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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“memory devices” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US Pat No. 4,730,662), hereinafter referred to as Kobayashi.
Re claim 1, Kobayashi teaches fuel efficient automatic temperature control system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a climate control system (e.g. 76) configured to heat or cool air delivered to a cab (e.g. 20) of the vehicle, the climate control system including:
a condenser (implicit; since an evaporator 78 is used),
a variable-speed fan (e.g. 72; see variable speed in Fig 6) operable at a fan speed (Vmax to Vmin);
a first sensor (48U) configured to provide a vent-air information (e.g. C11-lns 6-8, “vent air temperature calculation circuit 222”) indicative of a condition (e.g. temperature) of the air delivered to the cab;
an automatic temperature controller (e.g. 56), the automatic temperature controller comprising one or more processors (e.g. 204) including one or more memory devices (e.g. 208) coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive an indication of a desired temperature (e.g. C10-lns 55-65 “the temperature setting unit 60”),
receive the vent-air information (see Fig 11),
determine whether the variable-speed fan is required to operate at a maximum fan speed based on at least the desired temperature and the vent-air information (e.g. C11-lns 35-65, “A blower speed calculation circuit 228 is connected to the temperature difference calculation circuit 224 to receive the temperature difference-indicative signal” … “temperature difference calculation circuit 224 also derives the temperature difference between the target temperature indicated by the target temperature-indicative signal from the target temperature calculation circuit 220 and the average room temperature and produces a temperature difference-indicative signal” … “The temperature difference calculation circuit derives an average room temperature based on the upper and lower room temperature-indicative signals from the upper and lower room temperature sensors 48U and 48L”),
determine whether a dehumidifying operation is requested (step 2008),
in response to determining that the variable-speed fan is required to operate at the maximum fan speed (Vmax), operate the variable-speed fan at the maximum fan speed (Vmax), and
in response to determining that the variable-speed fan is not required to operate at the maximum fan speed and that the dehumidifying operation is not requested, operate the variable-speed fan below the maximum fan speed (see Vmin during t1; e.g. C8-lns 35-50, “the demist switch has benn of and passenger compartment temperature has been brought to a desired temperature, so that the blower speed has been adjusted to the lowest level, corresponding to blower motor supply voltage Vmin”).
Re claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are in feedback communication with the climate control system and continuously operate the climate control system (the examiner notes that is implied by at least Fig 6 since there is a time element).
Re claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a second sensor (e.g. 48L) configured to provide climate control system information (temperature), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive the climate control system information (see Fig 11); and determine a minimum fan speed necessary to heat or cool the air delivered to the cab at the desired temperature based on at least the vent-air information and the climate control system information (see Fig 11 and C11-lns 35-65).
Re claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: in response to determining that the variable-speed fan is not required to operate at the maximum fan speed and that the dehumidifying operation is not requested, operate the variable-speed fan at the minimum fan speed (see Vmin during t1; e.g. C8-lns 35-50, “the demist switch has benn of and passenger compartment temperature has been brought to a desired temperature, so that the blower speed has been adjusted to the lowest level, corresponding to blower motor supply voltage Vmin”).
Re claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the indication of the desired temperature comprises a temperature value selected via an operator interface (see e.g. C4-lns 45-55, “A temperature setting switch 60 manually operable to set the desired room temperature is also connected to the controller 56 ”).
Re claim 7, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the dehumidifying operation comprises a demist operation (see e.g. “demist switch”).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi.
Re claim 6, Kobayashi teaches system of claim 1. Kobayashi further teaches the limitation of wherein the first sensor includes a temperature sensor, and the vent-air information includes a temperature of the air to be delivered to the cab (the examiner notes that 48U is a temperature sensor). Kobayashi does not explicitly teach the limitation of also including a humidity sensor. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a humidity sensor to better control humidity falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kobayashi and integrated a humidity sensor to the first sensor, in order to better control the humidity.
Re claim 8, Kobayashi teaches system of claim 1. Kobayashi does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the climate control system information comprises at least one of: a temperature at the inlet and outlet of a compressor, the condenser, or an evaporator. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a temperature at the inlet and outlet of a compressor, the condenser, or an evaporator to fine tune the control system of the blower speed control falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kobayashi and integrated wherein the climate control system information comprises at least one of: a temperature at the inlet and outlet of a compressor, the condenser, or an evaporator, in order to fine tune the control system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
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 2/6/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763