DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 12/05/2025. Claims 6-8 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 13-15, 17, and 20 have been amended, claims 2-3 and 6 have been cancelled, and claim 21 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, and 7-21 are currently pending and are being examined below. New grounds of rejection have been added to address previously claimed features resulting in the new non-final rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-8, filed 12/05/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Further consideration of the prior art of record determined that Katti in view of Schwie does appear to disclose controlling the spraying of the cleaning agent in the interior of the vehicle by controlling a device capable of spraying the cleaning agent to maintain an operation mode while the vehicle is traveling automatically to a standby location after the end of use of the vehicle, as amended in claim 1. Due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed. New application of prior art addresses the amended language, as mapped below. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and have been updated in the final office action below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “controller” in the limitation “a controller configured to: control spraying of a cleaning agent… and control a window to be open…” invokes 112(f) as controller is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the window to be opened or the cleaning agent to be sprayed.
In claim 4, the “terminal apparatus” in the limitation “a signal indicating the end of use of the vehicle from a terminal apparatus of a user using a vehicle” invokes 112(f) as apparatus is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the window to be opened or the cleaning agent to be sprayed. The term is also introduced in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0026] The controller 14 is configured to include at least one processor, at least one dedicated circuit, or a combination thereof… The controller 14 executes processes related to the operations of the vehicle 10 while controlling components of the vehicle 10.”
“[0019] The terminal apparatus 30 is, for example, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a personal computer (PC), or the like.”
In claim 1, the “device” in the limitation “a device capable of spraying the cleaning agent…” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the cleaning agent to be sprayed.
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.
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.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of spraying the cleaning agent, further clarified in the 112(b) below. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5, 7-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Claim 21, likewise, recites “window closing mechanism” that does not have the attached function to have interpretation under 112(f), but does not appear to have support in the specification for the associated structure to close the window.
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.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “a device capable of spraying the cleaning agent” which 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 specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the claimed function of spraying is performed by a controller containing a processor. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actual dispersal of the aerosol which is being sprayed. The use of the term device is not adequate structure for performing spraying, because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. The specification does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
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.
Claims 4-5, 7-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Claim 21, likewise, recites “window closing mechanism” that does not have the attached function to have interpretation under 112(f), but does not appear to have support in the specification for the associated structure to close the window.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti et al. (US 2022/0371604 A1), hereinafter Katti, in view of Schwie et al. (US 10,223,844 B1), hereinafter Schwie.
With respect to claims 1 and 20, Katti discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (“vehicle sanitizer system 108”) configured to: control spraying of a cleaning agent in an interior of a vehicle after an end of use of the vehicle; (see at least [0024] “The sanitization procedure can include one or more operations such as, for example, dispensing an aerosol (antibacterial agent, disinfectant, deodorizer, air freshener, etc.) in the cabin area of the vehicle 105… after a passenger exits the vehicle 105 and before another enters the vehicle 105.”)
and control a window of the vehicle to be open before a start of use of the vehicle. (see at least [0039-0040] “allow any disinfectant fumes that may be present in the cabin area of the vehicle 105 to be dispelled prior to re-use of the vehicle 105… The vehicle sanitizer system 108 may further communicate with the vehicle computer 106 to instruct the vehicle computer 106 to activate a window motor to open a window of the vehicle 105 when the sanitization is in progress.”)
control spraying of the cleaning agent in the interior of the vehicle by controlling a device capable of spraying the cleaning agent (see at least [0024] “A scheduling routine may be… when the vehicle 105 is a ride share vehicle and no rides are scheduled. The sanitization procedure can include… dispensing an aerosol (antibacterial agent, disinfectant, deodorizer, air freshener, etc.) in the cabin area of the vehicle 105”)
Katti discloses controlling the sanitization of the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose doing it when the vehicle driving to a standby location.
However, Schwie teaches to maintain an operation mode while the vehicle is traveling automatically to a standby location after the end of use of the vehicle. (see at least [col. 31, lines 43-60] “the vehicle management system 65 is configured to at least one of use the motor 81 to automatically roll down the window 82 and increase a rate at which the ventilation system 84 pushes the air into the cabin… make the vehicle 2 unavailable to pick up the second rider until after the vehicle management system 65 has driven the vehicle 2 to a service area 8 configured to clean the vehicle 2.” Note: It is understood that the windows would remain open and fan on until the vehicle reached the service area. In the case of combination, the aerosol of Katti would be interpreted to similarly remain on during the drive to the service area.)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization system of Katti to include the location dependent cleaning disclosed in Schwie, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the vehicle is cleaned such that the prior scent of the previous rider is reduced to a predetermined amount, see Schwie [col. 9, lines 7-21].
With respect to claim 4, Katti discloses a communication interface (“display 216”),
wherein the controller controls the device to shift into the operation mode upon receiving, by the communication interface, a signal indicating the end of use of the vehicle from a terminal apparatus of a user using the vehicle. (see at least [0038-0039] “The GUI may be used for various purposes such as to allow the driver 112 of the vehicle 105 to make a request to obtain navigation instructions and/or to sanitize the vehicle 105…The vehicle sanitizer system 108, may, for example, instruct the driver 112 to exit the vehicle 105 so as to allow the sanitizing hardware 114 to sanitize the cabin area of the vehicle 105.”)
With respect to claim 5, Katti discloses controlling the vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose vehicle driving to a standby location.
However, Schwie teaches the controller controls the vehicle to travel automatically to the standby location upon receiving the signal indicating the end of use of the vehicle. (see at least [col. 4, lines 28-35] “The vehicle management system can be configured to cause the camera system to take a first interior image of the interior of the vehicle in response to determining that the first rider has exited the vehicle.” [col. 8, lines 31-35] “The vehicle management system can be configured to drive the vehicle to a service area configured to clean the vehicle in response to determining that the particle size is smaller than the predetermined threshold.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization system of Katti to include the location dependent cleaning disclosed in Schwie, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the vehicle is cleaned such that the prior scent of the previous rider is reduced to a predetermined amount, see Schwie [col. 9, lines 7-21].
With respect to claim 9, Katti discloses the controller is configured to control the window of the vehicle to be open while the vehicle is traveling automatically from the standby location to a dispatch location before the start of use of the vehicle. (see at least [0031] “The travel routes… may be used by the vehicle sanitizer system 108 to obtain air quality information along the travel routes and execute sanitization procedures upon the vehicle 105 prior to the individual entering the vehicle 105.” [0040] “The vehicle sanitizer system 108 may further communicate with the vehicle computer 106 to instruct the vehicle computer 106 to activate a window motor to open a window of the vehicle 105 when the sanitization is in progress.”)
With respect to claim 10, Katti discloses the controller is configured to control the window of the vehicle to open when the vehicle departs the standby location. (see at least [0031] “along the travel routes and execute sanitization procedures upon the vehicle 105 prior to the individual entering the vehicle 105.” [0040] “The vehicle sanitizer system 108 may further communicate with the vehicle computer 106 to instruct the vehicle computer 106 to activate a window motor to open a window of the vehicle 105 when the sanitization is in progress.”)
With respect to claim 16, Katti discloses opening the window of the vehicle to be able to air it out, but does not explicitly disclose the use of weather information to determine the opening.
However, Schwie teaches the controller is configured to determine an amount of opening of the window of the vehicle based on weather information. (see at least [col. 9, lines 22-29] “The vehicle management system can be configured to use the motor to automatically roll down the window in response to the smoke detection system detecting the smoke inside the vehicle and in response to the rain sensor not detecting the indication of the rain.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization system of Katti to include the rain consideration disclosed in Schwie, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the vehicle interior doesn’t sustain damage due to rain entering through the open window.
With respect to claim 17, Katti discloses the controller is configured to control spraying of the cleaning agent and control the window of the vehicle to be open while the vehicle is traveling automatically from the standby location to a dispatch location before the start of use of the vehicle. (see at least [0031] “The travel routes and/or travel times (a season of the year, for example) may be used by the vehicle sanitizer system 108 to obtain air quality information along the travel routes and execute sanitization procedures upon the vehicle 105 prior to the individual entering the vehicle 105.” [0040] “The vehicle sanitizer system 108 may further communicate with the vehicle computer 106 to instruct the vehicle computer 106 to activate a window motor to open a window of the vehicle 105 when the sanitization is in progress.”)
With respect to claim 18, Katti discloses the cleaning agent includes a deodorizer and/or a sanitizer. (see at least [0041] “The sanitizing hardware 114 may include various systems such as, for example, a dispensing system for dispensing sanitizing agents such as, for example, an antibacterial agent, a disinfectant, a sterilizer, an antiseptic, a deodorizer, or soap.”)
With respect to claim 19, Katti discloses a system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1; and the vehicle. (see at least [0013] “The vehicle 105 may include components such as a vehicle computer 106, a pollutant detection system 107, a vehicle sanitizer system 108, a wireless communication system 109, an infotainment system 113, and sanitizing hardware 114.”)
Claims 7-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti in view of Schwie as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Zemek (US 2021/0248522 A1), hereinafter Zemek.
With respect to claim 7, Katti discloses sanitizing a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle should continue to operate after the end of the vehicle use.
However, Schwie teaches the controller is configured to control an ignition of the vehicle to remain on until at least a first time elapses after the end of use of the vehicle. (see at least [col. 4, lines 26-31] “the vehicle management system is configured to determine that the first rider has exited the vehicle. The vehicle management system can be configured to cause the camera system to take a first interior image of the interior of the vehicle in response to determining that the first rider has exited the vehicle.” Note: It is understood that the vehicle would remain on long enough to take the first interior image.)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization system of Katti to include the location dependent cleaning disclosed in Schwie, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the vehicle is cleaned such that the prior scent of the previous rider is reduced to a predetermined amount, see Schwie [col. 9, lines 7-21].
With respect to claim 8, Katti discloses the use of a sanitization process, but does not explicitly disclose that it controlled for a period of time.
However, Zemek teaches the controller is configured to control the device to shift into a stop mode at a point in time when a second time has elapsed after the shift of the device into the operation mode. (see at least [0140] “the control data may further include a data relating to the time for activating the deodorization device or the ion generator, and the intensity of the operation thereof.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization of Katti to include the activation timing disclosed in Zemek, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the odor level has reduced before the vehicle is dispatched to the next passenger, see Zemek [0144-0145].
With respect to claim 11, Katti discloses the use of a sanitization process, but does not explicitly disclose that it controlled for a period of time.
However, Zemek teaches the controller is configured to control the window of the vehicle to close before the vehicle arrives at a dispatch location. (see at least [0086] “Further, the control contents may include travelling for a certain time with the window opened. Further, the control content may include comparing the odor level with the window opened and the odor level with the window closed.” [0139] “The control data may further include a data relating to a position of the window to be opened (front right side, rear left side, or the like), a time for keeping the window opened”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization of Katti to include the activation timing disclosed in Zemek, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the odor level has reduced before the vehicle is dispatched to the next passenger, see Zemek [0144-0145].
With respect to claim 12, Katti discloses the use of a sanitization process, but does not explicitly disclose opening a window upon receiving a request from a user for vehicle dispatch.
However, Zemek teaches a communication interface, wherein the controller controls the window of the vehicle to open upon receiving from a terminal apparatus of a user, by the communication interface, a dispatch command signal commanding dispatch of the vehicle. (see at least [0127-0135] “the vehicle management server 200 receives the vehicle dispatching request to the taxi stand, from the communication terminal 40 used by the user 31… determines whether the acquired odor level (each type or total value) fulfills the predetermined criterion (S250)… the vehicle management server 200 transmits the control data for controlling the vehicle 50A” [0086] “Further, the control contents may include travelling for a certain time with the window opened.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization of Katti to include the activation timing disclosed in Zemek, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the odor level has reduced before the vehicle is dispatched to the next passenger, see Zemek [0144-0145].
With respect to claim 13, Katti discloses controlling the window as a part of a sanitization process, but does not explicitly disclose it happening based on the start of use.
However, Zemek teaches the controller controls the window of the vehicle to close upon receiving from the terminal apparatus, by the communication interface, a signal indicating the start of use of the vehicle. (see at least [0102] “Examples of the vehicle dispatching contents include a scheduled time (vehicle dispatching scheduled time) when the vehicle arrives at a predetermined place… The vehicle dispatching scheduled time may be called a use start time of the vehicle.” [0144] “The process of S270 is executed until, for example, the vehicle dispatching scheduled time that dispatches the vehicle to the next passenger.” [0086] “Further, the control contents may include travelling for a certain time with the window opened. Further, the control content may include comparing the odor level with the window opened and the odor level with the window closed.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization of Katti to include the activation timing disclosed in Zemek, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the odor level has reduced before the vehicle is dispatched to the next passenger, see Zemek [0144-0145].
With respect to claim 14, Katti discloses the sanitization process, but does not explicitly disclose the driving from one vehicle to another.
However, Schwie teaches the controller controls the vehicle to travel automatically from the standby location to a dispatch location upon receiving, by the communication interface, the dispatch command signal. (see at least [col. 9, lines 2-6] “the vehicle management system is configured to make the vehicle unavailable to pick up the second rider until after the vehicle management system has driven the vehicle to a service area configured to clean the vehicle.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization system of Katti to include the location dependent cleaning disclosed in Schwie, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the vehicle is cleaned prior picking up to the next passenger, see Schwie [col. 9, lines 7-21].
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima (JP 2019-209827 A), hereinafter Nakajima.
With respect to claim 15, Katti discloses the sanitization process including the opening of a window, but does not explicitly disclose that the window is opened when the vehicle turns on at a standby location.
However, Nakajima teaches in a case in which the vehicle waits at the standby location before the start of use of the vehicle, the controller controls the window of the vehicle to be open when an ignition of the vehicle is turned on at the standby location. (see at least [0108] “the manned-in unit deodorization process may be configured to be executed when the ignition power is turned on.” [0128] “the vehicle may be configured to perform interior deodorization processing based on the positioning results of a navigation device or locator installed in the vehicle Hv, provided that the vehicle Hv is parked in a predetermined location (hereinafter referred to as a regular storage location)”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization process of Katti to include the location and ignition dependency disclosed in Nakajima, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the deodorization at the beginning of the ride so that stale air could be circulated out of the vehicle before the trip.
With respect to claim 21, Katti discloses the sanitization process including the opening of a window, but does not explicitly disclose that the window power is maintained when the vehicle is turned off.
However, Nakajima teaches the controller is configured to maintain power to the a window closing mechanism of the vehicle when an ignition of the vehicle is turned off after opening the window and before receiving a signal to close the window. (see at least [0127] “The vehicle interior deodorizing process may also be performed every time the ignition power is turned off.” [0067] “The air conditioning ECU 2 can also obtain information from the body ECU 6 about the opening degree of each door window and the open/close state of each door.” Note: The deodorizing process includes a rapid ventilation process, which includes the opening degree being determined, then the windows would open and close as needed. Therefore, the power would remain available to the window motors until the deodorizing was complete after turning off the ignition.)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sanitization process of Katti to include the location and ignition dependency disclosed in Nakajima, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the deodorization prior to the beginning of the ride so that the ozone could be circulated out of the vehicle before the trip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669