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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 5 January 2026.
This office action is made Non Final
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-13, 17, 18, and 20-24 have been amended
Claims 3 and 15 have been cancelled.
The 112 rejections, the 101 rejections, and the art rejections of Claims 1, 6, 8-13, 18, and 20-24 from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-13, 17, 18, and 20-24 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/26 has been entered.
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, 5-6, 8, 13, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (JP2011031876A, 2011)* in further view of Saladin et al (US20150084779, 2015). *(Disclosed in IDS filed on 1/15/25)(cited paragraphs listed below are in reference of the English translation previously provided by Applicant)
As per independent claim 1, Kurata et al discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (e.g. ECU 50) configured to perform:
receive, from a user terminal, a request to remotely operate an air conditioning of a vehicle; transmit a request signal to the vehicle to perform a detection; receive a sensor detection value from the vehicle, and determine, based on the received sensor detection value, a current location of the vehicle; (0092-0093: user makes a request, from their portable device (user terminal), to start air conditioning; 0234, 0385: whether or not the car is located at a preset parking place based on the position information of the host vehicle transmitted by the navigation ECU80 and determining whether or not the car is located at a preset parking place, such as home (based on the transmitted information) or parking lot. Determining if car is at a preset parking place is a form receiving a detection value from the car and determining the exact location of the car such as a home or a parking lot. One of a skilled artisan would have realized in order to determine the location of the vehicle, a request for the location had to be made. Thus, a form of a detection is requested (transmitted) and a detection value is received for determining the car’s location)
obtain information about a current time point that includes a first time of day or a second time of day; (0215-0217; 0375: determines the current time and if it’s between a certain time zone)
select an air conditioning mode for the vehicle based on (i) the detected current location and the (ii) information about the current time point; and (Claim 1, 3, 15; 0215-0216; 0233-0234, 0426: based on the location of the vehicle and/or the current time, a mode is selected)
wherein the air conditioning mode includes a first mode and a second mode in which an upper limit value of a rotational speed of a compressor or an upper limit value of a rotational speed of a fan for the air conditioning is lower than that in the first mode. (0065, 0216, 0239, 0426; FIG 6, 18, 20: States the following reducing the output amount of the outdoor fan 6 (amount of blowing) and the rotational speed of a compressor. Thus, Kurata describes at least two outdoor fan modes: a non-reduced mode and a reduced mode such that the reduced mode having the fan speed amount would be lowered/less)
in response to selecting the second mode based upon the detected current location and where current the time point is within the second time of day control the rotational speed of the compressor and the fan with a second control signal such that operate at second upper-rotational-speed limits lower than the first upper rotational- speed limits associated with the first mode (0216, 0221, 0239, 0240, 0375: air conditioner ECU 50 reduces the output of the outdoor fan 6 when it determines that the vehicle is relative to a parking place (fifth embodiment), and that it determines whether the current time is in the range of 20:00 to 7:00, (second time of day) and reduces/limits the output of the outdoor fan 6 when it falls within this time period (third embodiment) In addition, 0028 discloses that setting the low-noise mode and adjusting (by limiting) the output amount of the compressor in accordance with the environment of the user's home, the surrounding environment of the parking place, and the like. (thus, relative to a parking place) 0027 discloses the output amount of the compressor is reduced/limited in the low-noise mode for reducing noise to the outside providing quietness (eleventh embodiment). (0032 discloses the output amount compressor includes the rotational speed; thus, reducing the output amount includes the reducing speed of the compressor) Furthermore, Claim 11 discloses during the operation of the low-noise mode, at least output amount of the outdoor fan and an output amount of the compressor is controlled to be reduced/limited (relative to a parking place). In addition, 0426 discloses at least two of the third embodiment, the fifth embodiment, and the eleventh embodiment described above can be implemented in combination. Thus, all these embodiments, explained above, work together resulting in the fan speed and compressor speed being limited when the place determined is relative to a parking placet and the time is within 20:00-7:00. This would prioritize reducing the noise which is focusing noise reduction over performance)
Furthermore, Kurata discloses that the output of the fan is not limited when it’s not between 20:00 and 7:00. (0221: When the time zone determination means determines that the present time is early morning or night, the air conditioner ECU50 reduces the power amount of the outdoor fan 6 to be lower than that when the time zone determination means determines that the present time is a time zone other than early morning or night) In other words, Kurata discloses not limiting the speed/amount of the fan during 7:01-19:59, which includes noon (12:00) In addition, Kurata discloses when the vehicle is relative to a parking place, a low-noise mode is in place wherein the output of the compressor (rotational speed) is limited.(0028, 0249, 0308: Thus, by setting the low-noise mode and adjusting the output amount of the compressor 2 in accordance with the environment of the user's home, the surrounding environment of the parking place, and the like, (relative to a parking place ) the user can adjust the quietness given to the surroundings during pre-air conditioning.) Thus, Kurata also discloses scenario that the fan output is limited when the vehicle is located relative to a parking place. (0240) Thus, Kurata discloses the fan speed is limited during the night/ earlymorning (20:00-7:00) and that compressor speed is also limited since it was relative to a parking place. Thus, Kurata only limits the speeds of the compressor and fan during a set time period and set relative to a parking place.
However, Kurata does not explicitly disclose in response to selecting the first mode based upon the detected current location and where current the time point is within the first time of day, control the rotational speed of the compressor and the fan with a first control signal such that operate at first upper upper-rotational-speed limits associated with the first mode. In other words, Kurata does not explicitly disclose a first mode where the rotational speed of the compressor and the fan are not limited in any way (operating at full speed) during a different time, such as noon, and when not relative to a parking place.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that a skilled artisan would have realized that since Kurata ONLY limits the output of the speeds of the fan and compressor when its relative to a parking place and within a certain time zone (nighttime and early morning), then the operating speeds of the fan and compressor would not be limited at time periods of outside the preset set period (such as noon) and locations outside relative to the parking place. Since the speeds are not limited, then the performance of the fan and compressor is prioritized and running unrestricted (full/max speed). This would have provided the benefit of the flexibility of prioritizing an air mode based on the considerations of the surrounding environment and time of day.
Furthermore, Kurata fails to discloses performing an obstacle detection as intended per Applicant’s invention, receive an obstacle sensor detection value from the vehicle, and determine, based on the received obstacle sensor detection value, a current location of the vehicle including whether the vehicle is inside a garage or outside of the garage. However, Saladin et al discloses a vehicle having a front sensor and a back sensor to detect objects in front and back of the vehicle, respectively, used in the determining of the location of the vehicle. (0019-0020, 0078) 0027 discloses the ability to sense garage doors and walls using the front and/or back sensors of the vehicle. In addition, Saladin et al discloses the location of the vehicle of whether the vehicle is parked inside of the garage or outside of the garage. FIG 8 and 0079-0080 discloses determining that the front sensor detects an object such as the garage door in front of the car wherein the back sensor does not detect an object in the rear. Saladin discloses that the vehicle is not parked in the garage with these readings. FIG 11 and 0086-0087 discloses determining that the front sensor detects an object such as the wall of the garage in front of the car wherein the back sensor detect an object such as the closed garage door. Saladin discloses that the vehicle is parked in the garage with these readings. One of a skilled artisan would have realized in order for the sensors to perform their respective functionality (e.g. perform a reading as explained in 0079), a request for the sensors to execute the instructions to performing the reading had to be made/initiated/transmitted. Thus, Saladin discloses performing an obstacle detection, as intended, obtaining readings (e.g. value(s)) based on the sensors, and based on the readings (e.g. value(s)), determining the location of the vehicle if its inside or outside of the garage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to have modified Kurata’s vehicle location detection functionality with Saladin’s disclosed features of determining whether the vehicle is in a garage based on Saladin’s vehicle location detection functionality since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of assurance that the vehicle is parked in the proper location (e.g. garage) the driver intended.
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar limitation and/or subject matter as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kurata fails to specifically disclose determine that a place where the vehicle is parked is inside the garage, in cases where obstacles are detected by an obstacle sensor in front of and behind the vehicle; and determine that the place where the vehicle is parked is outside of the garage, in cases where no obstacle is detected in front of or behind the vehicle. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Saladin et al discloses a vehicle having a front sensor and a back sensor to detect objects in front and back of the vehicle, respectively. (0019-0020) 0027 discloses the ability to sense garage doors and walls using the front and/or back sensors of the vehicle. In addition, Saladin et al discloses the location of the vehicle of whether the vehicle is parked inside of the garage or outside of the garage. FIG 8 and 0079-0080 discloses determining that the front sensor detects an object such as the garage door in front of the car wherein the back sensor does not detect an object in the rear. Saladin discloses that the vehicle is not parked in the garage with these readings. FIG 11 and 0086-0087 discloses determining that the front sensor detects an object such as the wall of the garage in front of the car wherein the back sensor detect an object such as the closed garage door. Saladin discloses that the vehicle is parked in the garage with these readings.
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitation and/or subject matter as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kurata discloses obtain, as information about a place, information that can determine whether or not the place includes a home; and select the first mode in response to obtaining the information indicating the place where the vehicle is parked is other than the home (0092, 0233-0234, 0239, 0426: Discloses whether or not the vehicle includes a home or not based on position information of the vehicle. If the vehicle is at home, then the reduced mode of the fan output is selected (lower amount of fan speed). Therefore, if the vehicle is not at home, then the non-reduced mode of the fan output is selected. )
As per dependent claim 8, Kurata discloses a memory configured to store information about a position of the home of a user of the vehicle; wherein the controller is programmed to: obtain, as the information about the place, information about the current location of the vehicle; and determine whether or not the place where the vehicle is parked is the home of the user, by comparing the information about the position of the home of the user of the vehicle stored in the memory with the information about the current location of the vehicle.(Kurata discloses using the position information of the host vehicle transmitted by the navigation ECU80 and determining whether or not the car is located at a preset parking place, such as home (based on the transmitted information) (0234, 0249, 0385). In other words, Kurata discloses comparing whether or not the current position of the vehicle matches the preset parking place, such as home and if so, then it’s determined the vehicle is at home. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that “preset parking place”, such as home, indicates that the location associated with this place is stored in a form of a memory/storage since its preset location value. Therefore, the comparison includes using stored information.)
As per independent claim 13, Claim 13 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kurata discloses a computer (0121)
As per dependent claims 17, 18, and 20, Claims 17, 18, and 20 recite similar limitations as in Claims 5-6, 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al in further view of Saladin et al in further view of Badger, II et al (herein as “Badger”) (US20190308487, 2011)
As per dependent claim 9, Kurata describes at least two outdoor fan modes: a non-reduced mode and a reduced mode such that the reduced mode having the fan speed amount would be lowered/less. Thus, the non-reduced mode would be viewed a regular speed mode such than it is higher than the reduced mode. (0233-0234, 0239) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the first mode is higher, in the upper limit value of the rotational speed of the compressor or the upper limit value of the rotational speed of the fan for the air conditioning, than a mode which is a third mode in the case where a user of the vehicle operates the air conditioning in the vehicle.
However, Badger discloses a user changes the fan speed mode while in the vehicle using the vehicle controls. The user can control the fan speed to be HIGH, MED, LOW, or OFF. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the HIGH fan speed would have the highest rotational (fan) speed/(highest blow amount) compared to MED, LOW, and/or OFF. Therefore, the user could select a reduced mode such as MED, or LOW, while in the vehicle. Selecting one of these modes would select a mode with a lower fan speed. (0030, 0035)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing a more comfortable temperature for the user in the vehicle after adjustment made by the user in the vehicle.
In conjunction with Badger, the combination of the cited art would allow the user to change the fan speed to a lower fan speed from a previous selected fan speed.
As per dependent claim 10, Kurata describes at least two outdoor fan modes: a non-reduced mode and a reduced mode such that the reduced mode having the fan speed amount would be lowered/less. Therefore, the reduced mode could be viewed as a LOW setting. (see 0235. LO setting has a less fan amount than HIGH setting) Thus, the non-reduced mode would be viewed a regular speed mode such than it is higher than the reduced mode. Furthermore, based on the rationale of Claim 9 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Badger discloses the second mode is lower, in the upper limit value of the rotational speed of the compressor or the upper limit value of the rotational speed of the fan for the air conditioning, than a mode which is a third mode in the case where a user of the vehicle operates the air conditioning in the vehicle. Badger discloses a user changes the fan speed mode while in the vehicle using the vehicle controls. The user can control the fan speed to be HIGH, MED, LOW, or OFF. (0030, 0035) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the MED fan speed would have a higher rotational (fan) speed/(blow amount) than the LOW fan speed option. Thus, if the user selected the MED fan setting, then this setting would have a higher fan speed than the LO setting if selected.
In conjunction with Badger, the combination of the cited art would allow the user to change the fan speed to a higher fan speed from a previous selected fan speed.
As per dependent claim 11, Kurata describes at least two outdoor fan modes: a non-reduced mode and a reduced mode such that the reduced mode having the fan speed amount would be lowered/less. Therefore, the reduced mode could be viewed as a LOW setting. (see 0235. LO setting has a less fan amount than HIGH setting) Thus, the non-reduced mode would be viewed a regular speed mode such than it is higher than the reduced mode. Furthermore, based on the rationale of Claim 9 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Badger discloses the second mode is equal, in the upper limit value of the rotational speed of the compressor or the upper limit value of the rotational speed of the fan for the air conditioning, to a mode which is a third mode in the case where a user of the vehicle operates the air conditioning in the vehicle. Badger discloses a user changes the fan speed mode while in the vehicle using the vehicle controls. The user can control the fan speed to be AUTO, HIGH, MED, LOW, or OFF. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the MED fan speed would have a higher rotational (fan) speed/(blow amount) than the LOW fan speed option. At any given time, one of a skilled artisan would have realized the user has the ability to change the fan settings to their preference, from a previous setting, using the vehicle controls. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized the user also has the ability to return to a previous fan setting they had before prior to the first adjustment using the vehicle controls. In other words, the user could change the fan setting from LO to MED until a predetermine time then decide to change the fan setting back to LO that was previously set.
In conjunction with Badger, the combination of the cited art would allow the user to change the fan speed back to the previous selected fan speed.
As per dependent claims 21-23, Claims 21-23 recite similar limitations as in Claims 9-11 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al in further view of Saladin et al in further view of Rejkowski et al (US20210078381, 3/2021)
As per dependent claim 12, Kurata et al discloses selecting a reduce mode having the fan speed amount be lowered/less. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose select the second mode as the air conditioning mode, regardless of the information about a place and the information about the current time point, in cases where a request to remotely operate the air conditioning in the vehicle and to operate the air conditioning in the second mode has been received from a terminal of a user of the vehicle. However, Rejkowski et al discloses the ability of a user to send a fan speed setting from their phone to their car by interacting with a GUI screen on their phone. The user can adjust the fan speed on their phone by tapping on the LOW icon or dragging their pointer to the desired location, such as a selection between LOW and HIGH. Once inputted, the command/instructions are sent to the vehicle wherein the blower/fan motor is adjusted accordingly. (0021) In addition, any fan setting less than HIGH is viewed as a reduced/second mode since these fan settings blow lesser amounts by the fan than the amount blown of the HIGH setting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features since it would have provided the benefit of an improved method and system for controlling and diagnosing an automotive climate control system with an electronic or mobile device. (0004)
As per dependent claim 24, Claim 24 recite similar limitations as in Claim 12 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 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.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights