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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1 and 2 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Kazutoshi. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008213763 to Kazutoshi in view of US 20170287322 to Drake.
Regarding claim 1, Kazutoshi discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to:
receive a first action instructing to start ventilation of an interior space in a vehicle cabin by a user ([0026], “accept user operation inputs for driving power windows…);
and cause the vehicle to perform a first operation including at least of opening a plurality of windows that can be opened and closed and that are provided in the vehicle when the first action is received ([0026], “…that drive the…power windows based on the user operation inputs…);
and wherein the first action is to press a button instructing to start ventilation (e.g. see [0035], “user operates the IVA switch 11d to select a ventilation mode” and [0065] “IVA switch 11d is turned ON, the process proceeds to S103…[same as S3]”…),
wherein the controller is configured to: open the plurality of windows that are provided in the vehicle a first amount as the first operation when the button instructing to start ventilation is pressed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Drake with the motivation of maintaining ventilation in the event that local access is restricted or unavailable.
Regarding claim 2, Kazutoshi in view of Drake discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when a predetermined condition indicating an end of ventilation of the interior space in the vehicle cabin is satisfied, the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to end the first operation and cause the vehicle to return to a state before performing the first operation (e.g. see claim 12).
Response to Arguments
Remarks were received on 12/29/25. They are now moot in view of the newly cited reference provided with the IDS and fee.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 12/22/25 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights