DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 20, 2024. Claims 1 – 5 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0109408 A1 to Siy et al. (herein after " publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 1,
the Siy et al. publication discloses an information processing device comprising a control unit that is configured to execute
acquiring information about a first distance that is a travel distance required for a vehicle (10)(see ¶11 for “a system and method for predicting the remaining distance that an electric vehicle can travel that is running on battery power“; see also ¶12, where “[t]he vehicle 10 includes a controller 16 that is intended to represent all of the control modules and devices necessary for the proper operation and control of the battery 12 and the power source 14 to drive the vehicle 10, and calculate the estimated remaining distance that the vehicle 10 can travel on the available battery power”; see also ¶13, where the “system and method . . . operates an algorithm that provides the driver of an electric vehicle with the estimated distance remaining that the vehicle is capable of traveling on battery power”)(Emphasis added),
operating remote air conditioning of the vehicle when a request for operating the remote air conditioning of the vehicle is present, and a remaining charge amount of a battery of the vehicle is larger than a first remaining amount that is the remaining charge amount of the battery that allows travel of the first distance (see ¶12, where “[t]he controller 16 includes a short-term accumulator (STA) 18 and a long-term accumulator (LTA) 20 . . . The vehicle 10 also includes an HVAC system 22”; see also ¶14, where the “[t]wo accumulators are used for distance and energy, including the STA 18 that adapts quickly to new driver inputs, such as increasing the vehicle speed[, using the HVAC system] or traveling uphill. The values are calibrated such that the algorithm can adapt quickly, but not give an erratic response to the driver”; see also ¶17, where “[t]he algorithm also provides compensation for using the HVAC system 22. The HVAC system 22 operates off of the high voltage battery 12 where the driver will use more battery energy to heat and cool the vehicle cabin. The algorithm monitors this additional power use and adjusts the driving profile of the STA 18 to compensate for it”)(Emphasis added).
The Siy et al. publication, however, fails to specifically disclose
stopping the remote air conditioning when the remaining charge amount of the battery becomes equal to or less than the first remaining amount while the remote air conditioning is in operation.
In ¶17 of the Siy et al. publication, “[t]he algorithm monitors [the] additional power use and adjusts the driving profile of the STA 18 to compensate for [when the HVAC system 22 operates off of the high voltage battery 12].” Stopping the remote air conditioning when the remaining charge amount of the battery becomes equal to or less than the first remaining amount while the remote air conditioning is in operation is another option for preserving the state-of-charge of the battery and considered an obvious expedient1 that’s within the skill of the art. Accordingly, such disclosure suggests, as another option, stopping the remote air conditioning when the remaining charge amount of the battery becomes equal to or less than the first remaining amount while the remote air conditioning is in operation.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Siy et al. publication to stop the remote air conditioning when the remaining charge amount of the battery becomes equal to or less than the first remaining amount while the remote air conditioning is in operation, as suggested by the Siy et al. publication, in order to take into consideration the power draw by the vehicle's heating, ventilation and cooling (HVAC) system during traveling.
As to claim 3,
the Siy et al. publication discloses the control unit acquiring information about a route to a destination of the vehicle as the information about the first distance, and calculates the remaining charge amount of the battery required when the vehicle travels along the route as the first remaining amount. (See ¶12 – ¶13.)
As to claim 4,
the Siy et al. publication discloses the control unit operating the remote air conditioning during charging of the battery, regardless of whether or not the remaining charge amount of the battery is larger than the first remaining amount. (See ¶17, where “[t]he algorithm also provides compensation for using the HVAC system 22. The HVAC system 22 operates off of the high voltage battery 12 where the driver will use more battery energy to heat and cool the vehicle cabin. The algorithm monitors this additional power use and adjusts the driving profile of the STA 18 to compensate for it”)(Emphasis added).)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Siy et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0406152 A1 to Ko (herein after "Ko publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 2,
the modified Siy et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the control unit acquiring the information about the first distance from a terminal of a user of the vehicle.
User terminals that interact with vehicle controllers are old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Ko publication who discloses “remotely controlling an operation of at least one of the plurality of electronic devices in the vehicle using the user terminal 4”. (See ¶70.) Such disclosure suggests, if not teaches, the control unit acquiring the information about the first distance from a terminal of a user of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Siy et al. publication so that the control unit acquires the information about the first distance from a terminal of a user of the vehicle, as suggested by the Ko publication, in order to facilitate remote operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
1 "Obvious expedient" refers to a legal concept in U.S. patent law, particularly under 35 U.S.C. § 103, describing situations where combining known elements or making a slight modification to prior art would have been readily apparent or a simple, straightforward solution (an "expedient") for a person skilled in that art, making the resulting invention obvious and thus unpatentable. It highlights that an invention isn't novel if it's just a predictable variation of existing technology, even if it's not identical to any single prior source.