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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
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) 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 receiving part that receives…” in claim 1-2, 4-9 and their dependent 3.
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.
Regarding the limitation “a receiving part that receives…” see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections 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
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 specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claim limitation “a receiving part that receives…” in claims 1-9, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement.
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.
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.
Claim limitation “a receiving part that receives…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as a processor.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101477273 B1) in view of LEE (KR 20190074923 A).
Regarding claim 1,
Kim teaches:
A vehicle control unit comprising:
a receiving part that receives an ON operation for causing an electronic device included in a vehicle to start up and an OFF operation for causing the activated electronic device to shut down; and
(Kim – On page 4, it states “The control unit 110 may receive a start-up state signal at predetermined intervals.” On page 3, it states “In either method, the control device 100 can be controlled to be turned on or off through the supply of power. Since the control apparatus 100 according to the present invention is a control apparatus operated by an IG signal, the turn-on or turn-off of the control apparatus 100 can be controlled by an IG signal. Therefore, the IG signal can be used as a signal for controlling the switching device located on the power line connecting the control device 100 with the means for supplying the control device 100 with power.”)
a controller that controls startup of the electronic device or shutdown of the electronic device based on an operation received by the receiving part, wherein
(Kim – On page 6, it states “The control unit 110 determines whether the control unit 100 is turned on or off based on a value of the startup state variable stored in the memory unit 120. Therefore, even if a temporary error occurs in the IG signal It is not affected. That is, the control unit 110 controls the control unit 100 to turn off the control unit 100”)
when the receiving part receives the ON operation before a predetermined time elapses after the receiving part receives the OFF operation, the controller causes the electronic device to initiate startup
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.” On page 7, it further states “The controller 110 also receives the startup state signal during the internal task execution time and continues to reflect the startup state of the hybrid vehicle to the startup state variable. In addition, if the user turns off the start-up but turns on the start-up before the internal work execution time elapses, the change in the start-up state can be reflected. Accordingly, the control apparatus 100 can be operated more stably and more flexibly.”)
Kim teaches a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them. However Kim doesn’t teach the controller causes the electronic device to initiate startup after the predetermined time has elapsed since the receiving part received the OFF operation.
LEE teaches:
the controller causes the electronic device to initiate startup after the predetermined time has elapsed since the receiving part received the OFF operation.
(LEE – On page 11, it states “And a timer (160) for requesting the vehicle control means (130) to perform a start on / off operation after a predetermined time elapses upon receipt of a reservation start command signal.”)
Kim and LEE are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim with LEE. It would have been obvious to combine a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them with performing the on operation after a predetermined time because that time allows the system to complete the command it is currently running. This allows for the system to work safer and more efficiently.
Regarding claim 2,
Kim and LEE teach the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein when the receiving part receives the ON operation after the predetermined time has elapsed since the receiving part received the OFF operation, the controller causes the electronic device to initiate startup at a timing when the ON operation is received.
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.” On page 7, it further states “The controller 110 also receives the startup state signal during the internal task execution time and continues to reflect the startup state of the hybrid vehicle to the startup state variable. In addition, if the user turns off the start-up but turns on the start-up before the internal work execution time elapses, the change in the start-up state can be reflected. Accordingly, the control apparatus 100 can be operated more stably and more flexibly.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Kim and LEE teach the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the vehicle control unit is a device that controls the vehicle including a drive source including a motor, and
the controller controls startup and shutdown of the electronic device, which is a control unit for controlling the motor.
(Kim – On page 3, it states “However, in this example, the battery 130 is a battery that supplies electric power to a driving apparatus mounted on a hybrid vehicle, and the load is assumed to be a motor 131 of a hybrid vehicle. The controller 110 may include a BMS algorithm for controlling the battery 130… The control device 100 outputs a control signal to the switch element 133 connected to the power line 132 to control whether the motor 131 is powered or not.” On page 6, it states “The control unit 110 determines whether the control unit 100 is turned on or off based on a value of the startup state variable stored in the memory unit 120. Therefore, even if a temporary error occurs in the IG signal It is not affected. That is, the control unit 110 controls the control unit 100 to turn off the control unit 100”)
Regarding claim 4,
Kim and LEE teach the limitations of claim 3.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the predetermined time is a time equal to or longer than a time required for the electronic device, which controls the motor, to complete shutdown after the receiving part has received the OFF operation, and
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.”)
the vehicle control unit further comprises:
a storage that stores the predetermined time.
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The set internal task execution time can be stored in the memory unit 120.”)
Regarding claim 5,
Kim and LEE teach the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein after the receiving part receives the ON operation before the predetermined time elapses after the receiving part receives the OFF operation, the controller causes the electronic device to initiate startup after the predetermined time has elapsed on condition that the receiving part does not receive the OFF operation before the predetermined time has elapsed.
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.” On page 7, it further states “The controller 110 also receives the startup state signal during the internal task execution time and continues to reflect the startup state of the hybrid vehicle to the startup state variable. In addition, if the user turns off the start-up but turns on the start-up before the internal work execution time elapses, the change in the start-up state can be reflected. Accordingly, the control apparatus 100 can be operated more stably and more flexibly.” On page 6, it further states “4B shows that the first to third start-up state signals of the start-up state signals received by the controller 110 are 'on' but the fourth and fifth start-up state signals are 'off' . In this case, the controller 110 determines the startup state using the n / 2th or later starting state signals, that is, the starting state signals received after the 2.5th time, from the received starting state signals. Therefore, since the fourth and fifth starting states are 'off', the starting state of the hybrid vehicle is determined as 'off'.” Note: The examiner interprets that the signals received can be received during that time including both an on and following off command. Since the system would receive both and change the state then it would no longer turn on after receiving the additional off command.)
Regarding claim 10, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. In addition, Kim teaches a processor (Kim – On page 8, it states “The controller 110 may be implemented as a processor…”)
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101477273 B1) in view of LEE (KR 20190074923 A) and further in view of Kokaki et al. (US 20200377083 A1).
Regarding claim 6,
Kim and LEE teach the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
based on the receiving part receiving the ON operation before the predetermined time elapses after the receiving part receives the OFF operation.
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.” On page 7, it further states “The controller 110 also receives the startup state signal during the internal task execution time and continues to reflect the startup state of the hybrid vehicle to the startup state variable. In addition, if the user turns off the start-up but turns on the start-up before the internal work execution time elapses, the change in the start-up state can be reflected. Accordingly, the control apparatus 100 can be operated more stably and more flexibly.”)
Kim teaches a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them. However, Kim and Lee do not teach a display controller that causes a display part to display a message.
Kokaki teaches:
further comprising: a display controller that causes a display part to display a message indicating that the predetermined time has not yet elapsed,
(Kokaki – Paragraph [0101] states “the interface controller 150 causes the display device 31 of the HMI 30 to display an urgent stopping message screen 31A… The interface controller 150 may remove the urgent stopping message screen 31A after display for a predetermined time or may remove the urgent stopping message screen in a case in which there is a predetermined switching operation or the like from a vehicle occupant.”)
Kim, LEE, and Kokaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and LEE with Kokaki. It would have been obvious to combine a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them and performing the on operation after a predetermined time with a display because the display shows the user the functional state of the vehicle. This allows the user to have more knowledge of what the vehicle is doing to make the information decision on what action they would like to take.
Regarding claim 7,
Kim, LEE and Kokaki teach the limitations of claim 6.
Kim further teaches:
wherein after the predetermined time has elapsed since the receiving part received the OFF operation.
(Kim – On page 7, it teaches “On the other hand, when the start-up state signal is kept off for a preset internal task execution time, the controller 110 terminates the software and releases the power supply of the controller 100 so that the controller 100 is turned off .”)
Kim teaches a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them. However, Kim and LEE do not teach the display controller.
Kokaki teaches:
wherein the display controller hides the message after the predetermined time has elapsed
(Kokaki – Paragraph [0101] states “the interface controller 150 causes the display device 31 of the HMI 30 to display an urgent stopping message screen 31A… The interface controller 150 may remove the urgent stopping message screen 31A after display for a predetermined time or may remove the urgent stopping message screen in a case in which there is a predetermined switching operation or the like from a vehicle occupant.”)
Kim, LEE, and Kokaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and LEE with Kokaki. It would have been obvious to combine a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them and performing the on operation after a predetermined time with a display because the display shows the user the functional state of the vehicle. This allows the user to have more knowledge of what the vehicle is doing to make the information decision on what action they would like to take.
Regarding claim 8,
Kim and LEE teach the limitations of claim 6.
Kim further teaches:
wherein , when the receiving part receives the OFF operation before the predetermined time elapses after the receiving part has received the ON operation within the predetermined time following reception of the OFF operation by the receiving part.
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.” On page 7, it further states “The controller 110 also receives the startup state signal during the internal task execution time and continues to reflect the startup state of the hybrid vehicle to the startup state variable. In addition, if the user turns off the start-up but turns on the start-up before the internal work execution time elapses, the change in the start-up state can be reflected. Accordingly, the control apparatus 100 can be operated more stably and more flexibly.” On page 6, it further states “4B shows that the first to third start-up state signals of the start-up state signals received by the controller 110 are 'on' but the fourth and fifth start-up state signals are 'off' . In this case, the controller 110 determines the startup state using the n / 2th or later starting state signals, that is, the starting state signals received after the 2.5th time, from the received starting state signals. Therefore, since the fourth and fifth starting states are 'off', the starting state of the hybrid vehicle is determined as 'off'.” Note: The examiner interprets that the signals received can be received during that time including both an on and following off command. Since the system would receive both and change the state then it would no longer turn on after receiving the additional off command.)
Kim teaches a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them. However, Kim and LEE do not teach the display controller.
Kokaki teaches:
wherein the display controller hides the message, when the receiving part receives the operation before the predetermined time elapses
(Kokaki – Paragraph [0102] states “The interface controller 150 may remove the driving switching stopping message screen 31B after display for a predetermined time or may remove the urgent stopping message screen in a case in which there is an operation on the steering wheel, an operation on the acceleration pedal or the brake pedal, or the like from a vehicle occupant.”)
Kim, LEE, and Kokaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and LEE with Kokaki. It would have been obvious to combine a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them and performing the on operation after a predetermined time with a display because the display shows the user the functional state of the vehicle. This allows the user to have more knowledge of what the vehicle is doing to make the information decision on what action they would like to take.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101477273 B1) in view of LEE (KR 20190074923 A) and further in view of Kokaki et al. (US 20200377083 A1) and further in view of Be et al. (US 20140081561 A1).
Regarding claim 9,
Kim, LEE and Kokaki teach the limitations of claim 6.
Kim further teaches:
when the receiving part receives the OFF operation before the predetermined time elapses after the receiving part has received the ON operation within the predetermined time following reception of the OFF operation by the receiving part.
(Kim – On page 7, it states “The preset internal task execution time is a time for the control device 100 to perform a task to be processed before performing software termination and hardware power down.” On page 7, it further states “The controller 110 also receives the startup state signal during the internal task execution time and continues to reflect the startup state of the hybrid vehicle to the startup state variable. In addition, if the user turns off the start-up but turns on the start-up before the internal work execution time elapses, the change in the start-up state can be reflected. Accordingly, the control apparatus 100 can be operated more stably and more flexibly.” On page 6, it further states “4B shows that the first to third start-up state signals of the start-up state signals received by the controller 110 are 'on' but the fourth and fifth start-up state signals are 'off' . In this case, the controller 110 determines the startup state using the n / 2th or later starting state signals, that is, the starting state signals received after the 2.5th time, from the received starting state signals. Therefore, since the fourth and fifth starting states are 'off', the starting state of the hybrid vehicle is determined as 'off'.” Note: The examiner interprets that the signals received can be received during that time including both an on and following off command. Since the system would receive both and change the state then it would no longer turn on after receiving the additional off command.)
Kim teaches a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them. However, Kim and LEE do not teach wherein the display controller causes a message indicating that the electronic device will not start up to be displayed.
Kokaki teaches:
wherein the display controller causes a message to be displayed, when the receiving part receives the operation before the predetermined time elapses
(Kokaki – Paragraph [0102] states “The interface controller 150 may remove the driving switching stopping message screen 31B after display for a predetermined time or may remove the urgent stopping message screen in a case in which there is an operation on the steering wheel, an operation on the acceleration pedal or the brake pedal, or the like from a vehicle occupant.”)
Kokaki teaches a display that displays a message to the user for a predetermined time. However, Kim, LEE and Kokaki do not teach a message indicating that the electronic device will not start up.
Be teaches:
wherein the display controller causes a message indicating that the electronic device will not start up to be displayed,
(Be – Paragraph [0007] states “The interface may include a display having a selectable automatic start-stop display screen that displays the message identifying the at least one inhibitor. Further, the display may include an automatic start-stop indicator that is displayed in one of a plurality of indicator states based on a status of an automatic start-stop system.”)
Kim, LEE, Kokaki, and Be are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim, LEE, and Kokaki with Be. It would have been obvious to combine a vehicle controller that receives startup and shutdown or on and off commands and executes them, performing the on operation after a predetermined time and a display with the message being that the startup will not happen because the display shows the user the functional state of the vehicle. This allows the user to have more knowledge of what the vehicle is doing to make the information decision on what action they would like to take.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
