www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/909,904
`
`09/07/2022
`
`Ryosuke FURUKAWA
`
`1946-1789
`
`1991
`
`Para
`
`a
`
`Hepes
`
`Paratus Law Group, PLLC
`1765 Greensboro Station Place
`Suite 320
`
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`
`RHODES-VIVOUR, TEMILADE §
`
`2858
`
`12/16/2024
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/909,904
`FURUKAWA,Ryosuke
`
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`
`TEMILADE $ RHODES-VIVOUR|2858 Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 09/07/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-7,9-13 and 20 is/are rejected.
`Claim(s) 8 and 14-19 is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 09/07/2022 is/are: a)¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)2) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`4)
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date09/15/2024and09/07/2022.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20241211
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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)(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, namesanother inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of
`the claimed invention.
`
`1.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yachida (US
`
`PAT 5,742,574).
`
`2.
`
`With respect to claim 1, Yachida discloses an information processing device (See the abstract of
`
`Yachida) comprising: a state information acquisition unit that acquires state information indicating a
`
`degree of deterioration of hardware (See a “controlling apparatus” [203] in Col. 18, lines 25-34 of
`
`Yachida); andareliability evaluation unit that evaluatesreliability of the hardware on a basis of the state
`
`information (See Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 3
`
`3.
`
`With respect to claim 2, Yachida discloses the information processing device according to claim
`
`1, wherein the state information acquisition unit acquires state information indicating a degree of
`
`deterioration of a power source of the hardware(See Col. 18, lines 25-34 of Yachida).
`
`4.
`
`With respect to claim 20, Yachida discloses an information processing (See the abstract of
`
`Yachida) method comprising: acquiring state information indicating a degree of deterioration of
`
`hardware (See a “controlling apparatus” [203] in Col. 18, lines 25-34 of Yachida); and evaluating
`
`reliability of the hardwareon a basis of the state information (See Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 ordinaryskill 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 contentsofthe prior art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 4
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Claim(s) 3-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yachida as
`
`applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Skeoch (US PAT 11,164,435).
`
`6.
`
`With respect to claim 3, Yachida discloses the information processing device according to claim
`
`2, but fails to disclose wherein the power source of the hardwareis a supercapacitor. However, Skeoch
`
`does disclose wherein the power source of the hardwareis a supercapacitor (See Col. 1, lines 35-40 of
`
`Skeoch). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskills in the art before the effect
`
`filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Yachida to include the feature disclosed by
`
`Skeoch because doing so enables a high energy density mobile energy source to supply power tocritical
`
`hardware.
`
`7.
`
`With respect to claim 4, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 3, wherein the state information acquisition unit acquires a
`
`charging time from start of charging of the supercapacitor to full charge as state information indicating a
`
`degree of deterioration of the power source of the hardware(SeeCol. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch).
`
`8.
`
`With respect to claim 5, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 4, wherein the reliability evaluation unit evaluates a degree of
`
`deterioration of the power source of the hardware ona basis of the charging time, determines necessity
`
`of replacement of the hardware, and outputs a reliability evaluation result including a determination
`
`result (See Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch).
`
`9.
`
`With respect to claim 6, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 5, wherein the reliability evaluation unit calculates an evaluation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 5
`
`value onabasis of the charging time, determines necessity of replacement of the hardware onabasis of
`
`the evaluation value, and outputsa reliability evaluation result including the determination result (See
`
`Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`10.
`
`With respect to claim 7, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 6, wherein the reliability evaluation unit determines necessity of
`
`replacement of the hardware on a basis of whether or not the evaluation value is lower than the
`
`threshold value, and outputs a reliability evaluation result including the determination result (See Col. 8,
`
`lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`11.
`
`With respect to claim 9, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 6, wherein the threshold value is the evaluation value in the
`
`capacitance whena state is deteriorated to a state where replacement of hardwareincluding the
`
`supercapacitor should be considered (See Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of
`
`Yachida).
`
`12.
`
`With respect to claim 10, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 9, wherein the reliability evaluation unit determines necessity of
`
`replacement of the hardware on a basis of a period during which a state in which the evaluation value is
`
`lower than the threshold value continues, and outputsa reliability evaluation result including the
`
`determination result (See Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`13.
`
`With respect to claim 11, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 10, wherein the reliability evaluation unit determines necessity of
`
`replacement of the hardware onabasis of whether or not a period during which a state in which the Z5
`
`evaluation value based on the charging time is lower than the threshold value continues is Longer than a
`
`predetermined period, and outputsa reliability evaluation result including the determination result (See
`
`Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 6
`
`14.
`
`With respect to claim 12, the combination of Yachida and Skeochdiscloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 11, wherein the predetermined period is a period in which the
`
`hardwareincluding the supercapacitor is allowed to be used without replacement while the capacitance
`
`is deteriorated to a state in which replacement of the hardware including the supercapacitor should be
`
`considered (See Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of Yachida).
`
`15.
`
`With respect to claim 13, the combination of Yachida and Skeoch discloses the information
`
`processing device according to claim 5, wherein in a case wherethe reliability evaluation result is
`
`information indicating that the hardware needs to be replaced, the state information acquisition unit
`
`performs a notification (See Col. 3, lines 33-43 of Yachida) of the information indicating that the
`
`hardware needs to be replaced (See Col. 8, lines 6-33 of Skeoch in view of Col. 11, lines 15-41 of
`
`Yachida).
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`16.
`
`Claims 8 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would
`
`be allowable if rewritten in independent form includingall of the limitations of the base claim and any
`
`intervening claims.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
`
`With respect to claim 8, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of
`
`structural elements wherein the reliability evaluation unit calculates, as the evaluation value, a time
`
`obtained by subtracting a charging time for charging with capacitance when the supercapacitor is
`
`deteriorated to a state requiring replacement from the measured charging time, determines necessity of
`
`replacement of the hardware from comparison between the evaluation value and a threshold value, and
`
`outputs a reliability evaluation result including the determination result.
`
`19.
`
`With respect to claim 14, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of
`
`structural elements wherein the hardware is an emergency reporting device mounted on a vehicle.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 7
`
`20.
`
`Claims 15-19 depends from objected to claim 14 and are therefore also objected to.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`Conclusion
`
`disclosure.
`
`US PUB 2014/0297100 discloses an emergency report system for vehicle, has portable terminal
`
`including receiving section receiving acceleration information and report section reporting emergency to
`
`report destination preliminarily stored in terminal based on information.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whosetelephone numberis (571)270-5814. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
`
`Examiner interviewsare 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, Huy
`
`Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization wherethis
`
`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 aboutfiling 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/909,904
`Art Unit: 2858
`
`Page 8
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2858
`
`/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
`
`