DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (USP 2005/0184862)in view of Sankovsky et al.
(USP 9,520,006).
As Per Claim 1, Nagata teaches, a computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations ( via ECUs of alarm apparatus , central server, and terminal device of an operation-omission alarm system and apparatus for vehicle, Fig.1 )[0017-0019]) comprising: determining that a closure device is in an opened position; determining, via processing of sensor data, that a user is not present; determining, via processing of sensor data, whether an object is present; ( [0022-0033], [0036-0044]0, Figs. 1-4B); prompting the user to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; ( via sending alarm to the user via “the alarm signal received by the terminal device(s) 4 can notify the user of the existence of the operational omission”[0033],.. “The alarm apparatus 2 located on the vehicle may send the alarm directly to the terminal device(s) 4 “, [0037]).
However, “based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination that the user is not present, and based on determination that the object is not present” , has been interpreted as “intended use” .
However, Nagata does not explicitly teach, prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position;
and based on the user selecting the command, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position.
In a related field of Art, Sankovsky et al. ( Sankovsky) teaches a computing system for vehicle diagnostics (100) , comprising a server, vehicle system and a user device; the user device being coupled with and being configured to receive messages from vehicle systems and server, wherein, prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; and based on the user selecting the command, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position ( via user receiving notification of door being opened and issuing and “The user may then issue a command via the user interface screens 416 to the vehicle system 102 to change the present status of the door lock, the window position, etc. For example, the user may issue a command to lock, or unlock, a door and/or a command to open, or close a window, either partially or completely”, col.15, lines 35-52 also see col.13, line 10—col.15, line 35; col.4, line 56-col.5, line 20; Figs. 1,4 and 5, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors ) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user device to close the door. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute a remedial action for the addressed issue (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance protection of the vehicle and any belonging within the vehicle).
As per Claim 2, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein the operations further comprise, based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination that the user is not present, ( Nagata: [0022-0033], [0036-0044]0, Figs. 1-4B) and based on determination that the object is present, generating an alert to the user, the alert indicative of the closure device being in the opened position and presence of the object. ( Sankovsky : “the user may configure the analysis engine to generate one or more messages to individuals to notify (or remind) them that an individual is present in the vehicle and/or that a pet has been left within the vehicle for a duration of time”, Col.15, line 65-Col.16, line 2) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user device to close the door/windows when an inclement weather is present and an individual or a pet is inside the vehicle.
As per Claim 3, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein the user selecting the command comprises selection of a user preference setting. (Sankovsky : Col.15, lines 9-15, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device 110) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user interface screen to close/open the door/window. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute a remedial action for the addressed issue vai user screen (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance protection of the vehicle and any belonging within the vehicle).
As per Claim 4, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein the operations further comprise, based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination of an adverse condition, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position and generating a notification to the user, the notification indicative of adjusting the closure device from the opened position to the closed position. (Sankovsky : via predicting an inclement weather Col.15, line -Col.16, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to use user preference via a user interface screen to close the door/windows when an inclement weather is present and an individual or a pet is inside the vehicle.
As per Claim 5, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein prompting the user to select the command is further based on determination, via processing of sensor data, of an outdoor location. ( Nagata : user getting vehicle location, [0039], Fig. 4B).
As per Claim 6, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein prompting the user to select the command is further based on determination of a known location. ( Nagata : user getting vehicle location, [0039], Fig. 4B).
As per Claim 9, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein: the closure device is disposed at a vehicle; and the operations further comprise, while the vehicle is travelling along a road, and based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, (Nagata : [0039], Figs. 4A-4B) and based on determination that the object is present ( Sankovsky: detecting a pet has been left within the vehicle), prompting the user to select the command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position. (Sankovsky : col.16, line 1-2, also see col.15, line 35-col.16., line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to detecting a pet within the vehicle to close the door/windows when an inclement weather is present.
As per Claim 10, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein the closure device comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a vehicular door, (ii) a vehicular liftgate, (iii) a vehicular window, and (iv) a vehicular sunroof. (Nagata : ECU 10 detecting whether the door are closed and lock , ECU 11 detecting whether windows are closed and locked [0018]), [0036],Figs. 1-2), also see Sankovsky : Col.15, lines 5-8).
As Per Claim 11, Nagata teaches, a system comprising: memory hardware storing instructions that, when executed on data processing hardware in communication with the memory hardware, cause the data processing hardware ([0015-0017], [0019], Figs.1-2) to perform operations comprising: determining that a closure device of a vehicle is in an opened position; determining, via processing of sensor data, that a user is not present at the vehicle; determining, via processing of sensor data, whether an object is present within the vehicle; ( [0022-0033], [0036-0044]0, Figs. 1-4B);
based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination that the user is not present, and based on determination that the object is not present, (this limitation has been interpreted as “intended use”) prompting the user to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; ( via sending alarm to the user via “the alarm signal received by the terminal device(s) 4 can notify the user of the existence of the operational omission”[0033],.. “The alarm apparatus 2 located on the vehicle may send the alarm directly to the terminal device(s) 4 “, [0037]).
However, Nagata does not explicitly teach, prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; based on the user selecting the command, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position.
In a related field of Art, Sankovsky et al. (Sankovsky) teaches a computing system for vehicle diagnostics (100), comprising a server, vehicle system and a user device; the user device being coupled with and being configured to receive messages from vehicle systems and server, wherein, prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; based on the user selecting the command, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position (via user receiving notification of door being opened and issuing and “The user may then issue a command via the user interface screens 416 to the vehicle system 102 to change the present status of the door lock, the window position, etc. For example, the user may issue a command to lock, or unlock, a door and/or a command to open, or close a window, either partially or completely”, col.15, lines 35-52 also see col.13, line 10—col.15, line 35; col.4, line 56-col.5, line 20; Figs. 1,4 and 5, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors ) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user device to close the door. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute a remedial action for the addressed issue (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance protection of the vehicle and any belonging within the vehicle).
As per Claim 12, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein the operations further comprise, based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination that the user is not present, ( Nagata: [0022-0033], [0036-0044]0, Figs. 1-4B), and based on determination that the object is present, generating an alert to the user, the alert indicative of the closure device being in the opened position and presence of the object. ( Sankovsky : “the user may configure the analysis engine to generate one or more messages to individuals to notify (or remind) them that an individual is present in the vehicle and/or that a pet has been left within the vehicle for a duration of time”, Col.15, line 65-Col.16, line 2) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors .) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user device to close the door/windows when an inclement weather is present when detecting an individual or a pet is inside the vehicle.
As per Claim 13, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein the user selecting the command comprises selection of a user preference setting. (Sankovsky : Col.15, lines 9-15, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device 110) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user interface screen to close/open the door/window. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute a remedial action for the addressed issue vai user screen (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance protection of the vehicle and any belonging within the vehicle).
As per Claim 14, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein prompting the user to select the command is further based on determination, via processing of sensor data, of at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) an outdoor location and (ii) a known location. (Nagata : [0039], Figs. 4A-4B).
As per Claim 15, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches , wherein the closure device comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a door of the vehicle, (ii) a liftgate of the vehicle, (iii) a window of the vehicle, and (iv) a sunroof of the vehicle. (Nagata : [0036], Figs.1-2).
5. Claims 8, 16-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (USP 2005/0184862)in view of Sankovsky et al. ( USP 9,520,006) in view of Micks et al. ( USP 2017/0075355).
As per Claim 8, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky teaches, wherein: the closure device is disposed at a vehicle; and the operations further comprise, while the vehicle is travelling along a road, and based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on receiving a signal from another vehicle indicative of an adverse condition, prompting the user to select the command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position. (Nagata : [0039]-[0040]), Fig.4B).
However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky does not explicitly teach, based on receiving a signal from another vehicle indicative of an adverse condition,
In a related field of art, Micks et al. (Micks) discloses vehicle radar perception and localization, wherein, based on receiving a signal from another vehicle indicative of an adverse condition, ( via vehicle being equipped with transceiver 116, receiving information from another vehicle via vehicle to-vehicle communication. During vehicle to vehicle communication transceiver 116 receiving information from other vehicle regarding road condition, [0027]. Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky and Micks before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the teachings (transceiver 116) of Micks and configure with the system of Nagata in order vehicle receiving road condition ( wet road, flooded road condition) from other vehicle and informing the user of raining situation and warranting the user to close open windows.
As Per Claim 16, Nagata teaches, a vehicle ( a vehicle being equipped with an operational omission alarm system 1, [0015, Fig.1) comprising: memory hardware storing instructions that, when executed on data processing hardware in communication with the memory hardware, cause the data processing hardware to perform operations ( via ECUs of alarm apparatus , central server, and terminal device of an operation-omission alarm system and apparatus for vehicle, Fig.1 )[0017-0019]); comprising: determining that a closure device of the vehicle is in an opened position; determining, via processing of sensor data, that a user is not present at the vehicle; determining, via processing of sensor data, whether an object is present within the vehicle; based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination that the user is not present, ( [0022-0033], [0036-0044]0, Figs. 1-4B) and based on determination that the object is not present, (intended use) prompting the user to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; ( via sending alarm to the user via “the alarm signal received by the terminal device(s) 4 can notify the user of the existence of the operational omission”[0033],.. “The alarm apparatus 2 located on the vehicle may send the alarm directly to the terminal device(s) 4 “, [0037]); and while the vehicle is travelling along a road, and based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position,([0039], Figs. 4A-4B).
However, Nagata does not explicitly teach, prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; based on the user selecting the command, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position; and based on receiving a signal from another vehicle indicative of an adverse condition, prompting the user to select the command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position.
In a related field of Art, Sankovsky et al. (Sankovsky) teaches a computing system for vehicle diagnostics (100) , comprising a server, vehicle system and a user device; the user device being coupled with and being configured to receive messages from vehicle systems and server, wherein, prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to a closed position; based on the user selecting the command, operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position, (via user receiving notification of door being opened and issuing and “The user may then issue a command via the user interface screens 416 to the vehicle system 102 to change the present status of the door lock, the window position, etc. For example, the user may issue a command to lock, or unlock, a door and/or a command to open, or close a window, either partially or completely”, col.15, lines 35-52 also see col.13, line 10—col.15, line 35; col.4, line 56-col.5, line 20; Figs. 1,4 and 5, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors ) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user device to close the door. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute a remedial action for the addressed issue (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance protection of the vehicle and any belonging within the vehicle).
Nagata in view of Sankovsky does not explicitly teach, based on receiving a signal from another vehicle indicative of an adverse condition, prompting the user to select the command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position.
However, Sankovsky teaches, prompting the user to select the command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position. (col.15, lines 35-52 also see col.13, line 10—col.15, line 35).
In a related field of art, Micks et al. ( Micks) discloses vehicle radar perception and localization, wherein, based on receiving a signal from another vehicle indicative of an adverse condition,(via the vehicle being equipped with transceiver 116, receiving information from another vehicle via vehicle to-vehicle communication. During vehicle to vehicle communication transceiver 116 receiving information from other vehicle regarding road condition, [0027]. Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky and Micks before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nagata and Sankovsky, to include the teachings (transceiver 116) of Micks and configure with the combination of Nagata and Sankovsky in order to vehicle receiving road condition ( wet road, flooded road condition) from other vehicle and informing the user of raining situation and prompting the user to close open windows.
As per Claim 17, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky and Micks teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky and Micks teaches, wherein prompting the user to select the command is further based on determination, via processing of sensor data, of at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) an outdoor location and (ii) a known location. (Nagata : [0039], Figs. 4A-4B).
As per Claim 18, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky and Micks teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky and Micks teaches, wherein the user selecting the command comprises selection of a user preference setting. (Sankovsky : Col.15, lines 9-15, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device 110) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user interface screen to close/open the door/window. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to execute a remedial action for the addressed issue vai user screen (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance protection of the vehicle and any belonging within the vehicle).
As per Claim 19, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky and Micks teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky and Micks teaches,
19. The vehicle of Claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise, while the vehicle is travelling along the road, and based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, (Nagata : [0039], Fig.4A-4B) and based on determination that the object is present, prompting the user to select the command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position ( Sankovsky : “the user may configure the analysis engine to generate one or more messages to individuals to notify (or remind) them that an individual is present in the vehicle and/or that a pet has been left within the vehicle for a duration of time”, Col.15, line 65-Col.16, line 2) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nagata and Sankovsky before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nagata, to include the vehicle diagnostic teachings (user device, vehicle system ..sensors .) of Sankovsky and configure with the system of Nagata in order to issue command from user device to close the door/windows when an inclement weather is present when detecting an individual or a pet is inside the vehicle.
As per Claim 20, Nagata as modified by Sankovsky and Micks teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Nagata in view of Sankovsky and Micks teaches, wherein the closure device comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a door of the vehicle, (ii) a liftgate of the vehicle, (iii) a window of the vehicle, and (iv) a sunroof of the vehicle. (Nagata : [0036], Figs.1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable when the 101 rejection has been overcome and when rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C