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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20220242352 to Nagata et al. (Nagata)
Regarding claim 1, Nagata teaches a temperature sensor adapted to provide an indication of a temperature within a vehicle interior (Paragraph 0046); an object detection sensor adapted to detect objects within the vehicle interior (416, Figure 4, Paragraph 0063), the object detection sensor having a laser from which laser light is emitted and a receiver at which is received laser light that is reflected back to the object detection sensor (Paragraph 0063 discloses LIDAR); a temperature control system adapted to alter the temperature within the vehicle interior (Paragraph 0046 discloses HVAC); and a control system coupled to the temperature sensor and to the object detection sensor and to the temperature control system (Paragraph 0046 discloses HVAC turned on dependent on the temperature sensor and if an occupant or pet is detected. This is also disclosed in Figure 5), the control system includes a processor and memory communicated with the processor and including one or more programs or instructions that are operable to determine a temperature from the temperature sensor and to determine if an object is present within the vehicle interior and to actuate the temperature control system when the temperature meets a temperature threshold and an object is determined to be present within the vehicle interior (Paragraph 0046, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Nagata teaches wherein the programs or instructions are arranged so that the control system can determine the presence of perishable objects within the vehicle interior (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0046, 0074-0078 discloses the detection of people, dogs, and objects which indicates the device can detect perishable objects. If objects are detected and one happens to be perishable this claim limitation is met. It is further noted that perishable objects are called out in Paragraphs 0020 and 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Nagata teaches wherein the programs or instructions are arranged so that the control system can determine the presence of a person or animal within the vehicle interior (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0046, 0074-0078).
Regarding claim 4, Nagata teaches wherein the object detection sensor is a LiDAR sensor (Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 5, Nagata teaches wherein the temperature control system includes one or more windows that define part of the vehicle interior and that are movable between a closed position and an open position, and wherein the control system is operable to selectively move the windows (512, Figure 5, Paragraphs 0048 and 0067).
Regarding claim 6, Nagata teaches an ambient temperature indicator that provides to the control system an indication of an ambient temperature outside of the vehicle interior (Paragraph 0046 discloses temperature outside the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Nagata teaches wherein the ambient temperature indicator is a remote source of weather information (Paragraphs 0046, 0068, and claim 10 indicates an outside temperature which would be a remote source of weather information).
Regarding claim 8, Nagata teaches a communications device coupled with the control system and wherein the control system is operable to cause the communications device to selectively transmit a notification in response to at least a temperature that meets a threshold (Paragraphs 0046, 0048, 0067 discloses sending a notification when a feature is activated which would indicates it is operable to transmit to at least a temperature that meets a threshold and discloses a display to display messages and/or entertainment and Figures 3a, 3b, and 3d all are operable to display the claimed information. Transmissions such as these would occur when the threshold was met or may occur after it was met which would meet the claim limitation. The claim is also worded that any transmission after meeting the threshold would meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Nagata teaches wherein the object detection sensor provides an indication of a volume of objects within the vehicle interior (Paragraphs 0046, 0072, 0076, and Figure 5 disclose the detection of people, dogs, and objects as well as classifying these items. This is an indication of volume or size).
Regarding claim 10, Nagata teaches wherein the control system is operable to compare the volume of objects within the vehicle interior at a first time and at a second time, wherein the second time is a predefined time after a power system of the vehicle is turned off (Paragraphs 0045-0046 discloses detection before and after the device is turned off and the rest of the disclosure indicates operation after the car is turned off which includes detection of location of objects per at least Figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Nagata teaches wherein the load sensor is associated with at least one suspension component of a vehicle (weight sensors, 114 are associated with at least one suspension component of the vehicle because they are all part of the same vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Nagata teaches claim 1 and in its ordinary operation teaches the method of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Nagata teaches claim 11 and in its ordinary operation teaches the method of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Nagata teaches claim 9 and in its ordinary operation teaches the method of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Nagata teaches claim 2 and in its ordinary operation teaches the method of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Nagata teaches claim 11 and in its ordinary operation teaches the method of claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of U.S. PGPUB 20200202148 to Wright et al. (Wright).
Regarding claim 11, Nagata teaches a load sensor that operates when the vehicle is on and off (114, 452, Paragraph 0065-0066 detects weight when the device is on or off).
Nagata is silent on which also includes a load sensor communicated with the control system and operable to provide an output indicative of a vehicle weight.
Wright teaches a load sensor communicated with the control system and operable to provide an output indicative of a vehicle weight (Paragraph 0040 discloses using at least the suspension to determine objects in the vehicle). 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 teachings of Nagata with the teachings of Wright to provide a load sensor communicated with the control system and operable to provide an output indicative of a vehicle weight. Doing so would be a simple substitution of parts and/or Wright discloses these sensors as equivalent alternatives per Paragraph 0040.
Regarding claim 19, Nagata is silent on wherein the vehicle weight is determined at least in part based upon information from a vehicle ride height system.
Wright teaches wherein the vehicle weight is determined at least in part based upon information from a vehicle ride height system (Paragraph 0040 discloses weights determined based on at least the suspension which is based on the height of the vehicle to determine weight). 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 teachings of Nagata with the teachings of Wright to provide wherein the vehicle weight is determined at least in part based upon information from a vehicle ride height system. Doing so would be a simple substitution of parts and/or Wright discloses these sensors as equivalent alternatives per Paragraph 0040.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of U.S. PGPUB 20220388370 to Philsgard et al. (Philsgard).
Regarding claim 17, Nagata is silent on determining if the perishable item is within the vehicle interior is accomplished by comparison of a detected object shape with predetermined data relating to the shape of one or more containers including grocery items.
Philsgard teaches determining if the perishable item is within the vehicle interior is accomplished by comparison of a detected object shape with predetermined data relating to the shape of one or more containers including grocery items (Paragraph 0071 and the disclosure indicates utilizing libraries). 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 teachings of Nagata with the teachings of Philsgard to provide determining if the perishable item is within the vehicle interior is accomplished by comparison of a detected object shape with predetermined data relating to the shape of one or more containers including grocery items. Doing so would provide structure already likely present in Nagata with machine learning and/or would allow groceries to be detected and the HVAC system to preserve the groceries for a longer period of time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights