DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 states: generating a plurality of feedback control error signals, each feedback control error signal in the plurality of feedback control error signals corresponding to a unique thermal effector in a plurality of thermal effectors. The Office is unsure of what is meant by “feedback control error signal” or why it is generated and the written disclosure is unclear. The Office examined the claim as if the method wants to regulate a microclimate and the error is a divergent from the actual temperature.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “multiple microclimate thermal effectors” is understood as being defined in the written disclosure as referenced in the PGPUB:
[0043] Microclimate thermal effectors are localized components that can adjust or maintain a desired microclimate in a corresponding zone 130, 132, 134, 136, 138. The microclimate thermal effectors can include, for example, climate controlled seats (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,524,439 and 6,857,697), a head rest/neck conditioner (e.g., U.S. Provisional App. No. 62/039,125), a climate controlled headliner (e.g., U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/900,334), a steering wheel (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,727,467 and U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090513), a heated gear shifter (e.g., U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0061603, etc.), heater mats, a mini-compressor system, and/or any other systems configured to achieve a personalized microclimate. The enumerated microclimate thermal effectors are exemplary in nature and are non-limiting. The microclimate system provides a corresponding occupant 104 personal comfort in an automated manner with little or no input from the corresponding occupant 104. All or some of the microclimate thermal effectors can be arranged to optimally control the thermal environment around an occupant of a seat located anywhere inside a passenger vehicle. In addition, the microclimate thermal effectors can be used to regulate thermal comfort separately for individual segments of the occupant's body.
The prior art, Hintea et al. (US 2018/0134118), uses the term “actuator” which is defined as: a windshield heating element, a steering wheel heating element, an A/C unit, a fan motor and an air heating element. Relevant Paragraphs produced below:
[0053] FIG. 1 illustrates a vehicle 10 including an automated climate control system. The climate control system includes a control unit 12, which is electronically connected to a plurality of input devices, including a human-machine interface (HMI) device 14 and a seat pressure sensor 26. The control unit 12 is also connected to a plurality of environmental parameter sensors, including an energy usage sensor 16, a seat temperature sensor 18, a humidity sensor 22, a windshield clarity sensor 20 and an air temperature sensor 24. The control unit 12 is also electronically connected to a plurality of actuators, including a windshield heating element 28, a steering wheel heating element 36, an A/C unit 34, a fan motor 30 and an air heating element 32.
[0062] Each actuator of the climate control system 12 is a climate control element, capable of affecting an environmental characteristic of the vehicle cabin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not the claimed microclimate system having the weighting chart further includes a cumulative power usage entry, the cumulative power usage entry defining an estimated total power usage of the corresponding thermal effector and each other thermal effector of the plurality of thermal effectors having a higher weighting value than the corresponding thermal effector, and optionally, wherein the weighting chart includes a limit entry for each thermal effector in the plurality of thermal effectors, wherein the limit entry defines one of no limits, 0 power usage, and a numerical limit, and wherein the numerical limit is an amount of power allowed to be used by the corresponding thermal effector and is less than the power usage entry for the corresponding microclimate system.
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.
Claims 1-2,4-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Hintea et al. (US 2018/0134118).
Regarding claim 1, Hintea (H) discloses a microclimate system for a vehicle occupant comprising: multiple microclimate thermal effectors ([0053,0062], i.e., actuators), each of the microclimate thermal effectors having a corresponding thermal effector controller (40, i. e, implementation module) and being configured to at least partially control an occupant thermal comfort, each of the microclimate thermal effectors including at least one sensor (16,18,22,20,24) configured to determine a microclimate parameter corresponding to at least one microclimate thermal effector of the multiple microclimate thermal effectors; and a microclimate system controller (12) in communication with a plurality of thermal effector controllers (40), and an optimizer (44), the optimizer being configured to apply a corresponding weighting value from a plurality of weighting values to each thermal effector controller in the plurality microclimate thermal effectors (12,44,42,46,40, 50, 52, [0067-0068]). As a clarification, the controller (12) comprises many modules, which are considered controllers wherein in total allow the controller (12) to control the microclimate; the rulebook (50) and the protocol (52) decide the “weight” given to each thermal effectors.
Regarding claim 2, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 1, wherein each weighting value is a combination of a user preference value ([0055]) and an efficiency value ([0067]), and optionally wherein the optimizer is configured to modify the preference value corresponding to a thermal effector in response to a user manually modifying the operations of the corresponding thermal effector ([0055], [0080]).
Regarding claim 4, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 1, wherein the optimizer includes a weighting chart, the weighting chart including a power usage entry for each thermal effector (50, [0102]), the power usage entry defining an estimated amount of power required by the corresponding thermal effector to achieve a commanded thermal comfort level ([0101, 0103]). As a clarification, the rulebook (50) is updated to control the energy supplied to the thermal effectors to ensure a comfortable environment for the occupants.
Regarding claim 5, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 4, wherein the weighting chart further includes a weighting value entry for each thermal effector ([0102], i.e., simulated actuator set point) the weighting value entry defining the weighting value of the corresponding thermal entry for a thermal effector operation to achieve the commanded thermal comfort level ([0103-0107]).
Regarding claim 9, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 1, wherein the optimizer (44) is disposed between an output of the microclimate system controller (12) and an input of each of the thermal effector controllers (40, the electrical signal needs to pass in this sequence to control the thermal effectors, otherwise not signal would be received and the microclimate would not be controlled.)
Regarding claim 10, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 1, wherein the optimizer (44) is a component of the microclimate system controller (12, [0067-0068]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintea et al. (US 2018/0134118) and Panuganty et al. (US 2020/0210647).
Regarding claim 3, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 2, where power economization ([0116]) is prioritized, but not that the weighting value is the user preference value multiplied by the efficiency value.
However, Panuganty (P) et al. (US 2020/0210647) discloses a method of analyzing data (Abstract) wherein the weighting value can be the user preference value multiplied by the efficiency value ([0321,0346]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the system of Hintea to weighting the user preferences in order to achieve a desired outcome to ensure that the system works properly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintea et al. (US 2018/0134118) and Josefsson et al. (US 2015/0375653).
Regarding claim 7, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 1 but not that the optimizer includes a plurality of weighting values for each thermal effector, and wherein each weighting value corresponds to a distinct thermal effector operation, and optionally, wherein the distinct thermal effector operations include heating operations, heating operations starting below a threshold temperature, cooling operations, and cooling operations starting above a threshold temperature.
However Josefsson (J) discloses a vehicle power allocation system (Abstract) wherein the optimizer (22, i.e., controller) includes a plurality of weighting values for each thermal effector ([0045]), and wherein each weighting value corresponds to a distinct thermal effector operation ([0047]), and optionally, wherein the distinct thermal effector operations include heating operations, heating operations starting below a threshold temperature, cooling operations, and cooling operations starting above a threshold temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the system of Hintea to allocate energy where energy is need to maintain passenger comfort, thus economizing the amount of energy used.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintea et al. (US 2018/0134118) and Goergen (US 2017/0208672).
Regarding claim 8, Hintea (H) discloses the microclimate system of claim 1, but not that the microclimate system controller is configured to output a plurality of error signals, the plurality of error signals including one error signal corresponding to each thermal effector and wherein the optimizer is configured to apply the weighting value by multiplying the error signal corresponding to a given thermal effector by the weighting value corresponding to the given thermal effector.
However, Goergen (G) discloses a controller device (Abstract) wherein the microclimate system controller is capable to be configured to output a plurality of error signals, the plurality of error signals including one error signal corresponding to each thermal effector and wherein the optimizer is configured to apply the weighting value by multiplying the error signal corresponding to a given thermal effector by the weighting value corresponding to the given thermal effector ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the program to discriminate and modify its protocols based on errant messages to ensure that the climate is controlled as desired.
Claims 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US 2017/0208672) in view of Josefsson et al. ( US 2015/0375653).
Regarding claim 11, Goergen (G) discloses a method for optimizing thermal operations in a microclimate system comprising: generating a plurality of feedback control error signals, each feedback control error signal in the plurality of feedback control error signals corresponding to a unique thermal effector in a plurality of thermal effectors; multiplying each feedback control error signal by a weighting value corresponding to the unique thermal effector to which the feedback control error signal corresponds using an optimizer; and providing each weighted feedback control error signal to the corresponding unique thermal effector ([0012], below with explanation:
[0012] In an embodiment the signal that is received by the receiver comprises one of: a single user input command (the equivalent to a feedback control error signal), a stream of user input commands or the end of a stream of user input commands. The impact on the network may be related to the number of user input commands received within a predetermined time period (e.g. a stream of user input commands may have a higher impact than a series of single user input commands). Therefore, the decision to generate the plurality of messages of a first type or the single message of a second type to execute the commands may depend on the characteristics of the command. It may be advantageous to distinguish between different types of user input because it allows the control device to optimize the user experience by generating a message related to the specific user input (providing each weighted feedback control error signal to the corresponding unique thermal effector) thereby possibly maximizing synchronicity and minimizing delay between the user input and the execution of the input. As, a clarification the prior art decides by an optimizing and weighting algorithm. Goergen does not apply the method to thermal effectors.
However Josefsson (J) discloses a vehicle power allocation system (Abstract) wherein the optimizer (22, i.e., controller) includes a plurality of weighting values for each thermal effector ([0045, 0047]). As a clarification, the predetermined priority profile is the weighted value of the thermal effector.
Regarding claim 14, Goergen (G), as modified, discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the optimizer includes an estimated power usage for each thermal operation of each thermal effector, and a cumulative power usage entry for each thermal effector, and wherein the cumulative power usage entry corresponding to a given thermal effector is the estimated power usage of the corresponding thermal effector summed with the estimated power usage corresponding to each thermal effector having a higher weighting value ([0049-0053]).
Regarding claim 15, Goergen (G), as modified, discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising enforcing a power budget by providing no power limit on thermal effectors with a corresponding cumulative power usage entry below the power budget, restricting a power usage of a first thermal effector having a corresponding cumulative power usage in excess of the power budget, and disabling all remaining thermal effectors ([0049-0053]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US 2017/0208672) and Okita et al (US 2019/0086110).
Regarding claim 12, Goergen (G) discloses the method of claim 11, but not further comprising determining each weighting value by multiplying a normalized efficiency weighting value with a normalized preference value, wherein the efficiency value is indicative of a power usage efficiency of the corresponding unique thermal effector during a commanded thermal operation and the preference value is indicative of at least one user's preference for the corresponding thermal effector, and optionally comprising reducing the normalized preference value of a thermal effector in response to the user reducing an output of the thermal effector.
However, Okita (O) discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising determining each weighting value by multiplying a normalized efficiency weighting value with a normalized preference value, wherein the efficiency value is indicative of a power usage efficiency of the corresponding unique thermal effector during a commanded thermal operation and the preference value is indicative of at least one user's preference for the corresponding thermal effector, and optionally comprising reducing the normalized preference value of a thermal effector in response to the user reducing an output of the thermal effector ([0198] and [0252]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the program to discriminate and modify its protocols based on user’s preference.
Regarding claim 13, Goergen (G), as modified, discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the optimizer is configured to increase feedback control error signals of preferred thermal effectors and decrease feedback control error signals of non-preferred thermal effectors ([0198] and [0252]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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 E BARGERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights