DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are original. Claims 10 and 14 are amended. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 12/29/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application KR10-2019-0168099 filed in the Republic of Korea on 12/16/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/29/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 6 under the heading “Section 112 Rejections”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 6-9 under the heading “Prior Art Rejections”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive.
The arguments (p. 7) state that US2015/0197235A1 (Yu) does not disclose the determination of whether driving power is required until the hybrid vehicle exits the specific zone, and states that the determination of whether electric range is enough to leave the region is not equivalent, because driving power can be used in other situations even when electric range exists (such as a driver requesting rapid acceleration). The office respectfully disagrees. Although a determination of whether rapid acceleration is requested is one possible example of a determination of whether driving power of the engine is required, the claim does not specify such an example (it is noted that such an example is not considered in the specification either). The office submits that the claim is broader than the example given by Applicant. As such, any reference which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation reads on the limitation, and narrower examples are not required. The disclosure in Yu of a determination of whether there is sufficient electric range is determined to read on the limitation as sufficient range means that the driving power of the engine is not required (as the engine is not started) and insufficient range means that the driving power is required and the engine is started, as seen in the flow chart of Figure 3.
The arguments (p. 7-8) further state that the references do not read on the performing of warm up control after the vehicle exits the specific zone, when the driving power was not required. The arguments state that Yu does not recite warm up control and recite that US2019/0248359A1 (Miller et al.) does not recite the condition of after a hybrid vehicle exists a specific zone. The arguments (p. 8) further state that no rationale has been provided as to why it would have been obvious to perform the warm up control in Miller et al. after the vehicle exits the specific zone when driving power was not required in the zone. The office respectfully disagrees. The arguments are against the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The office submits that the combination of references renders the limitation in question obvious. Particularly, Yu discloses the starting of an engine after the vehicle exits the specific zone when driving power was not required in the zone (see Yu Figure 3, starting at block 44 following “no” at 54 and following “yes” at 46 or 50, when electric range exceeds the distance to the end of the region). The warm-up control taught by Miller et al. merely modifies a way to start an engine (see Figure 3, preheat at 318 before start at 324). In this way, there is rationale to perform the warm-up control of Miller et al. in the particular scenario as detailed in Yu, because the warm-up control then becomes a part of the engine startup of Yu, in the combination.
The arguments (p. 8) further state that the references do not render obvious the limitation of performing warm up control before arrival at a time or point when driving power is required in the zone. However, these arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as addressed above. The arguments are against the references individually, and do not consider the combination as laid out in the rejection where the starting of Yu is specifically modified to include the pre-heating of Miller et al. Thus, the claims are determined to be obvious based on the previously relied upon references.
Based on the amendments, the mapping below has been updated and the claims are rejected in view of US2015/0197235A1 (Yu), US2019/0248359A1 (Miller et al.), and DE102016216674A1 (Frederic).
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is 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 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 sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a vision information acquisition device” to determine a pedestrian-concentrated area, in Claims 5, 14, and 20,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: (a)
For limitation (a), specification ¶0047 recites that the vision information acquisition device is an “ADAS system or the like,” and therefore understood to be a suite of sensors.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Publication US2015/0197235A1 (Yu) in view of Publication US2019/0248359A1 (Miller et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu discloses an engine operation control method (see Figure 3, [0022] method with engine start control at 44) for a hybrid electric vehicle (see [0016, 0022]), the method comprising:
determining a necessity for start control for an engine (see [0022] engine start request in block 40);
determining whether a current position corresponds to a specific zone upon determining that the start control is necessary (see Figure 3, [0022] determination is made of whether the vehicle is within a defined geographic region, at block 42 when start is necessary);
determining whether driving power of the engine is required until the hybrid electric vehicle exits the specific zone (see [0027-0028] blocks 46, 50, determine whether electric only range is enough to leave the geographic region, [0029] if not, engine will be restarted) when the current position corresponds to the specific zone (see Figure 3, based on “yes” at 42);
performing the start control after the hybrid electric vehicle exits the specific zone (see Figure 3, starting at 44, when vehicle is no longer in geographic region per block 54) when the driving power of the engine is not required in the specific zone (see Figure 3, when “yes” at 46 or 50, when electric range exceeds the distance to the end of the region); and
performing the start control when the driving power of the engine is required in the specific zone (see Figure 3, starting at 44, based on “no” at 50).
Yu does not explicitly recite:
warm up control for an engine;
and does not explicitly recite
performing the warm up control before arrival at a time or a point at which the driving power of the engine is required.
However, Miller et al. teaches a technique for a hybrid vehicle (see [0020]), wherein starting (see Figure 3, [0051] at 324 engine start) requires:
warm up control for an engine (see Figure 3, [0049] at 318, preheating engine components); and
performing the warm up control before arrival at a time or a point at which the driving power of the engine is required (see [0029] “preheat the said range extender engine components prior to a predicted engine start time” and [0049] based on engine start time and duration of preheating).
Therefore, 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 starting of the engine as controlled in Yu to additionally include a warm up control as taught by Miller et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions (see Miller et al., [0004-0009]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the specific zone includes a zone in which exhaust gas emission reduction is enforced or recommended (see [0019] zones with enforcement via charges, or recommended by operator in neighborhood).
Regarding Claim 3, Yu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the specific zone comprises a green zone encompassing an area set by regulations or government policy (see [0019], green zone based on local regulations, e.g. London) .
Regarding Claim 4, Yu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the specific zone comprises a green zone encompassing an area where exhaust gas reduction is recommended due to regional characteristics (see [0019] operator prefers (recommends) to reduce exhaust gas based on neighborhood (characteristic of local region)).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature (see [0040] warm up control characteristic of valve operation (or [0049] pump) related to transfer of heat into coolant).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Yu does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in oil temperature.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in oil temperature (see [0049] warm up control characteristic of pump related to flow of oil for heat transfer between components, i.e. temperature increase at waste heat source).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Yu does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in catalyst temperature of the engine.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in catalyst temperature of the engine (see [0040] exhaust catalyst as component which is pre-heated as part of warmup control).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Yu does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature, oil temperature and catalyst temperature of the engine.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature(see [0040] warm up control characteristic of valve operation (or [0049] pump) related to transfer of heat into coolant), oil temperature (see [0049] warm up control characteristic of pump related to flow of oil for heat transfer between components, i.e. temperature increase at waste heat source) and catalyst temperature of the engine (see [0040] exhaust catalyst as component which is pre-heated as part of warmup control).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Yu discloses a hybrid electric vehicle (see [0016]), comprising:
computer hardware (see [0016, 0034] controller as computer): and
computer-readable media storing computer-readable code that, when executed by the computer hardware, cause the computer hardware to (see [0016, 0034] instructions on media):
determine necessity for start control for an engine (see [0022] engine start request in block 40); and
determine whether a current position corresponds to a specific zone upon determining that the start control is necessary (see Figure 3, [0022] determination is made of whether the vehicle is within a defined geographic region, at block 42 when start is necessary),
determine whether driving power of the engine is required until the hybrid electric vehicle exits the specific zone (see [0027-0028] blocks 46, 50, determine whether electric only range is enough to leave the geographic region, [0029] if not, engine will be restarted) when the current position corresponds to the specific zone (see Figure 3, based on “yes” at 42),
control the start control to be executed after the hybrid electric vehicle exits the specific zone (see Figure 3, starting at 44, when vehicle is no longer in geographic region per block 54) when the driving power of the engine is not required in the specific zone (see Figure 3, when “yes” at 46 or 50, when electric range exceeds the distance to the end of the region), and
control the start control to be executed when the driving power of the engine is required in the specific zone (see Figure 3, starting at 44, based on “no” at 50).
Yu does not explicitly recite:
warm up control for an engine,
and does not explicitly recite
the warm up control to be executed before arrival at a time or a point at which the driving power of the engine is required.
However, Miller et al. teaches a technique for a hybrid vehicle (see [0020]), wherein starting (see Figure 3, [0051] at 324 engine start) requires:
warm up control for an engine (see Figure 3, [0049] at 318, preheating engine components); and
the warm up control to be executed before arrival at a time or a point at which the driving power of the engine is required (see [0029] “preheat the said range extender engine components prior to a predicted engine start time” and [0049] based on engine start time and duration of preheating).
Therefore, 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 starting of the engine as controlled in Yu to additionally include a warm up control as taught by Miller et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions (see Miller et al., [0004-0009]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yu discloses the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the specific zone includes a zone in which exhaust gas emission reduction is enforced or recommended (see [0019] zones with enforcement via charges, or recommended by operator in neighborhood).
Regarding Claim 12, Yu discloses the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the specific zone comprises a green zone encompassing an area set by regulations or government policy (see [0019], green zone based on local regulations, e.g. London).
Regarding Claim 13, Yu discloses the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the specific zone comprises a green zone encompassing an area where exhaust gas reduction is recommended due to regional characteristics (see [0019] operator prefers (recommends) to reduce exhaust gas based on neighborhood (characteristic of local region)).
Regarding Claim 15, Yu does not explicitly recite the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature (see [0040] warm up control characteristic of valve operation (or [0049] pump) related to transfer of heat into coolant).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16, Yu does not explicitly recite the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in oil temperature.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in oil temperature (see [0049] warm up control characteristic of pump related to flow of oil for heat transfer between components, i.e. temperature increase at waste heat source).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17, Yu does not explicitly recite the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in catalyst temperature of the engine.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in catalyst temperature of the engine (see [0040] exhaust catalyst as component which is pre-heated as part of warmup control).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, Yu does not explicitly recite the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature, oil temperature and catalyst temperature of the engine.
However, Miller et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the warm up control has characteristics related to temperature increase in coolant temperature(see [0040] warm up control characteristic of valve operation (or [0049] pump) related to transfer of heat into coolant), oil temperature (see [0049] warm up control characteristic of pump related to flow of oil for heat transfer between components, i.e. temperature increase at waste heat source) and catalyst temperature of the engine (see [0040] exhaust catalyst as component which is pre-heated as part of warmup control).
The motivation to combine Yu and Miller et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu et al. discloses an engine operation control method (see Figure 3, [0022] method with engine start control at 44) for a hybrid electric vehicle (see [0016, 0022]), the method comprising:
determining a necessity for start control for an engine (see [0022] engine start request in block 40);
determining boundaries of a green zone where exhaust gas emission is to be reduced (see [0019] green zones and [0031] boundaries known);
determining whether a current position corresponds to the green zone upon determining that the start control is necessary (see Figure 3, [0022] determination is made of whether the vehicle is within a defined geographic region, at block 42 when start is necessary);
determining whether driving power of the engine is required until the hybrid electric vehicle exits the green zone (see [0027-0028] blocks 46, 50, determine whether electric only range is enough to leave the geographic region, [0029] if not, engine will be restarted) when the current position corresponds to the green zone (see Figure 3, based on “yes” at 42);
performing the start control after the hybrid electric vehicle exits the green zone (see Figure 3, starting at 44, when vehicle is no longer in geographic region per block 54) when the driving power of the engine is not required in the green zone (see Figure 3, when “yes” at 46 or 50, when electric range exceeds the distance to the end of the region); and
performing the start when the driving power of the engine is required in the green zone (see Figure 3, starting at 44, based on “no” at 50).
Yu does not explicitly recite:
warm up control for an engine;
and does not explicitly recite
warm up control before arrival at a time or a point at which the driving power of the engine is required.
However, Miller et al. teaches a technique for a hybrid vehicle (see [0020]), wherein starting (see Figure 3, [0051] at 324 engine start) requires:
warm up control for an engine (see Figure 3, [0049] at 318, preheating engine components); and
performing the warm up control before arrival at a time or a point at which the driving power of the engine is required (see [0029] “preheat the said range extender engine components prior to a predicted engine start time” and [0049] based on engine start time and duration of preheating).
Therefore, 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 starting of the engine as controlled in Yu to additionally include a warm up control as taught by Miller et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions (see Miller et al., [0004-0009]).
Claims 5, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2015/0197235A1 (Yu) in view of Publication US2019/0248359A1 (Miller et al.), further in view of Publication DE102016216674A1 (Frederic) (English description relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the specific zone comprises a pedestrian-concentrated area determined through a vision information acquisition device included in the vehicle.
However, Frederic teaches a technique to identify a zone for reduced emissions (see [0020-0021] pedestrians cause countermeasures to be taken to reduce emissions, e.g. shut down of engine),
wherein the specific zone comprises a pedestrian-concentrated area (see [0017] specific area around the vehicle) determined through a vision information acquisition device (see [0017] pedestrians identified by image processing algorithms and camera sensors, monitoring around vehicle) included in the vehicle (see [0017, 0041]).
Therefore, 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 green zones of Yu to further include pedestrian concentrated areas as taught by Frederic, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving public safety and convenience (see Frederic, [0003, 0011]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yu does not explicitly recite the hybrid electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the computer-readable code is further configured to cause the computer hardware to determine a pedestrian-concentrated area using a vision information acquisition device.
However, Frederic teaches a technique to identify a zone for reduced emissions (see [0020-0021] pedestrians cause countermeasures to be taken to reduce emissions, e.g. shut down of engine), including:
computer hardware to determine a pedestrian-concentrated area (see [0017] specific area around the vehicle, pedestrians identified by cameras/image processing) using a vision information acquisition device (see [0017] image processing algorithms and camera sensors [0041] on vehicle).
Therefore, 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 green zones of Yu to further include pedestrian concentrated areas as taught by Frederic, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving public safety and convenience (see Frederic, [0003, 0011]).
Regarding Claim 20, Yu does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 19, wherein determining the boundaries of the green zone comprises using a vision information acquisition device to determine a pedestrian-concentrated area.
However, Frederic teaches a technique to identify a zone for reduced emissions (see [0020-0021] pedestrians cause countermeasures to be taken to reduce emissions, e.g. shut down of engine),
wherein determining the boundaries of the green zone comprises using a vision information acquisition device to determine a pedestrian-concentrated area (see [0017] specific area around vehicle monitored for pedestrians by camera sensors/image processing, i.e. boundaries being the specific area around the instant vehicle position at the time of processing the sensor data).
Therefore, 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 green zones of Yu to further include pedestrian concentrated areas as taught by Frederic, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving public safety and convenience (see Frederic, [0003, 0011]).
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669