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 .
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (Pub # US2019/0308556 A1), and further in view of Carvantes et al. (Pub # US 2017/0368908 A1) .
Consider claim 1, Hu et al. teaches an information processing device [0020-0025], comprising: a communication unit that communicates with a mobile terminal owned by a user of a vehicle [0031-0036]; and a control unit that performs notification to the mobile terminal regarding windows of the vehicle based on a vehicle state including at least an opening degree of the windows and the number of open windows [0040-0048], wherein the control unit performs the notification to the mobile terminal when the vehicle is stopped [0048-0052], including at least a first condition that the opening degree of an open window of the open windows is no less than a first threshold value [0042-0048].
Hu et al. does not teach two or more conditions, and a fifth condition that the number of open windows is less than a fourth threshold, are satisfied.
In the same field of endeavor, Caravantes et al. teaches two or more conditions [0055-0063], and a fifth condition that the number of open windows is less than a fourth threshold, are satisfied [0058-0063] for the benefit of improving notification relevance, and distinguishing intentional vehicle ventilation conditions from unintended open-window conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two or more conditions, and a fifth condition that the number of open windows is less than a fourth threshold, are satisfied as shown in Carvantes et al., in Hu et al. device for the benefit of improving notification relevance, and distinguishing intentional vehicle ventilation conditions from unintended open-window conditions.
Consider claim 2, Hu et al. teaches the information processing device, wherein the control unit changes the first threshold value [0050-0056], or a request from the mobile terminal [0034 and 0039].
Hu et al. does not teach in accordance with an operation performed with respect to the device itself.
In the same field of endeavor, Carvantes et al. teaches in accordance with an operation performed with respect to the device itself [0062-0068] for the benefit of configuring the threshold value for local operations performed with respect to the vehicle/device itself.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in accordance with an operation performed with respect to the device itself as shown in Carvantes et al., in Hu et al. device for the benefit of configuring the threshold value for local operations performed with respect to the vehicle/device itself.
Consider claim 3, Hu et al. teaches similar invention.
Hu et al. does not teach the information processing device, wherein: the vehicle state further includes an outside air temperature at a stopped position of the vehicle; and the two or more conditions further include a second condition that the outside air temperature at the stopped position of the vehicle is lower than a second threshold value.
In the same field of endeavor, Carvantes et al. teaches the information processing device, wherein: the vehicle state further includes an outside air temperature at a stopped position of the vehicle [0048-0055]; and the two or more conditions further include a second condition that the outside air temperature at the stopped position of the vehicle is lower than a second threshold value [0052-0060] for the benefit of improving contextual relevance of notification and reducing unnecessary notification under acceptable environmental conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the information processing device, wherein: the vehicle state further includes an outside air temperature at a stopped position of the vehicle; and the two or more conditions further include a second condition that the outside air temperature at the stopped position of the vehicle is lower than a second threshold value as shown in Carvantes et al. in Hu et al. device for the benefit of improving contextual relevance of notification and reducing unnecessary notification under acceptable environmental conditions.
Consider claim 4, Hu et al. teaches similar invention.
Hu et al. does not teach the information processing device, wherein: the vehicle state further includes weather at a stopped position of the vehicle; and the two or more conditions further include a third condition that the weather at the stopped position of the vehicle is rain or snow.
In the same field of endeavor, Carvantes et al. teaches wherein: the vehicle state further includes weather at a stopped position of the vehicle [0050-0058]; and the two or more conditions further include a third condition that the weather at the stopped position of the vehicle is rain or snow [0054-0062] for the benefit of preventing rain of snow intrusion into the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the information processing device, wherein: the vehicle state further includes weather at a stopped position of the vehicle; and the two or more conditions further include a third condition that the weather at the stopped position of the vehicle is rain or snow as shown in Carvantes et al., in Hu et al. device for the benefit of preventing rain of snow intrusion into the vehicle.
Consider claim 6, Hu et al. teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the vehicle state further includes a vehicle stop time indicating when an event in which the vehicle stops has occurred [0045-0052], and a window opening time indicating when an event in which a window becomes open with an opening degreeless than a first threshold has occurred [0040-0048].
Hu et al. does not teach the two or more conditions further include a fourth condition that a difference between the vehicle stop time and the window opening time is equal to or greater than a third threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Carvantes et al. teaches the two or more conditions further include a fourth condition that a difference between the vehicle stop time and the window opening time is equal to or greater than a third threshold [0056-0065] for the benefit of distinguishing recently opened windows from long-duration open-widow conditions and reducing unnecessary notification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the two or more conditions further include a fourth condition that a difference between the vehicle stop time and the window opening time is equal to or greater than a third threshold as shown in Carvantes et al., in Hu et al. device for the benefit of distinguishing recently opened windows from long-duration open-widow conditions and reducing unnecessary notification.
Consider claim 7, Hu et al. teaches the information processing apparatus, wherein the control unit changes the first threshold value [0050-0056].
Hu et al. does not teaches change the first threshold value based on stop-location information indicating a location where the vehicle is stopped.
In the same field of endeavor, Carvantes et al. teaches change the first threshold value based on stop-location information indicating a location where the vehicle is stopped [0048-0058] for the benefit of adapting notification sensitivity based on parking environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include change the first threshold value based on stop-location information indicating a location where the vehicle is stopped as shown in Carvantes et al., in Hu et al. device for the benefit of adapting notification sensitivity based on parking environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the newly amened claims have been analyzed and rejected as shown in the rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights