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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2005/0046584 A1), hereinafter referred to as Breed ‘584, in view of WATANABE et al (English Translated Japanese Patent No.: 2011112308 A), hereinafter referred to as WATANABE et al ‘308, further in view of KEIICHI et al (English Translated Japanese Patent No.: 20060100501 A), hereinafter referred to as KEIICHI et al ‘501.
Regarding claim 1, Breed ‘584 discloses a vehicle comprising: a generator configured to generate electric power along with drive of an engine {see ¶¶ [0408] and [0448]}; an air conditioner {see ¶ [0157]}; a battery {see ¶ [1779]} configured to supply electric power to an auxiliary machine including the air conditioner {see ¶¶ [0157] and [1779]}; a CO2 sensor configured to detect a CO2 concentration in a vehicle cabin {see ¶¶ [1564], [2148], [2369] and [2847]}; an occupant sensor configured to detect presence or absence of an occupant {see ¶ ¶ [0098], [0123], [0132], [0308] and [0479]}; and a controller {see ¶¶ [2675] and [3076-3077]}, wherein the controller is configured to, when an ignition switch of the vehicle is OFF, the occupant is detected by the occupant sensor {see ¶ [0483]}, a concentration detected by the CO2 sensor exceeds a predetermined permissible concentration {see ¶¶ [1534], [2148], [2369] and [2847]}, output an alert to the occupant without performing forced ventilation by the air conditioner {see ¶¶ [0415] and [1779]}.
However, Breed ‘584 explicitly fails to disclose the limitations of the air conditioner configured to circulate a CO2 refrigerant; and a remaining charge level of the battery is lower than a predetermined reference charge level.
WATANABE et al ‘308 teach: the concept of the air conditioner configured to circulate a CO2 refrigerant {see ¶¶ [0012]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Breed ‘584 in view of ‘WATANABE et al ‘308 to include the air conditioner configured to circulate a CO2 refrigerant, in order to facilitate refrigerant that doesn’t condense after compression but instead goes through a gas cooling process above its critical point for increase efficiency and environmental friendly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Breed ‘584 in view of WATANABE et al ‘308 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
KEIICHI ‘501 teaches: the concept of a remaining charge level of the battery is lower than a predetermined reference charge level {see ¶¶ [0008] and [0013]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Breed ‘584 in view of KEIICHI ‘501 to include a remaining charge level of the battery is lower than a predetermined reference charge level, in order to facilitate recharging of the battery {KEIICHI ‘501 -¶¶ [0008-0009]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Breed ‘584 in view of KEIICHI ‘501 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI et al ‘501 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Salomonsson et al (U.S. PG Pub No.:2015/0332590 A1), hereinafter referred to as Salomonsson et al ‘590.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI ‘501 disclose and teach the vehicle according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations wherein the alert is an alert that prompts the occupant to turn ON the ignition switch.
Salomonsson et al ‘590 teach: the concept of the alert is an alert that prompts the occupant to turn ON the ignition switch {see ¶ [0028]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Breed ‘584 alert by the alert of Salomonsson et al ‘590 so as to include an alert that prompts the occupant to turn ON the ignition switch, in order to facilitate restarting of a shut off engine {Salomonsson et al ‘590 - ¶ [0028]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Breed ‘584 in view of Salomonsson et al ‘590 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI et al ‘501 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Campbell et al (U.S. PG Pub No.:2005/0022274 A1), hereinafter referred to as Campbell et al ‘274.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI ‘501 disclose and teach the vehicle according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations wherein: the controller is configured to switch alert levels according to at least one of an elapsed period after output of the alert, the detected concentration, and the remaining charge level; and the alert levels include at least a first alert level at which an alert is output only visually and a second alert level at which an alert including sound is output.
Campbell et al ‘274 teach: the concept of programmable controller (100) capable of being configured to switch alert levels according to at least one of an elapsed period after output of the alert, the detected concentration, and the remaining charge level; and the alert levels include at least a first alert level at which an alert is output only visually and a second alert level at which an alert including sound is output {see ¶¶ [0002].[0061], [0066], [0080], [0091], [0106] and [0124]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Breed ‘584 controller by the controller of Campbell et al ‘274 so as to enable configuration to switch alert levels according to at least one of an elapsed period after output of the alert, the detected concentration, and the remaining charge level; and the alert levels include at least a first alert level at which an alert is output only visually and a second alert level at which an alert including sound is output, in order to facilitate remote setup {Campbell et al ‘274 - ¶ [0083]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Breed ‘584 in view of Campbell et al ‘274 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI et al ‘501 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Penna (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2018/0111506 A1), hereinafter referred to as Penna ‘506.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI ‘501 disclose and teach the vehicle according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations wherein the controller is configured to open a window of the vehicle in parallel with the alert or after output of the alert.
Penna ‘506 teaches: the concept of the controller is configured to open a window of the vehicle in parallel with the alert or after output of the alert {see Abstract and ¶¶ [0013] and [0058]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Breed ‘584 controller by the controller of Penna ‘506 so as to enable configuration to open a window of the vehicle in parallel with the alert or after output of the alert, in order to facilitate temperate of the vehicle to decrease { Penna ‘506 - ¶ [0013]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Breed ‘584 in view of Penna ‘506 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI et al ‘501 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of SHIMODA et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2017/0225541 A1), hereinafter referred to as SHIMODA et al ‘541.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Breed ‘584, WATANABE et al ‘308 and KEIICHI ‘501 disclose and teach the vehicle according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations wherein the controller is configured to perform the forced ventilation by the air conditioner when the ignition switch of the vehicle is ON or the remaining charge level of the battery is equal to or higher than the reference charge level and the detected concentration exceeds the permissible concentration.
SHIMODA et al ‘541 teach: the concept of the controller is configured to perform the forced ventilation by the air conditioner when the ignition switch of the vehicle is ON {see Abstract and ¶¶ [0020-0022] and [0055]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Breed ‘584 controller by the controller of SHIMODA et al ‘541 so as to enable configuration to perform the forced ventilation by the air conditioner when the ignition switch of the vehicle is ON, in order to provide a forced-ventilation device capable of not only saving a user from having to operate an associated-device but also ensuring security {SHIMODA et al ‘541 - ¶ [0008]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Breed ‘584 in view of SHIMODA et al ‘541 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210188162 A1 to YOSHIZAWA
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
07/16/2026
Prosecution Insights