragraphs 0007-0009); and
-an accessory driving section that drives the accessory based on the control by the accessory control section (vehicle can drive to an appointment that is created based on the vehicle state (e.g., requiring maintenance), Derouen, Paragraphs 0007-0009 and 0071).
Derouen does not specifically disclose the system to include a vehicle-surrounding-safety monitoring section that monitors safety in surroundings of the vehicle; and a monitoring result obtained by the vehicle-surrounding-safety monitoring section.
Mimura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Mimura describes a vehicle system that monitors the surrounding environment of the vehicle for safety (Mimura, Paragraphs 0006-0009).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Derouen to include a vehicle-surrounding-safety monitoring section that monitors safety in surroundings of the vehicle; and a monitoring result obtained by the vehicle-surrounding-safety monitoring section, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Mimura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because monitoring the surrounding allows for a vehicle to more safely operate (Mimura, Paragraph 0105).
Regarding Claim 2, Derouen, as modified, describes the accessory control system according to claim 1.
Derouen does not specifically disclose the system to include a surrounding-notification section that, in response to control of the accessory by the accessory control section, notifies to the surroundings of the vehicle that the accessory operates.
Mimura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Mimura describes a vehicle system that monitors the surrounding environment of the vehicle for safety and can notify the surrounding of the vehicle (Mimura, Paragraphs 0006-0009 and 0115).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Derouen to include a surrounding-notification section that, in response to control of the accessory by the accessory control section, notifies to the surroundings of the vehicle that the accessory operates, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Mimura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because monitoring the surrounding allows for a vehicle to more safely operate (Mimura, Paragraph 0105).
Regarding Claim 3, Derouen, as modified, describes the accessory control system according to claim 1, farther comprising a transmission section that transmits information on control of the accessory by the accessory control section to the external apparatus (transmit information to external, Derouen, Paragraph 0110).
Regarding Claim 4, Derouen, as modified, describes accessory control system according to claim 1, wherein the instruction information includes activation information, operation information, and termination information, the activation information being information for instructing activation of an engine or a motor, the operation information being information for instructing an operation mode of the accessory, the termination information being information for instructing a stop of a power take off (PTO), the engine or the motor, the engine or the motor being a torque-generating source for the PTO (information, such as engine, PTO, etc., Derouen, Paragraph 0108).
Regarding Claim 5, Derouen, as modified, describes the accessory control system according to claim 1, wherein the instruction information includes information on a date and a time, the date and the time being a date and a time when the accessory is driven. he accessory control system according to claim 1, wherein the instruction information includes information on a date and a time, the date and the time being a date and a time when the accessory is driven (date and time, Derouen, Paragraph 0108).
Regarding Claim 6, Derouen, as modified, describes the accessory control system according to claim 1, wherein the external apparatus is a center apparatus that transmits the instruction information for controlling a plurality of the vehicles including the accessory to each of the plurality of vehicles, and transmits reservation information including date and time information for operating the accessory to each of the plurality of vehicles (transmitting date and time for the vehicle, Derouen, Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0060-0066).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights