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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 15, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 01/04/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-000833 application as 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 by Applicant is requested at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated May 15, 2025, Examiner maintains the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, puts out new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and puts out new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments May 15, 2025, regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. On Pages 10 and 11, Applicant notes deficiencies of Gulati, however, these were already been remedied by the teaching of Mimura and the combination presented by Examiner in the previous action. Applicant then states, on Pages 11 and 12, that even with the teaching of Mimura, the combination does not teach to remove the limitations when a valet mode is terminated, nor does the combination teach to adjust parts of a limitation. Regarding termination, all remaining limitations of Mimura are removed when the vehicle is restored to an owner’s control (Paragraph [0079], “When the host vehicle M is moved to the stopping area 310 and the user is allowed to get into the host vehicle M, the self-traveling parking controller 142 stops the operation and manual driving or automated driving by another functional part is started subsequently.”). Next, the operation adjustments of Mimura are parts of an overall vehicle cabin control system, and thus parts of vehicle cabin control limitations (Paragraph [0087], “In a state in which the user has made various types of settings (a setting of a temperature, a setting of a wind direction, a setting of an air volume, a setting of humidity, a setting of deodorant fragrance spraying, a setting of an air cleaning function, and the like) for the air conditioning device 232, … when the reproducer 180 has acquired a recognition result indicating that the user will get into the vehicle the next time and the reproduction start instruction has been output to the third controller 170, the parking time controller 174 presets a vehicle interior space in a comfortable state” – a plurality of air control functions are recited) Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments and maintains the corresponding rejections. The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claim 5, 12, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant's arguments regarding incompleteness of the action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated in Examiner interview conducted on April 25, 2025, the omission of Claims 12 and 18 in the previous action would be reasonably interpreted to be of a typographical nature, and the actual intention of the office action was not rendered unclear Furthermore, even if the Applicant arguments were persuasive, Applicant now presents new claim language, requiring further search and consideration, which is beyond the redress of correcting an incomplete action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 recites ‘the at least one limitation’ – however, this limitation lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, the at least one limitation comprises ‘a plurality of parts of limitations’ – but parts of limitations are already recited in Claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if these parts of limitations are the same parts or are new parts. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the parts to be the same limitations (or parts of limitations) as recited in Claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulati (US 9767629 B1), previously of record, in view of Mimura (US 20200283020 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Gulati and Mimura respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
Gulati discloses the following limitations,
determining, by one or more processors (Figure 1, depicting a computer, where computers have processors) and while a vehicle is in a valet mode, whether one or more vehicle takeover mode entry conditions are satisfied (Column 15, Lines 36-41, “Thus, the access controller 110 provides the valet limited access to the vehicle 102 and the device 114. The valet then can drive the vehicle 102 to the parking area, parks it, and pick it up during the predetermined interval of time. The access controller 110 detects when the predetermined time ends using a timer.” – where the vehicle takeover is end of valet mode, or return of the vehicle owner, at a predetermined time)
requesting, based on a determination that the one or more vehicle takeover mode entry conditions are satisfied and further based on a status of the vehicle, one of a plurality of takeover controls for a vehicle takeover mode; (Column 11, Lines 12-22, “In one example, a set of access control parameters CTRL_PAR is input to disable the in-car entertainment and communication system and the air-conditioning system, lock the storage compartment, and the fuel tank, and restrict the speed the vehicle 102 may go and restrict the distance the vehicle 102 may travel to predetermined values. The restricted speed and distance may be pre-set at the factory or input by the user. For example, the restricted distance may be set to a maximum distance for which a valet may drive the vehicle 102 to park it in the parking area.” – where an air-conditioning setting and a speed setting are limitations subject to a takeover control, and where the timer entails a vehicle status which further determines the limitations, Column 15, Lines 36-41, “Thus, the access controller 110 provides the valet limited access to the vehicle 102 and the device 114. The valet then can drive the vehicle 102 to the parking area, parks it, and pick it up during the predetermined interval of time. The access controller 110 detects when the predetermined time ends using a timer.”)
and performing the requested takeover control on the vehicle by adjusting a limitation that is applied … to the vehicle (Column 15, Lines 36-41, “Thus, the access controller 110 provides the valet limited access to the vehicle 102 and the device 114. The valet then can drive the vehicle 102 to the parking area, parks it, and pick it up during the predetermined interval of time. The access controller 110 detects when the predetermined time ends using a timer.” and further, Column 16, Lines 21-36, “the access controller 110 processes the second lock signal LOCK2, which in this case allows the valet to access the vehicle 102, enables the ignition system 118, and allows the car to be driven from the parking area to the location of the owner. The valet then provides the second trigger signal TRIGGER2 to the second portable device 106, which generates the second shared password SHARED2 and the second lock signal LOCK2 including the first bit-pattern. The access controller 110 compares these passwords and if they match processes the second lock signal LOCK2, which locks the vehicle 102. The valet then hands over the vehicle 102 to the owner. If the valet does not lock the vehicle 102, the access controller 110 locks the vehicle 102 by generating the third lock signal LOCK3 after a predetermined time. The vehicle 102 can then be unlocked using the first lock signal LOCK1 from first portable device 104.” – where, if the vehicle is locked as an end to the valet mode, this is an adjustment of the valet mode, and further, the vehicle is returned to the owner, the valet limitations are removed, so that the vehicle becomes fully operational.)
However, Gulati does not disclose the following limitation,
one of a plurality of takeover controls for a vehicle takeover mode while the vehicle is in the valet mode;
wherein while the vehicle is in the valet mode, a primary operator of the vehicle is not present in the vehicle and at least one limitation is applied to the vehicle
before terminating the valet mode and while the primary operator of the vehicle is not present, performed the requested takeover control on the vehicle by adjusting one or more parts of limitations that are applied, in the valet mode, to the vehicle
wherein the remaining of the limitations that are applied to the vehicle in the valet mode is removed when the valet mode is terminated.
However, this is taught by Mimura, which teaches to adjust parts of vehicle limitations while the vehicle is in a valet mode, so that it may be returned to an operator in a remembered operational state (Paragraph [0007], “… limit an operation state of the predetermined device at a timing when a user gets out of the vehicle; and a reproducer configured to reproduce the operation state of the predetermined device at a timing when the user gets into the vehicle when the driving controller performs driving control for moving the vehicle from a parking area and picking up the user.”), where, particularly, this can include pre-emptively running an air-conditioning and air purification, which are parts of an overall vehicle cabin control system, and thus parts of vehicle cabin control limitations (Paragraph [0087], “In a state in which the user has made various types of settings (a setting of a temperature, a setting of a wind direction, a setting of an air volume, a setting of humidity, a setting of deodorant fragrance spraying, a setting of an air cleaning function, and the like) for the air conditioning device 232, … when the reproducer 180 has acquired a recognition result indicating that the user will get into the vehicle the next time and the reproduction start instruction has been output to the third controller 170, the parking time controller 174 presets a vehicle interior space in a comfortable state” which are operations performed based on a status of expected time and vehicle interior state (Paragraph [0088], “For example, the reproducer 180 predicts a period of time until the user arriving at the carriage-porch area 320 gets into the vehicle … The reproducer 180 acquires information of a degree of deviation between the vehicle interior space information of the timing when the pick-up request has been received and the reproduction setting information 192 (a temperature difference between a set temperature and a current temperature or a humidity difference detected by a temperature/humidity sensor provided in the air conditioning device 232 or the like).”). The adjustment of the limitation is performed while the vehicle is travelling (Figure 7). When a user retrieves the vehicle, the remaining of the limitations that are applied to the vehicle are removed by converting the vehicle to a manual operation (Paragraph [0079], “When the host vehicle M is moved to the stopping area 310 and the user is allowed to get into the host vehicle M, the self-traveling parking controller 142 stops the operation and manual driving or automated driving by another functional part is started subsequently.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the valet’s speed and air-conditioning control of Gulati with the predictive preparation of Mimura, as this returns a vehicle to a user in an expected state and assures a comfortable experience for the vehicle user. Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Gulati further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the one or more vehicle takeover mode entry conditions comprise at least one of:
a vehicle takeover time, selected by a primary operator of the vehicle, being reached; … (Column 15, Lines 36-41, “Thus, the access controller 110 provides the valet limited access to the vehicle 102 and the device 114. The valet then can drive the vehicle 102 to the parking area, parks it, and pick it up during the predetermined interval of time. The access controller 110 detects when the predetermined time ends using a timer.” where, if the vehicle is locked as an end to the valet mode, this is an adjustment of the valet mode, and further, the vehicle is returned to the owner, the valet limitations are removed, so that the vehicle becomes fully operational, and this constitutes a takeover control, where the entry condition is based on a selected time.)
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Mimura further already teaches the following limitation,
the performing the requested takeover control comprises purifying air in an interior of the vehicle (where the air conditioning can entail air purification, Paragraph [0087], “In a state in which the user has made various types of settings (a setting of a temperature, a setting of a wind direction, a setting of an air volume, a setting of humidity, a setting of deodorant fragrance spraying, a setting of an air cleaning function, and the like) for the air conditioning device 232,” and the air conditioner is operated as part of a takeover control to create a pleasant interior based on measurements of the interior, Paragraph [0088], “For example, the reproducer 180 predicts a period of time until the user arriving at the carriage-porch area 320 gets into the vehicle on the basis of a position of the host vehicle M and a position of the carriage-porch area 320 at a timing when a pick-up request has been received. The reproducer 180 acquires information of a degree of deviation between the vehicle interior space information of the timing when the pick-up request has been received and the reproduction setting information 192 (a temperature difference between a set temperature and a current temperature or a humidity difference detected by a temperature/humidity sensor provided in the air conditioning device 232 or the like).”)
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Mimura further already teaches the following limitations,
accessing the status of the vehicle (Paragraph [0088], “The reproducer 180 acquires information of a degree of deviation between the vehicle interior space information of the timing when the pick-up request has been received and the reproduction setting information 192 (a temperature difference between a set temperature and a current temperature or a humidity difference detected by a temperature/humidity sensor provided in the air conditioning device 232 or the like).” – where interior state of the vehicle is a status of the vehicle)
operating an air conditioner of the vehicle (Paragraph [0087], “In a state in which the user has made various types of settings (a setting of a temperature, a setting of a wind direction, a setting of an air volume, a setting of humidity, a setting of deodorant fragrance spraying, a setting of an air cleaning function, and the like) for the air conditioning device 232. … when the reproducer 180 has acquired a recognition result indicating that the user will get into the vehicle the next time and the reproduction start instruction has been output to the third controller 170, the parking time controller 174 presets a vehicle interior space in a comfortable state”)
Regarding Claims 8 and 14,
Claims 8 and 14 recite identical limitations to that of Claim 1, merely as apparatus claims with the additional structure of a memory. Gulati, as shown, discloses a computer (Figure 1), and further, this computer explicitly includes a memory (Figure 1, Element 110, “Memory”). The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 8 and 14 are also taught.
Regarding Claims 9 and 15,
Claims 9 and 15 recite identical limitations to that of Claim 2, merely as corresponding apparatus claims. The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Therefore, Claims 9 and 15 are also taught.
Regarding Claims 13 and 19,
Claims 13 and 19 recite identical limitations to that of Claim 6, merely as corresponding apparatus claims. The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Therefore, Claims 13 and 19 are also taught.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected as under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable under over Gulati and Mimura as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 14 above, further in view of Isert (US 20170015177 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Isert.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
further comprising, based on a determination that the one or more vehicle takeover entry conditions are not satisfied, determining, further based on at least one of the status of the vehicle or an external environmental state, whether one or more ventilation mode entry conditions are satisfied
However, this is taught by Isert, which teaches a ventilation while a vehicle owner is absent (Paragraph [0066], “Then, it is determined whether ventilation of the vehicle is to be performed according to the acquired unused time of the vehicle. According to an embodiment of the present invention, it is determined to perform the ventilation of the vehicle if the unused time of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined interval. As illustrated in FIG. 3, if the unused time of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined interval T.sub.1′, it is determined to perform the ventilation of the vehicle.” – where elapsed time in the unused state is a vehicle status)
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 the air conditioning restrictions of Gulati with the vehicle ventilation of Isert, as, even if a vehicle air conditioning is restricted, if a sufficient time has passed, it may still be of interest to ventilate the vehicle, so as to leave the vehicle in a better state for the owner’s return (Paragraph [0014], “In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a method for improving air quality in a vehicle is provided,”)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Gulati, Mimura, and Isert, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Isert further already discloses the following limitation,
wherein the one or more ventilation mode entry conditions comprise at least one of: … a predetermined time duration elapsing since the valet mode is activated for the vehicle (Paragraph [0066], “Then, it is determined whether ventilation of the vehicle is to be performed according to the acquired unused time of the vehicle. According to an embodiment of the present invention, it is determined to perform the ventilation of the vehicle if the unused time of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined interval.” – where the time since owner departing is considered as a start of the valet mode)
Regarding Claims 10 and 16,
Claims 10 and 16 recite identical limitations to that of Claim 3, merely as corresponding apparatus claims. The combination of Gulati, Mimura and Isert, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Therefore, Claims 10 and 16 are also taught.
Regarding Claims 11 and 17,
Claims 11 and 17 recite identical limitations to that of Claim 4, merely as corresponding apparatus claims. The combination of Gulati, Mimura and Isert, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Therefore, Claims 11 and 17 are also taught.
Claims 5, 12, 18, and 21 are rejected as under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable under over Gulati and Mimura as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 14 above, further in view of Goldman-Shenhar (US 20170174230 A1), newly of record, herein after referred to simply as Goldman-Shenhar.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Gulati further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the adjusting the limitation [is] based on at least one of a vehicle takeover time (Column 15, Lines 36-41, “Thus, the access controller 110 provides the valet limited access to the vehicle 102 and the device 114. The valet then can drive the vehicle 102 to the parking area, parks it, and pick it up during the predetermined interval of time. The access controller 110 detects when the predetermined time ends using a timer.” – where the timer means the adjustment of a limitation is thus based on vehicle takeover time
Mimura already teaches the following limitation,
… wherein the adjusting the limitation comprises decreasing … the one or more parts of limitations (Paragraph [0007], “limit an operation state of the predetermined device at a timing when a user gets out of the vehicle; and a reproducer configured to reproduce the operation state of the predetermined device at a timing when the user gets into the vehicle when the driving controller performs driving control for moving the vehicle from a parking area and picking up the user.” – where a limitation is thus decreased in that limitations are removed so as to return the vehicle to the owner in a fully operational state, as combined with the end of the valet mode itself, and without an in intermediating locked state)
However, the combination of Gulati and Mimura does not teach the following limitations,
a limitation degree
However, Goldman-Shenhar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that vehicle control operations can be categorized and controlled in terms of degrees (Paragraph [0035-0037], “Levels of abstraction are associated with each defined parameter within the vehicle system. Any defined parameter may include low levels of abstraction (L1), up to higher levels of abstraction… For example, in a video infotainment system, with display brightness being a relevant parameter, a low level of abstraction may be the user selecting (e.g., tactically or verbally) a number 1, . . . , 20 where 1 is a lowest brightness setting of the video display and 20 is a highest brightness setting of a video display.”) including environmental controls (Paragraph [0020], “The vehicle systems include any of a wide variety of systems, such as a heating system, an air conditioning system, … an HVAC system, … or other systems of a vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the climate control of Gulati, as previously modified by Mimura, with the handling of vehicle systems in terms of degrees or level as taught by Goldman-Shenhar, as this simplifies user control (Paragraph [0106], “Specifically, the present technology is arranged according to human-based parameters. Basing the system on human-parameters allows the system to understand human needs, even where intentions are implicit.”). Furthermore, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 12 and 18,
Claims 12 and 19 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 5, merely as corresponding apparatus claims. The combination of Gulati, Mimura and Goldman-Shenhar, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Therefore, Claims 12 and 18 are also taught.
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination of Gulati and Mimura, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Gulati further discloses the following limitation,
wherein while the vehicle is in the valet mode, a valet driver is authorized to drive the vehicle based on the at least one limitation being applied to the vehicle (Column 11, Lines 12-22, “In one example, a set of access control parameters CTRL_PAR is input to disable the in-car entertainment and communication system and the air-conditioning system, lock the storage compartment, and the fuel tank, and restrict the speed the vehicle 102 may go and restrict the distance the vehicle 102 may travel to predetermined values. The restricted speed and distance may be pre-set at the factory or input by the user. For example, the restricted distance may be set to a maximum distance for which a valet may drive the vehicle 102 to park it in the parking area.” – a valet driver has limitations applied to the vehicle while they are driving it)
Mimura teaches the following limitation,
wherein the plurality of takeover controls for the vehicle takeover mode are configured to enable the primary operator to control the vehicle before terminating the valet mode (Paragraph [0007], “limit an operation state of the predetermined device at a timing when a user gets out of the vehicle; and a reproducer configured to reproduce the operation state of the predetermined device at a timing when the user gets into the vehicle when the driving controller performs driving control for moving the vehicle from a parking area and picking up the user.” – the user controls the interior of the vehicle based on their preferences, when the reproducer recreates that state, e.g., such as by running the air conditioning while the vehicle is travelling to pick them up, this enables the primary operator to control the vehicle by having their settings re-applied, before terminating the valet mode).
wherein the at least one limitation comprises a plurality of parts of limitations applied to the vehicle, and (The operations can include pre-emptively running an air-conditioning and air purification, which are parts of an overall vehicle cabin control system, and thus parts of vehicle cabin control limitations, Paragraph [0087], “In a state in which the user has made various types of settings (a setting of a temperature, a setting of a wind direction, a setting of an air volume, a setting of humidity, a setting of deodorant fragrance spraying, a setting of an air cleaning function, and the like) for the air conditioning device 232, … when the reproducer 180 has acquired a recognition result indicating that the user will get into the vehicle the next time and the reproduction start instruction has been output to the third controller 170, the parking time controller 174 presets a vehicle interior space in a comfortable state”)
wherein the method further comprises: selecting, based on the requested takeover control of the plurality of takeover controls, the one or more parts of the limitations among the plurality of parts of limitations (Paragraph [0087], “In a state in which the user has made various types of settings (a setting of a temperature, a setting of a wind direction, a setting of an air volume, a setting of humidity, a setting of deodorant fragrance spraying, a setting of an air cleaning function, and the like) for the air conditioning device 232, … when the reproducer 180 has acquired a recognition result indicating that the user will get into the vehicle the next time and the reproduction start instruction has been output to the third controller 170, the parking time controller 174 presets a vehicle interior space in a comfortable state” – based on the takeover control, different parts of the air cabin control will be adjusted to reproduce a desired state.)
However, the combination of Gulati and Mimura does not teach the following limitation,
and controlling, based on a plurality of levels associated with limitation adjustment, an adjustment degree of the one or more parts of limitations
However, Goldman-Shenhar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that vehicle control operations can be categorized and controlled in terms of degrees (Paragraph [0035-0037], “Levels of abstraction are associated with each defined parameter within the vehicle system. Any defined parameter may include low levels of abstraction (L1), up to higher levels of abstraction… For example, in a video infotainment system, with display brightness being a relevant parameter, a low level of abstraction may be the user selecting (e.g., tactically or verbally) a number 1, . . . , 20 where 1 is a lowest brightness setting of the video display and 20 is a highest brightness setting of a video display.”) including environmental controls (Paragraph [0020], “The vehicle systems include any of a wide variety of systems, such as a heating system, an air conditioning system, … an HVAC system, … or other systems of a vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to have modified the climate control of Gulati, as previously modified by Mimura, with the handling of vehicle systems in terms of degrees or level, as this simplifies user control in establishing these settings (Paragraph [0106], “Specifically, the present technology is arranged according to human-based parameters. Basing the system on human-parameters allows the system to understand human needs, even where intentions are implicit.”). Furthermore, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sarma (US 20200180387 A1), previously of record, teaches a method of pre-emptive air purification (Paragraph [0011], ”Advantageously, the air-conditioning system according to the invention includes the air purification device, which purifies the air of the passenger compartment not only while driving, but also in the idle state of the vehicle before starting a trip. … Advantageously, the passenger compartment air is treated prior to departure so that the passenger compartment air is perceived as pleasant by an occupant entering the vehicle. Furthermore, unhealthy or harmful elements can be filtered out and/or neutralized from the passenger compartment air before the time of departure to reduce the risk to the occupants.”) which is based on a measurement of the vehicle status, its air quality state relative to a given threshold, (Paragraph [0037], “In addition, the user can enter a desired target air quality, which the evaluation and control unit 14 stores as an air quality threshold value, with which the currently determined air quality of the vehicle passenger compartment 3 is compared”). Protopapas (US 20140282931 A1), previously of record, teaches a method enabling a valet to operate a vehicle for a definite amount of time (Paragraph [0030], “The member may also be a temporary member, such as a valet, car repair personnel, etc. … However, this authentication may only be valid for a predetermined amount of time, such as a 3 hour window.”) within a limited speed (Paragraph [0014], “The profiles also establish a set of selected features to be enabled during the user's use of the vehicle (e.g., speed limitations, restraint alerts, etc.).”) Chapin (US 10384648 B1), previously of record, teaches that a valet mode (Column 11, Lines 19-24, “Vehicle mode module 244 may include one or more restricted modes. A vehicle operating in a restricted mode operates with limited vehicle operations. One may wish to set a vehicle in restricted mode when giving temporary access of a vehicle to another user (e.g., for valet parking, or someone who borrows a car).”) may be remotely altered by a user (Columns 19-20, Lines 66-7, “As shown in FIG. 8, step 802 includes receiving vehicle instructions from one of response system 106 or remote device 110. In some embodiments, the vehicle instructions include instructions to update a vehicle mode, to limit vehicle operations, and/or to update restriction criteria of a vehicle mode. In some embodiments, vehicle instructions are received in response to vehicle data sent to one of response system 106 or remote device 110 at, for example, step 616.”). Aoki (US 20020125332 A1), previously of record, teaches that an air conditioning control alteration may be smooth and continuous (Paragraph [0139], “Further, when the predicted solar radiation amount changes higher than a predetermined level relative to the present solar radiation amount, the air conditioning control can be performed in such a manner that the predicted value of the solar radiation amount is gradually changed before the predetermined arrival vehicle position is reached. Accordingly, the air conditioning operation can be smoothly controlled and the comfort of the passenger is improved.”) Poeppel (US 20180178741 A1), previously of record, teaches that an vehicle can be limited to a reduced operational state while parked and awaiting a user (Paragraph [0054], “Additionally or alternatively, one or more other systems can reduce power consumption when the autonomous vehicle is parked and awaiting a trip (e.g., HVAC system, lighting system, sound system, autonomy system, data acquisition system, or the like).”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marc Burgess can be reached on 571-272-9385. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights