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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues that Knitt and Biller do not disclose or teach the claimed combination of limitations (pp. 12–13). Applicant’s arguments are piecemeal, and do not adequately address the reasons put for by the Office as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the features of each reference to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the prior art (specifically, Haas) does not disclose the specific feature relating to the integral term in claim 1 (p. 13). The Office has consistently relied on the Wikipedia NPL, and Liu, to teach the obviousness of these features. The Office now relies, in part, on different Wikipedia NPL that is more directed to the problem of integral windup.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a memory mapping of a single user-selected temperature setting with a plurality of target temperatures (p. 13). The Office has consistently put forth that the single user-selected temperature setting is an obvious variation at least from what is taught in Shirayanagi, and clearly trades the benefit of convenient control for the cost of customizable control, and the claimed arrangement is analogous to pressing two buttons at once, and no sufficient argument persuading the Office to the contrary has been presented.
Applicant argues that the prior art (specifically, Knitt and Shirayanagi) do not disclose control of a heated throttle flipper member using the various specifics as claimed (p. 14). This argument is unpersuasive because it is piecemeal, and the Office clearly relies on other prior art references to teach these specifics.
Numerous of Applicant’s other arguments repeat earlier-recited arguments, and are found unpersuasive for the same reason.
Applicant’s remaining arguments concern newly presented or reformulated limitations, and are addressed by the newly formulated prior art rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each of reference character 60 in fig. 1, and reference character 94 in fig. 2, have a blank reference character next to them that should be removed.
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 separate driver channels of claim 40 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 33–36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a signal” (l. 22), but antecedent basis for this limitation has already been provided on line 3, and therefore, the definite article should be used.
Claim 1 recites, “the signal based on the input of the selected temperature is communicated to the controller via the CAN bus communication network system” (ll. 24–26). These limitations seem duplicated at least from the limitations on ll. 20–23 of the same claim. The duplications should be deleted.
Claim 1 recites “a maximum duty” (l. 47). However, the claim earlier provides for “a maximum duty threshold” (l. 40), and given the context of the claim, it clearly appears that “a maximum duty” on l. 47 should be amended to recite “the maximum duty threshold.”
Claim 2 provides for “a plurality of heating elements” (l. 3). However, claim 1 from which it depends already provides for “a plurality of heating elements” (on the last line). Claim 1 does not positively recite these heating elements, and instead only references them with respect to a plurality of different target temperatures; but nonetheless, antecedent basis for the limitation has already been provided, and the definite article should be used in claim 1. Claim 1 only positively recites a heating element formed and incorporated with a throttle flipper member. It would be best, providing a clean presentation, if a plurality of heating elements could somehow be introduced at the start of claim 1, although the claim(s) would also have to be further amended to accommodate for any mention of a singular “heating element.”
Claim 2 provides that “at least one of the heating elements of the plurality of heating elements is incorporated into at least a portion of the handgrip” (last two lines). However, earlier, the claim provides that “at least one of the heating elements of the plurality of heating elements is formed with a portion of the handgrip or the seat,” suggesting that a heating element formed with a handgrip is optional, contrary to the later limitations. The claim also, even earlier, clearly suggests that a handgrip itself is optional (l. 2) The claim is clearly understood to require both a handgrip and a heating element incorporated into the handgrip, but the claim should be amended so as to not suggest that the handgrip heater is optional.
Claims 4–9 and 33–36 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
Claims 34–36, 38, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34, the original disclosure provides that “A reference resistance 236 may also be determined or and/or recalled from a memory,” and that “The reference temperature may be any appropriate temperature, such as about 20°C, 0°C or any appropriate reference temperature,” but this is insufficient to provide a basis for original support the claimed initialization procedure because there is no mention of an ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 35, setting the integral term to 0 is part of the original disclosure, but there is no disclosure of any exceeding of a predetermined amount of a selected temperature.
Regarding claim 36, the original disclosure provides that “the duty signal sent to the driver 138 may be . . . set to a minimum duty in 322 if certain limits and thresholds are met,” but this is too ambiguous to support the claimed limitation.
The limitations of claims 38, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are not included in the original disclosure.
The Office notes that claim 38 is not rejected in view of prior art.
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.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 44 recites that “at least one of the target temperatures is a non-linear function of the user-selected temperature setting.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because its meaning is unclear. A temperature is a single point, and therefore, does not have the dimensionality to have a non-linear functionality. This lack of clarity is amplified since the Office finds this subject matter to be new matter. Although the Office cites to Furtner to disclose this limitation, what Furtner discloses is not in any way intended to be a confirmation of what the Office thinks the claim should be understood to mean, and is instead merely a best-effort application of prior art onto the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitations of claims 4, 5, and 7 do not limit claim 1 as presently amended.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Comment: Knitt can only be relied upon to teach elements that are a part of its provisional application, since only the provisional application antedates Applicant’s application.
Claims 1, 4–9, and 33–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt et al. (US Pub. 2019/0135372) in view of Shirayanagi (JP 2004-009851 A), McKown et al. (US Pat. 5,553,622), Haas et al. (US Pat. 6,770,848), Wikipedia (“Integral windup,” URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20171226063523/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_windup), Liu et al. (US Pub. 2018/0280651), Horiyama et al. (US Pub. 2006/0196864), Yamada et al. (US Pub. 2007/0045292), and Ulbrich et al. (DE 10 2004 042 440 B3).
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 (see the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7 under § 112(d) above): Knitt discloses a heater control system of a vehicle, comprising:
a user input system (130, see ¶ 25) to receive an input of a selected temperature from a user (¶ 26, “select a temperature setting”) and generate a signal based on the input (given that the system shown in fig. 1 is electronic, a signal would be inherent to the selection);
a heating element (122) configured to generate heat when a voltage is applied across the heating element (evident at least from ¶ 24, “input voltage . . . to the heating elements”) based on the signal regarding the selected temperature from the user input (clearly suggested by ¶ 26);
a controller (102) configured to control a temperature of the heating element based on a feedback signal including a determined temperature of the heating element (via 126; ¶ 47, “temperature signal”) relative to the selected temperature (see ¶ 46 discussing the “maximum threshold” and “minimum threshold”) at least by altering at least one of a current or a power to the heating element (¶ 37, “the amount of power provided to the heating element 124 is based on the temperature setting set by the user”);
a CAN bus communication network system (¶ 29, “CAN bus”) connecting the user input system and the controller (¶ 22 clearly enough states that “a system bus” (i.e. the CAN bus mentioned later in ¶ 29) facilitates various connections between the components, where the components include “one or more input/output interfaces” and “‘control units’ and ‘controllers’”), wherein the user input system is spaced apart from the controller such that the user input system transfers the user input to the controller via a signal with the CAN bus communication network system (ascertainable from the connections between 102 and 108 in fig. 1), wherein the signal based on the input of the selected temperature is communicated via the CAN bus communication network system (evident from the ¶ 22 and fig. 1 mentioned immediately above); and
a driver (308) configured to drive the heating element at a selected power, based on the determined temperature of the heating element, to achieve the selected temperature (see e.g. ¶ 47 discussing achieving the maximum threshold);
wherein the controller further includes a memory (118).
Knitt does not disclose a heating element formed and incorporated with a throttle flipper member, wherein the heating element is configured to be moveable with the throttle flipper member such that the heating element provides the generated heat at the throttle flipper member.
However, heated throttle flipper members are known, as disclosed in Shirayanagi (evident from throttle lever S and thumb warmer switch knob 4; a plain reading of Shirayanagi suggests that the heater is formed and incorporated with throttle lever S, which would result in the heating element being movable with the member). Shirayanagi also features a separate heated handlebar grip (evident from 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the throttle flipper member of Shirayanagi into the handlebar of Knitt as a user may find such a throttle member more appropriate to use than a rotating handlebar; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include both the hand grip and throttle member heaters of Shirayanagi for the heating benefits of each.
Knitt does not disclose that its controller is configured to determine the temperature of the heating element by: measuring a current supplied to the heating element and a voltage across the heating element; calculating a resistance value of the heating element based on the current and the voltage; and determining the temperature of the heating element based on the resistance value relative to a stored reference resistance at a reference temperature and a temperature coefficient of resistance for a conductor material of the heating element; and a signal indicative of the calculated resistance value of the heating element is communicated via the CAN bus communication network system.
However, determining a temperature of a heating element based on monitoring a resistance of a heating element is generally well-known (see CPC G05D 23/2401), and is recognized as obviating the need for separate temperature sensor. McKown is an example of a reference that determines a temperature of a heating element in this way.
McKown discloses a controller (claim 1, “core temperature monitor,” “control means”; see also, in general, col. 15, l. 17 to col. 16, l. 24) configured to determine the temperature of a heating element (claim 1, “electric resistance-type thermodilution heater element”) by: measuring a current supplied to the heating element (via 716) and a voltage across the heating element (via 714); calculating a resistance value of the heating element based on the current and the voltage (via 720); and determining the temperature of the heating element based on the resistance value relative to a stored reference resistance at a reference temperature (col. 15, ll. 27–31) and a temperature coefficient of resistance for a conductor material of the heating element (ibid.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the thermistor of Knitt with the resistance-measuring temperature sensing taught by McKown to obviate the need for a separate temperature sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have understood that a signal indicative of the calculated resistance value of the heating element could be communicated via a CAN bus communication network system like that in Knitt.
Knitt does not disclose a proportional and integral controller that is configured to: receive the feedback signal and determine an error term based thereon that is a difference between the determined temperature and the selected temperature, determine an integral term based on the received feedback signal and determined error term, wherein the controller is configured to adjust at least one of the current or the power to the heating element by: selecting a duty cycle to achieve the selected temperature while analyzing the integral term to determine whether the integral term is greater than or equal to a maximum duty or less than 0, and providing a signal having the first duty cycle to the driver. Knitt cannot be relied upon for its pulse-width modulation teachings because they are not part of the provisional application.
However, Haas discloses a similar apparatus with a proportional and integral controller (col. 5, lns. 58–59, “P, PI, PD or PID control”) configured to:
receive the feedback signal (from thermistor 22) and determine an error term based thereon that is a difference between the determined temperature and the selected temperature (a PI or PID controller inherently gauges the distance (i.e. the error term) between the selected temperature and the sensed temperature),
determine an integral term based on the received feedback signal and determined error term (a PI or PID controller would inherently determine an integral term),
wherein the controller is configured to adjust at least one of the current or the power to the heating element by:
selecting a duty cycle required to achieve the selected temperature (col. 6, lns. 6–7, “Pulse Width Modulated,” synonymous with duty cycle) while analyzing the integral term to determine whether the integral term is greater than or equal to a maximum duty or less than 0 (any PI or PID controller would involve an integral term that would suggest anywhere between a maximum duty (suggesting that the selected temperature cannot be achieved soon even by a maximum duty) or less than 0 (suggesting that the temperature should be reversed to achieve the elected temperature)1), and
providing a signal having a duty cycle to the driver (via controller 30; col. 6, lns. 6–7, “Pulse Width Modulated,” synonymous with duty cycle).
This would concomitantly require a driver configured to drive the heating element at a selected power, i.e. at the duty cycle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the duty cycle feature of Haas into the controller of Knitt to keep the temperature of the heater more consistent with finer control.
Knitt modified by Haas does not disclose that the controller is configured to limit the integral term by: setting the integral term equal to a maximum duty threshold when the integral term exceeds the maximum duty threshold; and setting the integral term to zero when the integral term is less than zero.
However, these features are already known as part of means to prevent a problem in PI or PID controllers called integral windup or overshoot. See the Wikipedia Integral Windup NPL, including its disclosure of “preventing the integral term from accumulating above or below pre-determined bounds.”
Along similar lines, Liu discloses an apparatus with a PID controller (see fig. 30 and ¶¶ 292–295) for a heater (3000) that uses techniques like this that, in light of the Wikipedia NPL, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that as part of integral windup prevention.
Liu discloses setting an integral term equal to a maximum duty threshold when the integral term exceeds the maximum duty threshold (see step 3012 in fig. 30, and ¶ 294 discussing how the integral term I is bounded by values that, given step 3014 as elaborated upon in ¶ 295, clearly refer to duty cycle values, including a max duty cycle value of 100(%)).
Liu also does not exactly disclose setting the integral term to zero when the integral term is less than zero because the example in ¶ 294 goes to -2. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a lower bound of 0, instead of -2, would similarly accomplish the goal of preventing windup with a lower bound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these features as part of the PID controller of Haas because they allow the PID controller to function optimally, as discussed above.
Haas clearly suggests its controller selecting a first duty cycle higher than a second duty cycle required to achieve the selected temperature, since this is a part of pulse width modulation with a PID controller, but it is not so explicit in the disclosure.
However, Horiyama discloses a heating element (71, 72) and a controller (85) configured to operate the heating element at a first duty cycle higher than a second duty cycle required to achieve the selected temperature (para. 80, “warm up the vehicle seat quickly by providing the control unit 85 for supplying the electric current larger than the normal operating level . . . for the predetermined time period after applying the electric power source and for restoring the electric current back to the normal operating level after passage of the predetermined time period”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the preheating current feature of Horiyama to the controller of Haas to provide for rapid preheating.
Knitt and Shirayanagi do not disclose the memory storing a mapping associating a single user-selected temperature setting with a plurality of different temperature targets respectively assigned to a plurality of heating elements. Instead, at the very least, Shirayanagi only discloses separate temperature settings for each of its handgrip and throttle flipper heaters.
However, first, Yamada discloses a similar system with a plurality of heating elements, including handle heaters (62) and seat heaters (52 and 55). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the additional seat heaters of Yamada into the system of Knitt to provide more user comfort.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the advantage of user convenience of only having to set one heat setting button (at the cost of individual control), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, for example, consolidate the separate controls of the kind taught Shirayanagi (or Yamada, with 58, 59, and 65) into one setting to simplify the control scheme so that multiple types of heating elements were controlled by one input.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the heater temperature ranges or settings for the handlebar and the throttle flipper should be different to accommodate for different skin sensitivities or the like. Ulbrich teaches that different heating elements should have their own appropriate temperature ranges and setpoints because, for example, a user’s extremities (i.e. a hand that touches a heat grip or throttle flipper) are more sensitive than a user’s trunk (affected by a seat heater).
“Preferably can the heating elements respectively different or individual temperature setpoints which are based on the appropriate temperature ranges, the for a feeling of comfort or warmth are suitable for humans. So is the target temperature for heating the extremities regularly clear below a target temperature for heating the body trunk, so that the temperature setpoints the respective electrical heating elements these temperature differences can be adjusted. It has, for example, been found that in an operation of heated Vehicle sitting with the felt on the thighs and back with warming a pronounced sensitivity to cold to the cooler remaining remaining Body regions can be connected, since the human body is much more sensitive such temperature differences react as absolute temperature values, the evenly on the whole body act.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different, unique temperatures for the heaters of the handgrip, throttle flipper, and seat heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada to accommodate for the difference in skin sensitivities.
Claim 6: Knitt does not disclose the controller including the proportional and integral controller that transmits the duty signal to a drive based on the temperature relative to the selected temperature to at least one of achieve or maintain the temperature at the selected temperature.
However, Haas discloses a controller (30) including a proportional and integral controller (col. 5, lns. 56–57) that transmits a duty signal to a drive (col. 6, lns. 6–7, “Pulse Width Modulated”) based on the temperature relative to a selected temperature to at least one of achieve or maintain the temperature at the selected temperature (col. 6, lns. 15–25, “thermistor 22”).
Just like with the duty cycle mentioned in claim 1, the advantage of this feature is that it keeps the temperature of the heater more consistent with finer control, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the proportional and integral duty cycle controller of Haas into the controller of Knitt to keep the temperature of the heater more consistent with finer control.
Claim 8: Modified as per claim 1 above, Horiyama discloses a driver (85) being operable to drive a heating element (71, 72) at a first power greater than a second power needed to maintain a selected temperature (para. 80, “warm up the vehicle seat quickly by providing the control unit 85 for supplying the electric current larger than the normal operating level . . . for the predetermined time period after applying the electric power source and for restoring the electric current back to the normal operating level after passage of the predetermined time period”).
Claim 9: Modified as per claim 6 above, Haas discloses the duty signal being greater when the temperature is less than the selected temperature (inherent with pulse width modulation, described in col. 7, lns. 44–55; see also that Haas has its own thermistor 23).
Claim 33: Modified as per claim 1 above, McKown discloses that the controller determines the temperature according to: T = (R/Rref – 1)/α + Tref, where R is the calculated resistance value, Rref is a stored reference resistance at reference temperature Tref, and α is a stored temperature coefficient of resistance (a formula that is not presented in the same way, but is exactly mathematically equivalent, is shown in claim 8 of McKown).
Claim 34: Modified as per claim 1 above, McKown does not disclose that the reference resistance is determined using an initialization procedure performed when the heating element is at ambient temperature. Instead, McKown discloses that the reference temperature and reference resistance are pracalibrated during manufacturing (col. 15, ll. 31–34), and that the reference temperature can be 37 °C (col. 17, l. 66 to col. 18, l. 2).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the reference resistance (and associated reference temperature) could be any reasonable value associated with a temperature close to the operating range of the heater (i.e. the mathematical formula in claim 8 is not limited by a particular reference temperature or reference resistance), and would have found it obvious to determine the reference resistance at an ambient temperature as a matter of making a selection among finite possibilities.
Claim 35: Modified as per claim 1 above, Liu discloses that the integral term is reset to zero when the determined temperature exceeds the selected temperature by a predetermined amount (¶ 312 discusses resetting the integral error term when a measured temperature is greater than an overheating temperature threshold).
Claim 36: Knitt modified by Haas does not disclose that the first duty cycle is not selected when the error term is below a predetermined threshold.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a low error term (meaning that the measured, activated temperature was not distant from the target temperature) would be commensurate with a lack of need for the greater power supplied by the first duty cycle, and would have selected a lesser power at a duty cycle other than the first duty cycle when the error term was below a threshold for that reason. The Office also notes that, given how PID controllers inherently operate to increase duty cycles with increased errors and decrease duty cycles with decreased errors, this feature should be inherent in PID controllers, like the one in Haas.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Shirayanagi, McKown, Haas, Wikipedia, Liu, Horiyama, Yamada, and Ulbrich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Downey et al. (US Pub. 2004/0007567).
Knitt discloses a handgrip configured to be grasped by a hand (103, 105);
wherein the heating element includes a plurality of heating elements (122, 124);
wherein at least one of the heating elements of the plurality of heating elements is formed with a portion of the handgrip (this is fairly evident from figs. 1, 3A, and 3B).
Knitt does not disclose that at least one of the heating elements of the plurality of heating elements is incorporated into at least a portion of the handgrip with an over mold or co-molding process.
However, Downey discloses a similar system where at least one handgrip heating element (24) of a plurality of heating elements (at both 18 and 20) is incorporated into at least a portion of the handgrip with an over mold or co-molding process (¶ 23, “electrical resistance heating wire . . . the outer sleeve is injection molded onto the underlying layers of the grip casing”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the heating element of Knitt to its handgrip via the over molding process taught by Downey as a known and effective means of joining the elements.
Claims 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Shirayanagi, McKown, Yamada, Ulbrich, Haas, Wikipedia, Liu, and Horiyama.
Claim 37: Knitt discloses a method of controlling a plurality of heating elements (122, 124) of a vehicle (200), comprising:
receiving, at a remote controller (102) over a vehicle CAN bus communication network (¶ 29, “CAN bus”), a single user-selected temperature setting (¶ 26, “select a temperature setting”) from an input module (130, see ¶ 25) spaced apart from the controller;
a plurality of heating elements including:
a heating element formed with a hand grip (122); and
a memory (118).
Knitt does not disclose a first heating element formed with and moveable with the throttle flipper member.
However, heated throttle flipper members are known, as disclosed in Shirayanagi (evident from throttle lever S and thumb warmer switch knob 4). Shirayanagi also features a separate heated handlebar grip (evident from 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the throttle flipper member of Shirayanagi into the handlebar of Knitt as a user may find such a throttle member more appropriate to use than a rotating handlebar; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include both the hand grip and throttle member heaters of Shirayanagi for the heating benefits of each.
Knitt does not disclose determining a temperature of the respective heating element without use of a discrete temperature sensor by: measuring a current supplied to the heating element and a voltage across the heating element, calculating a resistance value, and determining the temperature of the heating element based on the resistance value relative to a stored reference resistance at a reference temperature and a temperature coefficient of resistance.
However, determining a temperature of a heating element based on monitoring a resistance of a heating element is generally well-known (see CPC G05D 23/2401), and is recognized as obviating the need for separate temperature sensor. McKown is an example of a reference that determines a temperature of a heating element in this way.
McKown discloses measuring a current (via 716) supplied to a heating element (claim 1, “electric resistance-type thermodilution heater element”) and a voltage (via 714) across the heating element, calculating a resistance value (via 720), and determining the temperature of the heating element based on the resistance value relative to a stored reference resistance at a reference temperature (col. 15, ll. 27–31) and a temperature coefficient of resistance (ibid.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the thermistor of Knitt with the resistance-measuring temperature sensing taught by McKown to obviate the need for a separate temperature sensor.
Knitt does not disclose accessing a memory storing a mapping associating the single user-selected temperature setting with a plurality of different target temperatures respectively assigned to each of the plurality of heating elements.
However, first, Yamada discloses a similar system with a plurality of heating elements, including handle heaters (62) and seat heaters (52 and 55). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the additional seat heaters of Yamada into the system of Knitt to provide more user comfort.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the advantage of user convenience of only having to set one heat setting button (at the cost of individual control), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, for example, consolidate the separate controls of the kind taught Shirayanagi (or Yamada, with 58, 59, and 65) into one setting to simplify the control scheme so that multiple types of heating elements were controlled by one input.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the heater temperature ranges or settings for the handlebar and the throttle flipper should be different to accommodate for different skin sensitivities or the like. Ulbrich teaches that different heating elements should have their own appropriate temperature ranges and setpoints because, for example, a user’s extremities (i.e. a hand that touches a heat grip or throttle flipper) are more sensitive than a user’s trunk (affected by a seat heater).
“Preferably can the heating elements respectively different or individual temperature setpoints which are based on the appropriate temperature ranges, the for a feeling of comfort or warmth are suitable for humans. So is the target temperature for heating the extremities regularly clear below a target temperature for heating the body trunk, so that the temperature setpoints the respective electrical heating elements these temperature differences can be adjusted. It has, for example, been found that in an operation of heated Vehicle sitting with the felt on the thighs and back with warming a pronounced sensitivity to cold to the cooler remaining remaining Body regions can be connected, since the human body is much more sensitive such temperature differences react as absolute temperature values, the evenly on the whole body act.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different, unique temperatures for the heaters of the handgrip, throttle flipper, and seat heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada to accommodate for the difference in skin sensitivities.
Knitt does not disclose determining, for each heating element: a proportional output term, and an integral output term; or determining an error term for each heating element based on a difference between the determined temperature and the respective assigned target temperature.
However, Haas discloses a similar apparatus with a proportional and integral controller (col. 5, l. 56 to col. 6, l. 14, “P, PI, PD or PID control”). Such a controller inherently determines a proportional output term and an integral output term, as well as an error term (i.e. the distance between the selected temperature and the sensed temperature).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the proportional-integral controller taught by Haas into Knitt to keep the temperature of the heater more consistent with finer control
Knitt does not disclose limiting the integral output term by: setting the integral output term equal to a maximum duty threshold when the integral output term exceeds the maximum duty threshold, and setting the integral output term to zero when the integral output term is less than zero.
However, these features are already known as part of means to prevent a problem in PI or PID controllers called integral windup or overshoot. See the Wikipedia Integral Windup NPL, including its disclosure of “preventing the integral term from accumulating above or below pre-determined bounds.”
Along similar lines, Liu discloses an apparatus with a PID controller (see fig. 30 and ¶¶ 292–295) for a heater (3000) that uses techniques like this that, in light of the Wikipedia NPL, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that as part of integral windup prevention.
Liu discloses setting an integral term equal to a maximum duty threshold when the integral term exceeds the maximum duty threshold (see step 3012 in fig. 30, and ¶ 294 discussing how the integral term I is bounded by values that, given step 3014 as elaborated upon in ¶ 295, clearly refer to duty cycle values, including a max duty cycle value of 100(%)).
Liu also does not exactly disclose setting the integral term to zero when the integral term is less than zero because the example in ¶ 294 goes to -2. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a lower bound of 0, instead of -2, would similarly accomplish the goal of preventing windup with a lower bound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these features as part of the PID controller of Haas because they allow the PID controller to function optimally, as discussed above.
Haas clearly suggests selecting a first duty cycle greater than a second duty cycle required to maintain the respective assigned target temperature, since this is a part of pulse width modulation with a PID controller (see col. 6, ll. 6–7 of Haas), but it is not so explicit in the disclosure.
However, Horiyama discloses a heating element (71, 72) and a controller (85) configured to operate the heating element at a first duty cycle higher than a second duty cycle required to achieve the selected temperature (para. 80, “warm up the vehicle seat quickly by providing the control unit 85 for supplying the electric current larger than the normal operating level . . . for the predetermined time period after applying the electric power source and for restoring the electric current back to the normal operating level after passage of the predetermined time period”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the preheating current feature of Horiyama to the controller of Haas to provide for rapid preheating.
Furthermore, applying the control scheme of Haas and Horiyama to the heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada, along with the temperature control of McKown, would clearly result in independently driving each heating element according to its respective selected duty cycle.
Claim 40: Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada does not disclose each heating element being driven by a separate driver channel controlled independently by the controller.
However, as Shirayanagi and Yamada clearly disclose heating elements that are heated with separate controls (3 and 4 in Shirayanagi; 58, 59, and 65 in Yamada), separate driver channels are necessary and inherent to effectuate individual separate control of these elements.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Shirayanagi, McKown, Yamada, Ulbrich, Haas, Wikipedia, Liu, and Horiyama as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Furtner (US Pub. 2018/0106686).
Modified as per claim 1 above, McKown, Haas, and Hiroyama do not disclose that the voltage and current are measured during an off-cycle of a pulse-width modulation control signal.
However, this is a common feature in the art, as disclosed in Furtner (see ¶ 20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the off-cycle voltage and current measurement taught by Furtner into McKown, Haas, and Horiyama, to conveniently enable heating and temperature measuring at about the same time.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Shirayanagi, McKown, Yamada, Ulbrich, Haas, Wikipedia, Liu, and Horiyama as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US Pub. 2021/0031657).
Modified as per claim 1 above, Haas and Horiyama do not disclose that duty cycles of different heating elements are temporally staggered to reduce peak current demand.
However, this feature is already known in the art, as disclosed in Sato (see at least ¶ 14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the temporal staggering of duty cycles taught by Sato into the control of the heating elements of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada to reduce peak power usage, as is taught in Sato (¶ 14).
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Shirayanagi, McKown, Yamada, Ulbrich, Haas, Wikipedia, Liu, and Horiyama.
Claim 42: Knitt discloses a distributed heater control system for a vehicle (200), comprising:
an input module (130, see ¶ 25) configured to receive a single user-selected temperature setting (¶ 26, “select a temperature setting”);
a plurality of heating elements including:
a heating element formed with a hand grip (122);
a controller (102) remote from the input module and communicatively coupled thereto through a vehicle CAN bus communication network (¶ 29, “CAN bus”);
a driver (308) configured to supply current to each of the plurality of heating elements;
wherein the controller is configured to transmit and receive signals over the CAN bus communication network including a signal indicative of the user-selected temperature setting (¶ 22 clearly enough states that “a system bus” (i.e. the CAN bus mentioned later in ¶ 29) facilitates various connections between the components, where the components include “one or more input/output interfaces” and “‘control units’ and ‘controllers’”; see also the connections between 102 and 108 in fig. 1); and
a memory (118).
Knitt does not disclose a heating element formed with and moveable with a throttle flipper member, nor does it disclose independently supplying current to each of the plurality of heating elements.
However, heated throttle flipper members are known, as disclosed in Shirayanagi (evident from throttle lever S and thumb warmer switch knob 4). Shirayanagi also features a separately heated handlebar grip (evident from 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the throttle flipper member of Shirayanagi into the handlebar of Knitt as a user may find such a throttle member more appropriate to use than a rotating handlebar; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include both the hand grip and throttle member heaters of Shirayanagi for the heating benefits of each.
Knitt does not disclose its controller is configured to: determine a temperature of each heating element without a discrete temperature sensor by: measuring a current supplied to the heating element and a voltage across the heating element, calculating a resistance value; determining the temperature of the heating element based on the resistance value relative to a stored reference resistance at a reference temperature and a temperature coefficient of resistance; and transmitting and receiving a signal indicative of the calculated resistance of at least one heating element over the CAN bus communication network.
However, determining a temperature of a heating element based on monitoring a resistance of a heating element is generally well-known (see CPC G05D 23/2401), and is recognized as obviating the need for separate temperature sensor. McKown is an example of a reference that determines a temperature of a heating element in this way.
McKown discloses measuring a current (via 716) supplied to a heating element (claim 1, “electric resistance-type thermodilution heater element”) and a voltage (via 714) across the heating element, calculating a resistance value (via 720), and determining the temperature of the heating element based on the resistance value relative to a stored reference resistance at a reference temperature (col. 15, ll. 27–31) and a temperature coefficient of resistance (ibid.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the thermistor of Knitt with the resistance-measuring temperature sensing taught by McKown to obviate the need for a separate temperature sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have understood that a signal indicative of the calculated resistance value of the heating element could be communicated via a CAN bus communication network system like that in Knitt.
Knitt does not disclose its controller being configured to access a memory storing a mapping of the single user-selected temperature setting to a plurality of different target temperatures respectively assigned to each of the plurality of heating elements.
However, first, Yamada discloses a similar system with a plurality of heating elements, including handle heaters (62) and seat heaters (52 and 55). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the additional seat heaters of Yamada into the system of Knitt to provide more user comfort.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the advantage of user convenience of only having to set one heat setting button (at the cost of individual control), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, for example, consolidate the separate controls of the kind taught Shirayanagi (or Yamada, with 58, 59, and 65) into one setting to simplify the control scheme so that multiple types of heating elements were controlled by one input.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the heater temperature ranges or settings for the handlebar and the throttle flipper should be different to accommodate for different skin sensitivities or the like. Ulbrich teaches that different heating elements should have their own appropriate temperature ranges and setpoints because, for example, a user’s extremities (i.e. a hand that touches a heat grip or throttle flipper) are more sensitive than a user’s trunk (affected by a seat heater).
“Preferably can the heating elements respectively different or individual temperature setpoints which are based on the appropriate temperature ranges, the for a feeling of comfort or warmth are suitable for humans. So is the target temperature for heating the extremities regularly clear below a target temperature for heating the body trunk, so that the temperature setpoints the respective electrical heating elements these temperature differences can be adjusted. It has, for example, been found that in an operation of heated Vehicle sitting with the felt on the thighs and back with warming a pronounced sensitivity to cold to the cooler remaining remaining Body regions can be connected, since the human body is much more sensitive such temperature differences react as absolute temperature values, the evenly on the whole body act.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different, unique temperatures for the heaters of the handgrip, throttle flipper, and seat heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada to accommodate for the difference in skin sensitivities.
Knitt does not disclose its controller configured to determine an error term for each heating element based on the difference between the determined temperature and the respective mapped target temperature, and determine a proportional term and an integral term for each heating element.
However, Haas discloses a similar apparatus with a proportional and integral controller (col. 5, l. 56 to col. 6, l. 14, “P, PI, PD or PID control”). Such a controller inherently determines a proportional output term and an integral output term, as well as an error term (i.e. the distance between the selected temperature and the sensed temperature).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the proportional-integral controller taught by Haas into Knitt to keep the temperature of the heater more consistent with finer control.
Knitt does not disclose its controller configured to limit the integral term by: setting the integral term equal to a maximum duty threshold when the integral term exceeds the maximum duty threshold, and setting the integral term to zero when the integral term is less than zero.
However, these features are already known as part of means to prevent a problem in PI or PID controllers called integral windup or overshoot. See the Wikipedia Integral Windup NPL, including its disclosure of “preventing the integral term from accumulating above or below pre-determined bounds.”
Along similar lines, Liu discloses an apparatus with a PID controller (see fig. 30 and ¶¶ 292–295) for a heater (3000) that uses techniques like this that, in light of the Wikipedia NPL, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that as part of integral windup prevention.
Liu discloses setting an integral term equal to a maximum duty threshold when the integral term exceeds the maximum duty threshold (see step 3012 in fig. 30, and ¶ 294 discussing how the integral term I is bounded by values that, given step 3014 as elaborated upon in ¶ 295, clearly refer to duty cycle values, including a max duty cycle value of 100(%)).
Liu also does not exactly disclose setting the integral term to zero when the integral term is less than zero because the example in ¶ 294 goes to -2. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a lower bound of 0, instead of -2, would similarly accomplish the goal of preventing windup with a lower bound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these features as part of the PID controller of Haas because they allow the PID controller to function optimally, as discussed above.
Haas clearly suggests selecting a first duty cycle greater than a second duty cycle required to maintain the respective assigned target temperature, since this is a part of pulse width modulation with a PID controller (see col. 6, ll. 6–7 of Haas), but it is not so explicit in the disclosure.
However, Horiyama discloses a heating element (71, 72) and a controller (85) configured to operate the heating element at a first duty cycle higher than a second duty cycle required to achieve the selected temperature (para. 80, “warm up the vehicle seat quickly by providing the control unit 85 for supplying the electric current larger than the normal operating level . . . for the predetermined time period after applying the electric power source and for restoring the electric current back to the normal operating level after passage of the predetermined time period”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the preheating current feature of Horiyama to the controller of Haas to provide for rapid preheating.
Furthermore, applying the control scheme of Haas and Horiyama to the heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada, along with the temperature control of McKown, would clearly result in independently driving each heating element according to its respective selected duty cycle.
Claim 43: Modified as per claim 42, Knitt and Ulbrich do not explicitly disclose that the memory stores a mapping table associating each user-selected temperature setting with a plurality of different target temperatures respectively assigned to the plurality of heating elements.
However, as Knitt discloses a memory, and Ulbrich discloses using a plurality of different target temperatures, it follows that the values used (for the heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada) are stored. Furthermore, a “table” is merely a virtual conception of how values are stored, and given how these values would be functionally organized for each heating element and for each temperature setting, such a disclosure can be understood as a mapping table.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Shirayanagi, McKown, Yamada, Ulbrich, Haas, Wikipedia, Liu, and Horiyama as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Furtner.
Neither Knitt, nor Haas, nor Horiyama seem to disclose that at least one of the target temperatures is a non-linear function of the user-selected temperature setting.
However, Furtner discloses a heating system, and discloses, “FIG. 1 is a graph illustrating a temperature induced change of a heater element according to a duty cycle of a power signal Temperature is typically a non-linear function of the duty cycle, since the resistance of the heater changes with temperature, and this influences the amount of energy transferred to the heater” (¶ 21).
This disclosure of Furtner, therefore, suggests that it is likely that the temperatures of the heaters of Knitt, Shirayanagi, and Yamada have a non-linear function given the change in resistance with the change in temperature.
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 John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 That these features are inherent is clearly evidenced by the Wikipedia “PID Controller” NPL cited later in this Office action.
Prosecution Insights