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
This action is responsive to the communications filed 06/05/2025 (claimed foreign priority date 12/17/2024):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim 11 has been objected to.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an area within a predetermined range from a center of the pigsty area,” as claimed in claim 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “an area within a predetermined range from a center of the pigsty area,” as described in the specification, Para [0016, 0072], at least as published. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification, in Para [0025] states the “… performing the outside air blocking mode when the vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a threshold speed,” similar to how it is recited in claim 13, which is opposed to and does not match the rest of the specified/claimed condition(s)/situation(s)/scenario(s)/circumstance(s) stating the “… exiting/releasing the outside air blocking mode in response to the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed,” specified/claimed in Para [0018, 0108-0109] and claim 6, in other words when vehicle drives faster in polluted area(s), it exits/releases outside air blocking mode, and when vehicle drives slower in polluted area(s), it activates/performs outside air blocking mode. Clarification and/or appropriate corrections are required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Para [0025] of the specification is not given a patentable weight, and hence the Examiner will interpret the scope of the specification as it is specified/claimed in Para [0018, 0108-0109] and claim 6, e.g., when vehicle drives faster in polluted area(s), it exits/releases outside air blocking mode, and when vehicle drives slower in polluted area(s), it activates/performs outside air blocking mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claim 13 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.
1.1.1 Claim 13 recites the limitation/feature “performing the outside air blocking mode based on a determination that the vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a threshold speed,” which is not described or supported in the specification, the specification merely repeats the claim language, in several paragraphs, without any details for or explanation on how and why it is being performed/executed/done/made, etc., which is opposed to and/or does not match the rest of the claimed condition(s)/situation(s)/scenario(s)/circumstance(s), claimed in claims 5 and 6, that recite, in short, that “when vehicle drives faster in polluted area(s), it exits/releases outside air blocking mode, and when vehicle drives slower in polluted area(s), it activates/performs outside air blocking mode.” Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “… exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed,” in claim 13, is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. Hence claim 13 will be interpreted as the following: “13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining a vehicle speed based on the vehicle being located in the polluted area, wherein determining a vehicle speed includes performing the outside air blocking mode based on a determination that the vehicle speed is being less than or equal to a threshold speed and exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed,” similar to how it is introduced in claims 5 and 6, and how it is supported in the specification.
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 4 and 13 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.
2.1.1 Claim 4 recites the limitation/feature “a predetermined range from a center of the pigsty area,” which is unclear what it is and/or, or where exactly “a center of the pigsty area” located/positioned, and/or what exactly is “a predetermined range from a center of the pigsty area,” which renders the claim indefinite. The specification merely repeats the claim language, in Para [0016, 0072], at least as published, the claim does not narrow down the “predetermined range from a center of the pigsty area,” which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “a predetermined range from a center of the pigsty area” is not given a patentable weight, and hence claim 4 will be interpreted as the following: “4. The device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a pigsty area from map information as the polluted area.”
2.1.2 Claim 13 recites the limitation/feature “performing the outside air blocking mode based on a determination that the vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a threshold speed,” which is unclear how and why it is being performed/executed/done/made, etc., which is opposed to and/or does not match the rest of the claimed condition(s)/situation(s)/scenario(s)/circumstance(s), claimed in claim 6, that states about the “… exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed,” that renders the claim indefinite.
Additionally, this condition(s)/situation(s)/scenario(s)/circumstance(s) is not described or supported in the specification, the specification merely repeats the claim language, in several paragraphs, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “… exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed,” in claim 13, is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. Hence claim 13 will be interpreted as the following: “13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining a vehicle speed based on the vehicle being located in the polluted area, wherein determining a vehicle speed includes performing the outside air blocking mode based on a determination that the vehicle speed is being less than or equal to a threshold speed and exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed,” similar to how it is introduced in claims 5 and 6, and how it is supported in the specification.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1, 7, 12, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIANG (CN108248404A) in view of LIM (US20230219400) and further in view of PENG (CN201046661Y).
As per claims 1, 12 and 17, XIANG discloses through the invention (see entire document), a device for controlling a hydrogen electric vehicle / method for controlling a hydrogen electric vehicle / a hydrogen electric vehicle (fig. 1-2, abstract, Para [0013-0017, 0029-0042, 0045, 0050-0054, 0065, 0071, 0079-0089]), the device comprising:
a valve configured to open and close an inlet pipe of a fuel cell of the vehicle (fig. 5, abstract, Para [0036, 0041]); and
a processor configured to control the valve (abstract, Para [0036, 0041, 0044, 0047, 0055]),
wherein the processor (abstract, Para [0047, 0055]) is configured to:
determine location information (abstract, Para [0072-0073, 0085, 0079, 0087]); and
enter an outside air blocking mode and close the valve (Para [0041]).
XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, a valve configured to open and close an inlet pipe configured to supply outside air to a fuel cell of the vehicle; determining location information of the vehicle; entering an outside air blocking mode and closing the valve, based on the vehicle being located in a polluted area.
However, LIM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0041, 0045-0046, 0070-0072] – teaching controller 121 configured to determine the degree of pollution/dust concentration of the outside air of the vehicle according to weather information corresponding to the vehicle position.
Peng, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that LIM and Peng references are Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that all Applicant, LIM and Peng teach on monitoring and measuring contamination/pollution of outside air of a vehicle and controlled regulating/opening/closing air intake into a vehicle/system/subsystem of a vehicle depending on/according to pollution level of external environment.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the Peng reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LIM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to measure degree of contamination of the outside air of the vehicle and determine whether to introduce the outside air into the vehicle (see entire LIM document, particularly Para [0005]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
As per claims 7 and 20, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, controlling an air-conditioning system of the vehicle to operate in an inside air circulation mode based on the vehicle being in the outside air blocking mode.
However, Peng discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
As per claim 14, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, controlling an air conditioning system to operate in an inside air circulation mode.
However, Peng discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
2. Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of XIANG, LIM and PENG, further in view of YU (CN202703565U).
As per claims 2 and 18, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, a filter connected with the inlet pipe, wherein the valve is configured to block the outside air from being introduced into the filter.
However, YU discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0011] – teaching air outlet tube 9, introduced into the inlet of the compressor 11 through an air filter 10.
Peng, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that YU references is Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and YU teach on filtering the air at vehicle system/environment; and that it is well known in the art that an air filter can filter an air in both directions, e.g., intake and outflow.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the YU reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yu, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to filter the air (see entire Yu document, particularly abstract, Para [0005, 0009, 0011]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
3. Claims 3-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of XIANG, LIM and PENG, further in view of ZENG (CN211091178U).
As per claims 3 and 19, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, polluted area as an area where a concentration of ammonia gas in the air is greater than or equal to a threshold value.
However, ZENG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs – teaching detecting the pig house environment ammonia concentration; detecting the pig house environment in the ammonia concentration value that is greater than the ammonia concentration safety threshold value, representing the ammonia concentration in the pigsty exceeds the standard.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that ZENG references is Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and ZENG teach on detecting ammonia concentration safety threshold value.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the ZENG reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ZENG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance determining ammonia concentration safety threshold value (see entire ZENG document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 4, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determine a pigsty area from map information as the polluted area.
However, ZENG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs – teaching detecting the pig house environment ammonia concentration; detecting the pig house environment in the ammonia concentration value that is greater than the ammonia concentration safety threshold value, representing the ammonia concentration in the pigsty exceeds the standard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ZENG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance determining ammonia concentration safety threshold value (see entire ZENG document, particularly abstract).
4. Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of XIANG, LIM and PENG, further in view of POITEVIN (FR3136579A1).
As per claim 5, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining a speed of the vehicle, based on the vehicle being located in the polluted area; and entering the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being less than or equal to a threshold speed.
However, POITEVIN discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0014, 0020, 0023-0024] – teaching vehicle speed limit indicated as applicable on the portion of road taken by the vehicle to be adjusted according to this pollution detection; increasing/decreasing vehicle speed limit associated with a different level of air pollution on road environment; displaying speed limit on a display device arranged in the road environment.
LIM, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0041, 0045-0046, 0070-0072] – teaching controller 121 configured to determine the degree of pollution/dust concentration of the outside air of the vehicle according to weather information corresponding to the vehicle position.
Peng, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that POITEVIN references is Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and POITEVIN teach on determining and increasing/decreasing vehicle speed limit according to concentration/level of air pollution on road that vehicle travels on.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the POITEVIN reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by POITEVIN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance determining and controlling vehicle speed limit based on initial data representative of a road environment/pollution for the vehicle (see entire POITEVIN document, particularly abstract);
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LIM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to measure degree of contamination of the outside air of the vehicle and determine whether to introduce the outside air into the vehicle (see entire LIM document, particularly Para [0005]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
As per claim 6, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining the speed of the vehicle at predetermined time intervals after entering the outside air blocking mode; and exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed.
However, POITEVIN discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0014, 0020, 0023-0024] – teaching vehicle speed limit indicated as applicable on the portion of road taken by the vehicle to be adjusted according to this pollution detection; increasing/decreasing vehicle speed limit associated with a different level of air pollution on road environment; displaying speed limit on a display device arranged in the road environment.
LIM, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0041, 0045-0046, 0070-0072] – teaching controller 121 configured to determine the degree of pollution/dust concentration of the outside air of the vehicle according to weather information corresponding to the vehicle position.
Peng, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by POITEVIN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance determining and controlling vehicle speed limit based on initial data representative of a road environment/pollution for the vehicle (see entire POITEVIN document, particularly abstract);
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LIM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to measure degree of contamination of the outside air of the vehicle and determine whether to introduce the outside air into the vehicle (see entire LIM document, particularly Para [0005]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
As per claim 13, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining a vehicle speed based on the vehicle being located in the polluted area, wherein determining a vehicle speed includes performing the outside air blocking mode based on a determination that the vehicle speed is being less than or equal to a threshold speed and exiting the outside air blocking mode based on the speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to the threshold speed.
However, POITEVIN discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0014, 0020, 0023-0024] – teaching vehicle speed limit indicated as applicable on the portion of road taken by the vehicle to be adjusted according to this pollution detection; increasing/decreasing vehicle speed limit associated with a different level of air pollution on road environment; displaying speed limit on a display device arranged in the road environment.
LIM, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0041, 0045-0046, 0070-0072] – teaching controller 121 configured to determine the degree of pollution/dust concentration of the outside air of the vehicle according to weather information corresponding to the vehicle position.
Peng, in turn, discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0006, 0015] – teaching controlling on-and-off inlet valve in car air-conditioning according pollution situation of outer environment and air; controlling starting and stopping of air inlet gate of air conditioner for automobile automatically according to the pollution condition of external environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by POITEVIN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance determining and controlling vehicle speed limit based on initial data representative of a road environment/pollution for the vehicle (see entire POITEVIN document, particularly abstract);
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LIM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to measure degree of contamination of the outside air of the vehicle and determine whether to introduce the outside air into the vehicle (see entire LIM document, particularly Para [0005]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Peng, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to close valve and prevent harmful gas from entering the vehicle (see entire Peng document, particularly Para [0015]).
5. Claims 8-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of XIANG, LIM and PENG, further in view of DEML (US20090312934).
As per claim 8, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, entering an EV mode and control a driving motor to drive using power from a battery, in the outside air blocking mode.
However, DEML discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, vehicle monitoring pollutants in its environment, in Para [0052] – teaching vehicle's drive switched to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value; electric drive that receives its electrical energy from a hydrogen fuel cell.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DEML, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to switch vehicle's drive to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value (see entire DEML document, particularly Para [0052]).
As per claim 9, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining an operable time of the EV mode in the outside air blocking mode; and displaying the operable time of the EV mode on a display.
However, DEML discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0005-0006, 0023, 0052, 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DEML, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to switch vehicle's drive to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value (see entire DEML document, particularly Para [0052]).
As per claim 10, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining the operable time during which the vehicle is cable of operating in the EV mode, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the battery and a change in the SOC of the battery per unit time.
However, DEML discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0005-0006, 0052, 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DEML, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to switch vehicle's drive to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value (see entire DEML document, particularly Para [0052]).
As per claim 15, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, controlling the vehicle to operate in an EV mode in which a driving motor of the vehicle is driven using power from a battery.
However, DEML discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs, vehicle monitoring pollutants in its environment, in Para [0052] – teaching vehicle's drive switched to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value; electric drive that receives its electrical energy from a hydrogen fuel cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DEML, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to switch vehicle's drive to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value (see entire DEML document, particularly Para [0052]).
As per claim 16, XIANG does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining an operable time of the vehicle in the EV mode, based on a state of charge (SOC) of the battery and a change in the SOC of the battery per unit time; and displaying the operable time of the EV mode on a display.
However, DEML discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0005-0006, 0052, 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of XIANG by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DEML, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to switch vehicle's drive to electric drive, if the concentration of a pollutant exceeds a limit value (see entire DEML document, particularly Para [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 11 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.
2. In performing initial search, the Examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is XIANG (CN108248404A) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of in view of LIM (US20230219400), PENG (CN201046661Y), YU (CN202703565U), ZENG (CN211091178U), POITEVIN (FR3136579A1) and DEML (US20090312934), who describe an electric automobile which comprises a water-hydrogen electric generator, a motor and a walking mechanism; the water-hydrogen electric generator that comprises a methanol water storage container, a methanol water hydrogen production device, a hydrogen fuel cell, an air pump and a control circuit board; the methanol water hydrogen production device that comprises a delivery pump, a heat exchanger, a reforming device and a membrane separator; the motor provided with a temperature sensor and a water cooling heat dissipation device, and the water cooling heat dissipation device that comprises a heat dissipation pipeline arranged on the periphery of the motor; the heat dissipation pipeline connected with the storage container and provided with a valve, and the valve is connected with a valve controller; the valve controller connected with the temperature sensor arranged on the motor, and the corresponding valve is controlled to be opened and closed according to temperature information inducted by the corresponding temperature sensor; the electric automobile that has the beneficial effects that the provided electric automobile can use methanol water for reforming electric energy generated in the hydrogen production process to supply kinetic energy, energy effectively saved, and environment pollution reduced; and time that does not need to be spent on charging.
In regards to claim 11 ONLY, XIANG (CN108248404A) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following feature(s) / limitation(s):
determining a possibility of the vehicle leaving the polluted area within the operable time of the EV mode, based on the vehicle not being in a stopped state.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
ZHANG (CN215263401U) – (see entire ZHANG document, particularly abstract – teaching a portable discharge testing system, comprising a gaseous pollutant measuring module, particulate matter measuring module, a total carbon hydrogen measuring module, an ammonia measuring module, a GPS and meteorological measuring module, a tail gas flow analyzing module, a gas distributor module, an OBD data collecting module, a tail gas flow pipe, a processor, the gaseous pollutant measuring module, a total carbon hydrogen measuring module, a particulate matter measuring module, an ammonia measuring module, a GPS and weather measuring module, a power supply management module, a tail gas flow analyzing module, a gas distributor module, an OBD data collecting module is electrically connected with the processor, has CO2, CO, NH3, NOx, N2O, THC, particulate matter function, comprising measuring temperature and humidity, atmospheric pressure, latitude and longitude, altitude, reading OBD data, measuring tail gas flow, linearization checking, nitrogen oxygen conversion furnace conversion efficiency checking, uninterrupted switching power supply, and a data pre-processing function).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights