DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 of US Application No. 18/968,126 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-4 and added claims 6-8.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous interpretation of claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
The previous rejections of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 4.
The previous rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1. However, new rejections of claim 1-5 under § 103 are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine that rainfall is occurring, when the determination is made that rainfall is occurring in at least one of a determination based on the first information, a determination based on the second information, and a determination based on the third information regardless of a determination being made that rainfall is not occurring based on remaining information.” Underline added. The specification does not provide support for this limitation. The specification does disclose, at ¶ [0062]:
In the case where the rainfall determination processing is performed based on a plurality of pieces of information, when it can be determined that the rainfall is occurring based on at least one piece of information, even when it cannot be determined that the rainfall is occurring based on other pieces of information, it may be determined that the rainfall is occurring. For example, it is assumed that rainfall determination processing is performed on the basis of information on an image around the vehicle 100, information on a detection result of raindrops, and rainfall information received from an external server via the transmission/reception device. In this case, when it can be determined that it is raining based on at least one of the information, even when it cannot be determined that it is raining based on other information, it may be determined that it is raining.
However, determining that it is raining based on one piece of information when it cannot be determined that it is raining based on other information, as disclosed, is not the same as determining that it is raining based on one piece of information when it is determined that rainfall is not occurring, as claimed. Therefore, the claim does not comply with the written description and is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine that rainfall is occurring, when the determination is made that rainfall is occurring in at least one of a determination based on the first information, a determination based on the second information, and a determination based on the third information regardless of a determination being made that rainfall is not occurring based on remaining information.” Underline added. The term “remaining information” is not clear. As claimed, the rainfall occurring determination is made based at least one determination using first, second, or third information. For example, the rainfall occurring determination may be made based only image information. In this situation, it is not clear if the “remaining information” is distinct from second or third information or if the “remaining information” is second or third information that was used to determine that rainfall is not occurring.
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.
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 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over https://web.archive.org/web/20220122042046/https://github.com/teslamotors/light-show#readme (teslamotors/light show, “Tesla”) in view of Peterson et al. (US 2011/0190962 A1, “Peterson”) and Williams (US 2020/0256112 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tesla discloses a light show guide and teaches:
an electronic control unit applied to a vehicle equipped with a first movable part and configured to control the first movable part, the first movable part being configured to switch between a first state in which space inside of a vehicle cabin and space outside of the vehicle are disconnected and a second state in which the space inside of the vehicle cabin and the space outside of the vehicle are connected, [ ] (closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
Tesla fails to teach the electronic control unit is configured to execute rainfall determination processing for determining whether rainfall is occurring, the electronic control unit is configured not to control the first movable part to be the second state, when determination is made that rainfall is occurring in the rainfall determination processing; and the electronic control unit is configured to, acquire first information on an image around the vehicle, second information on a detection result of raindrops, and third information received from an external server, and determine whether rainfall is occurring based on the first information, the second information, and the third information.
However, Peterson discloses a system and method for controlling power windows of a vehicle and teaches:
the electronic control unit is configured to execute rainfall determination processing for determining whether rainfall is occurring (at 104, exterior condition, e.g., rain, temperature, solar load, is monitored – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0033]), the electronic control unit is configured not to control the first movable part to be the second state, when determination is made that rainfall is occurring in the rainfall determination processing (at 106, based on a measured valued from step 104 as measured by one or more condition sensors 60, 62, 64, determination is made if opening windows should be inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]; at 108, if the determination at 106 is ‘YES’, opening of power windows is inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]); and
and the electronic control unit is configured to, acquire [ ], second information on a detection result of raindrops (rain sensor 60 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0022]), and [ ], and determine whether rainfall is occurring based on [ ] the second information [ ].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light show of Tesla to determine rainfall and not control the movable part to the second state based on the determined rainfall, as taught by Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent rain from entering a vehicle through an open window (Peterson at ¶ [0003]).
Peterson fails to teach but Williams discloses a window control system and teaches:
the electronic control unit is configured to, acquire first information on an image around the vehicle (one or more external environmental sensors 140 for detecting rain – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0027]; sensor 140 may include a camera to detect rain – see at least ¶ [0027]), second information on a detection result of raindrops (one or more external sensors 140 for detecting rain – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0027]; sensor 140 may include windshield wiper sensors that can detect rain on windshield – see at least ¶ [0027]), and third information received from an external server (computer of vehicle 100 may receive weather notifications to help detect rain – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0027]), and determine whether rainfall is occurring based on the first information, the second information, and the third information (data from environmental sensors 240 are provided to control module 220 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system of Tesla and Peterson to acquire information and determine rainfall based on the information, as taught by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provide for closing windows or maintaining the windows closed if rain is detected (Williams at ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, Tesla further teaches:
wherein the first movable part includes at least one of a door and a power window (closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
Regarding claim 3, Tesla further teaches:
wherein
the vehicle further includes a speaker (music plays from the cabin speakers during the show – see at least ‘Closure channels’ at ‘Other notes’),
the electronic control unit is configured to execute a process of outputting music from the speaker, and also operating the first movable part (music plays from the cabin speakers during the show – see at least ‘Closure channels’ at ‘Other notes’; during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
The combination of Tesla and Peterson further teaches:
when determination is made in the rainfall determination processing that rainfall is occurring, music is output from the speaker without controlling the first movable part to the second state in the process (at 106, based on a measured valued from step 104 as measured by one or more condition sensors 60, 62, 64, determination is made if opening windows should be inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]; at 108, if the determination at 106 is ‘YES’, opening of power windows is inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]; i.e., opening of windows is inhibited but there is no inhibition of music).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Tesla, Peterson, and Williams to output music but no control the movable part to the second state, as taught by the combination of Tesla and Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the vehicle to run the light show (Tesla at ‘Running a custom show on a vehicle’) while preventing rain from entering a vehicle through an open window (Peterson at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Tesla further teaches:
wherein
the vehicle further is equipped with a second movable part that does not have the second state (during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’),
the electronic control unit is configured to perform control to output music from the speaker, and also to operate the first movable part and the second movable part in the process (music plays from the cabin speakers during the show – see at least ‘Closure channels’ at ‘Other notes’; during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’), and
[ ].
The combination of Tesla and Peterson further teaches:
when determination is made that rainfall is occurring in the rainfall determination processing, music is output from the speaker, and also the second movable part is operated, without controlling the first movable part to the second state in the process (at 106, based on a measured valued from step 104 as measured by one or more condition sensors 60, 62, 64, determination is made if opening windows should be inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]; at 108, if the determination at 106 is ‘YES’, opening of power windows is inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]; i.e., opening of windows is inhibited but there is no inhibition of music or movement of mirrors).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Tesla, Peterson, and Williams to output music and operate the second moveable part but not control the first movable part to the second state, as taught by the combination of Tesla and Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the vehicle to run the light show (Tesla at ‘Running a custom show on a vehicle’) while preventing rain from entering a vehicle through an open window (Peterson at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Tesla further teaches:
wherein the second movable part is a side mirror (during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
Regarding claim 7, Williams further teaches:
wherein the first movable part is controlled to the first state when the determination is made that rainfall is occurring (at 320, determination is made whether activation conditions are satisfied – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0046]; activation conditions may be rain being detected – see at least ¶ [0046]; at 330, windows are adjusted based on activation conditions being met – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0047]; closing windows based on rain detection – see at least ¶ [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system of Tesla, Peterson, and Williams to control the first movable part, as further taught by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provide for closing windows or maintaining the windows closed if rain is detected (Williams at ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Williams further teaches:
wherein the rainfall determination process is repeatedly executed during execution of the process (sensor data is received at 310 and analyzed at 320 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0045]-[0046]; i.e., the system is continually monitoring received sensor data for activation conditions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system of Tesla, Peterson, and Williams to execute the rainfall determination process, as further taught by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provide for closing windows or maintaining the windows closed whenever rain is detected (Williams at ¶ [0017]).
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached 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 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights