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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 05/22/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 25 July 2025.
Claim(s) 2-4 have been canceled.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 4-5, filed 25 July 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Summerer have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
“Specifically, claim 1 now recites a specific structure including a GUI to display a selection button for permission on a display, receive an operation made by a user through the selection button, and when operation of the button indicated permission, open the window. Thus GUI-based explicit permission mechanism, including the display and input structure, is neither taught nor suggested by Summerer nor Jones”
The Examiner’s Response
With respect to independent claim 1, it appears Applicant is arguing Summerer and Jones does not explicitly teach the limitations of “displays a selection button for permission on a display, receives an operation made by a user through the selection button, and in a case in which the operation indicates permission to open the window from the user, open the window.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Summerer does not explicitly use the exact wording of the Applicant’s claim, Summerer does suggest the limitations, as broadly interpreted. Summerer teaches a notification unit. The notification unit may be configured to inform a driver of the motor vehicle that the control unit has decided to open or close the at least one window pane. The control unit is preferably configured to open or close the window pane only after confirmation by the driver (i.e., permission to open)) (see at least pages 2-3 and 5 Summerer). In other words, the notification unit is notifying the driver the control unit wants to open the window, the driver can respond and confirm the window opening, then only after confirmation the window would open. While the Examiner agrees that the exact language of the claim limitation is not present in the disclosure of Summerer, the teachings of Summerer does suggest Applicant’s limitation in the invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. See rejection below.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 4-5, filed 25 July 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Summerer have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Summerer (DE 102015223613 A1) in view of Jones (US 20030146854 A1) in further view of Catten et al. (US 8188887 B2).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summerer (DE 102015223613 A1) in view of Jones (US 20030146854 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Summerer teaches an assistance device installed at a vehicle (see abstract and at least pages 1-4 regarding a method and apparatus for automatically opening and closing at least one windowpane of a motor vehicle), the assistance device comprising: a memory (see pages 2 regarding a memory unit); and a processor coupled to the memory (see abstract and pages 2-7 regarding a control unit, the apparatus including the memory unit and control unit), the processor being configured to: receive information relating to a window opening point corresponding to a predetermined service (see at least pages 2-7 regarding receiving camera data and sensor data as well as determining a position of the vehicle, wherein the control unit processes the data and decides whether to open or close the at least one window pane, e.g., when the vehicle come near a parking garage or tollbooth (i.e., a window opening point corresponding to a predetermined service)), open a window of the vehicle in a case in which the vehicle has approached the window opening point (see at least pages 1-7 regarding automatically opening at least one windowpane of a motor vehicle that is approaching, e.g., a toll station or a parking garage); acquire vehicle information including a vehicle speed of the vehicle (see at least pages 6-7 regarding using and evaluating sensor data which includes speed data from a speed sensor), calculate a timing of arrival at the window opening point from a travel situation based on the vehicle information (see at least pages 7 regarding the control unit using the data of a speed sensor to decide if the window should be opened, e.g., if the speed is zero, stoppage is occurring, or evaluating the speed data and the GPS data to determine that the window should open), and automatically open the window in accordance with the timing (see at least pages 6-7 regarding on the basis of the speed data and / or the GPS data that the motor vehicle is approaching e.g., a toll station or a parking garage, the control unit becomes opens at least one window); wherein the processor, after notifying the service of proximity, displays a selection button for permission on a display, receives an operation made by a user through the selection button, and in a case in which the operation indicates permission to open the window from the user, open the window (see at least pages 2-3 and 5 regarding a notification unit. The notification unit may be configured to inform a driver of the motor vehicle that the control unit has decided to open or close the at least one window pane. The control unit is preferably configured to open or close the window pane only after confirmation by the driver (i.e., permission to open)).
Summerer does not explicitly teach notify the service of proximity in a case in which the vehicle has reached a predetermined range from the window opening point; notify the service of proximity; notify the service of proximity in accordance with the timing. However, Jones discloses an advance notification system of impending arrival of a vehicle and teaches notify the service of proximity in a case in which the vehicle has reached a predetermined range from the window opening point (see abstract and at least ¶[0010], [0016], [0039], [0051], [0110], [0114] and [0138] regarding sending messages to user computers in order to inform the users when the vehicle resides at a certain predefined distance from the vehicle stop such as a business (i.e., destination)); notify the service of proximity in accordance with the timing (see abstract and at least ¶[0010], [0016], [0039], [0051], [0110], [0114] and [0138] regarding sending messages to user computers in order to inform the users when the vehicle resides at a certain predefined distance from the vehicle stop such as a business (i.e., destination); also, these paragraphs discuss sending messages to user computers in order to inform the users when the vehicle resides at a certain predefined time period (i.e. time before arriving)).
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 method and apparatus for automatically opening and closing at least one windowpane of a motor vehicle of Summerer to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, notify the service of proximity in a case in which the vehicle has reached a predetermined range from the window opening point; and notify the service of proximity; notify the service of proximity in accordance with the timing, as taught by Jones, to provide a message for an impending arrival of a vehicle. (Jones at ¶[0039])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summerer (DE 102015223613 A1) in view of Jones (US 20030146854 A1) in further view of Catten et al. (US 8188887 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Summerer teaches an assistance device installed at a vehicle, the assistance device comprising: a memory (see pages 2 regarding a memory unit), and a processor coupled to the memory (see abstract and pages 2-7 regarding a control unit, the apparatus including the memory unit and control unit), the processor being configured to: receive information relating to a window opening point corresponding to a predetermined service (see at least pages 2-7 regarding receiving camera data and sensor data as well as determining a position of the vehicle, wherein the control unit processes the data and decides whether to open or close the at least one window pane, e.g., when the vehicle come near a parking garage or tollbooth (i.e., a window opening point corresponding to a predetermined service)), open a window of the vehicle in a case in which the vehicle has approached the window opening point (see at least pages 1-7 regarding automatically opening at least one windowpane of a motor vehicle that is approaching, e.g., a toll station or a parking garage); detect an external environment of the vehicle (see at least pages 2-7 regarding receiving camera data and sensor data as well as determining a position of the vehicle, wherein the control unit processes the data and decides whether to open or close the at least one window pane, e.g., when the vehicle come near a parking garage or tollbooth (i.e., a window opening point corresponding to a predetermined service)), and request permission to open the window (see at least pages 2-3 and 5 regarding the control unit notifying a driver of the motor vehicle that the control unit has decided to open or close at least one window and the control unit being preferably configured to open or close the window pane only after confirmation by the driver (i.e., permission to open)).
Summerer does not explicitly teach notify the service of proximity in a case in which the vehicle has reached a predetermined range from the window opening point; and in a case in which the external environment is not favorable for opening the window, notify a user. However, Jones discloses an advance notification system of impending arrival of a vehicle and teaches notify the service of proximity in a case in which the vehicle has reached a predetermined range from the window opening point (see abstract and at least ¶[0010], [0016], [0039], [0051], [0110], [0114] and [0138] regarding sending messages to user computers in order to inform the users when the vehicle resides at a certain predefined distance from the vehicle stop such as a business (i.e., destination)).
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 method and apparatus for automatically opening and closing at least one windowpane of a motor vehicle of Summerer to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, notify the service of proximity in a case in which the vehicle has reached a predetermined range from the window opening point, as taught by Jones, to provide a message for an impending arrival of a vehicle. (Jones at ¶[0039])
The combination of Summerer and Jones does not explicitly teach in a case in which the external environment is not favorable for opening the window, notify a user. However, Catten discloses a system and method for alerting drivers to road conditions and teaches in a case in which the external environment is not favorable for opening the window, notify a user (see at least Col. 5, lines 51-63, regarding present a warning to the driver and identifying alarm conditions; see at least Col. 10, line 42 to Col. 11, line 8, regarding conditions including weather conditions).
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 method and apparatus for automatically opening and closing at least one windowpane of a motor vehicle of Summerer as modified by Jones to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, in a case in which the external environment is not favorable for opening the window, notify a user, as taught by Catten, to provide identifying alarm conditions and presenting a warning to the driver of the alarm condition such as weather. (Catten at Col. 5, lines 51-63)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666