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 Amendment
Applicants’ amendments to the claims have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Misumi et al. (US 20110114739), hereinafter referred to as Misumi.
Re claim 1, Misumi teaches a method of controlling air conditioning for occupants through seating detection, the method comprising:
determining whether an entire air conditioning condition (e.g. ¶ 384, “the normal mode (four-seat air conditioning)”) is satisfied (this is satisfied when an occupant is seated in the rear seat, see S13-S14) when an air conditioner is operated and performing air conditioning for an entire vehicle when the entire air conditioning condition is satisfied (e.g. ¶ 384, “the normal mode (four-seat air conditioning)”);
detecting whether an occupant is seated on a rear seat and performing air conditioning for the entire vehicle when it is determined that the occupant is seated on the rear seat (e.g. ¶ 180, “When it is determined that there is an occupant in the seat other than the driver seat from the detection result of the occupant absence detection device (i.e., when S13: NO), the process proceeds to S14. In S14, the target air blowing amount of the blower 12 (i.e., blower level) for the four-seat air conditioning is decided as before”);
determining a heat load condition (e.g. ¶ 301, “TAO calculated from the air-conditioning heat load”) by comparing an outdoor air temperature and an interior temperature (e.g. ¶ 374-375, “TAO=Kset×Tset−Kr×Tr−Kam×Tam−Ks×Ts+C”); and
Further, the applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. For example, the steps of detecting whether the occupant is seated in a front passenger seat and performing air conditioning control, both depend based on conditional limitations (i.e. occupant seated in rear seat). An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” .Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007).
Re claim 2-7, Misumi teaches the method of claim 1. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” .Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007).
Re claim 8, Misumi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the interior temperature is measured as an absolute value of a difference between a user set temperature and an interior temperature of a vehicle (e.g. ¶ 374-375, “TAO=Kset×Tset−Kr×Tr−Kam×Tam−Ks×Ts+C”)
Re claim 9, Misumi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the air conditioning control further includes performing warmer control of a seat to be air-conditioned (e.g. heating and the air is being blown to the knees the seat is warmed up as well).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
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 NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 12/24/2025