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
1. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are currently pending.
2. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are canceled.
3. Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, and 16-17 are currently amended.
4. The objections to the specification are overcome.
5. The 112(b) rejections to Claim 16 has been overcome. The 112(b) rejections to Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are moot because the claims are now canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toge (JP 2005096646 AI; already of record) in view of Rooijakkers (US 20110260505 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Toge teaches a method for controlling a windbreak for a vehicle comprising (Toge: [0001]):
Determining a vehicle speed (Toge: [0008]);
Determining an initial panel position of a movable roof panel forming an opening (Toge: [0039]);
Positioning the windbreak in an initial windbreak position based on the vehicle speed and the initial panel position of the movable roof panel… (Toge: [0039] and [0041]);
Determining a sound signal corresponding to a sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0010]);
And minimizing the sound level within the vehicle by moving the windbreak from the initial windbreak position to a calibrated position by comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level that changes based on the vehicle speed (Toge: [0041] and [0061]).
Toge fails to explicitly teach using a windbreak position table.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rooijakkers teaches positioning the windbreak in an initial windbreak position based on the vehicle speed and the initial panel position of the movable roof panel using a windbreak position table (Rooijakkers: [0015], [0018], and [0022] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a windbreak position table is equivalent to positioning the windbreak in a fully extended position at low speeds and not yet fully extended at high speeds.).
Toge and Rooijakkers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of window panel vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toge to incorporate the teachings of Rooijakkers to position the windbreak in an initial position using a windbreak position table because it provides the benefit of positioning the windbreak in a position that offers optimal aerodynamic characteristics, as explicitly explained in [0007] of Rooijakkers.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Toge teaches determining the sound signal comprises determining the sound signal from a microphone (Toge: [0027]).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Toge teaches moving the windbreak comprises changing a motor position of a motor coupled to the windbreak (Toge: [0028]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Toge teaches continually performing the steps of determining the sound signal and moving the windbreak (Toge: [0040] and [0041]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Toge teaches storing a previous sound level in a memory and wherein minimizing the sound level comprises comparing the sound level to a sound threshold comprising the previous sound level (Toge: [0060] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the previous sound levels are interpreted as threshold values that have been predetermined. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Toge's sound thresholds must be stored in a memory in communication with the electronic control circuit in order to make the comparison to execute control.).
15. Regarding Claim 7, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Toge teaches performing the step of minimizing when the vehicle speed is below a vehicle speed threshold (Toge: [0017], [0040], and [0041]).
16. Regarding Claim 8, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Toge teaches moving the windbreak comprises moving the windbreak in a first direction and a second direction to minimize the sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0061]).
17. Regarding Claim 11, Toge teaches a system for controlling a windbreak for a vehicle comprising (Toge: [0001]):
A vehicle speed sensor generating a vehicle speed signal corresponding to a vehicle speed (Toge: [0008]);
A movable roof panel having an initial panel position forming an opening (Toge: [0039]);
A sound sensor generating a sound signal corresponding to a sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0010]);
And a controller programmed to position the windbreak in an initial windbreak position based on the vehicle speed and the initial panel position of the movable roof panel… (Toge: [0039] and [0041]);
And programmed to minimize the sound level within the vehicle by moving the windbreak from the initial windbreak position to a calibrated position by comparing the sound level to a calibrated position sound level that changes based on the vehicle speed (Toge: [0041] and [0061]).
Toge fails to explicitly teach using a windbreak position table.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rooijakkers teaches a controller programmed to position the windbreak in an initial windbreak position based on the vehicle speed and the initial panel position of the movable roof panel using a windbreak position table (Rooijakkers: [0015], [0018], and [0022] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a windbreak position table is equivalent to positioning the windbreak in a fully extended position at low speeds and not yet fully extended at high speeds.).
Toge and Rooijakkers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of window panel vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toge to incorporate the teachings of Rooijakkers to position the windbreak in an initial position using a windbreak position table because it provides the benefit of positioning the windbreak in a position that offers optimal aerodynamic characteristics, as explicitly explained in [0007] of Rooijakkers.
18. Regarding Claim 12, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Toge teaches to determine the sound signal by determining the sound signal from a microphone (Toge: [0027]).
19. Regarding Claim 14, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Toge teaches to move the windbreak by changing a motor position of a motor coupled to the windbreak (Toge: [0028]).
20. Regarding Claim 15, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Toge teaches to continually determine the sound signal and move the windbreak (Toge: [0040] and [0041]).
21. Regarding Claim 16, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Toge teaches determine a previous sound level, store the previous sound level in a memory and minimize the sound level by comparing the sound level to the previous sound level (Toge: [0060] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the previous sound levels are interpreted as threshold values that have been predetermined. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Toge's sound thresholds must be stored in a memory in communication with the electronic control circuit in order to make the comparison to execute control.).
22. Regarding Claim 17, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Toge teaches to minimize when the vehicle speed is below a vehicle speed threshold (Toge: [0017], [0040], and [0041]).
23. Regarding Claim 18, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Toge teaches to move the windbreak by moving the windbreak in a first direction and a second direction to minimize the sound level within the vehicle (Toge: [0061]).
24. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toge (JP 2005096646 A; already of record), in view of Rooijakkers (US 20110260505 A1), and in further view of Wheeler (US 20190112861 A1).
25. Regarding Claim 3, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Toge discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of microphones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use more than one microphone to determine a sound signal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, Wheeler teaches determining the sound signal comprises determining the sound signal from a plurality of microphones (Wheeler: [0021] and [0051]).
Toge, Rooijakkers, and Wheeler are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of window panel vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toge and Rooijakkers to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to improve Toge by using multiple microphones for determining a sound signal because it provides the benefit of detecting the sound signal from a plurality of different locations within the vehicle as explained in [0021] of Wheeler.
26. Regarding Claim 13, Toge and Rooijakkers remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Toge discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of microphones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use more than one microphone to determine a sound signal, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, Wheeler teaches determining the sound signal comprises determining the sound signal from a plurality of microphones (Wheeler: [0021] and [0051]).
Toge, Rooijakkers, and Wheeler are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of window panel vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toge and Rooijakkers to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler to improve Toge by using multiple microphones for determining a sound signal because it provides the benefit of detecting the sound signal from a plurality of different locations within the vehicle as explained in [0021] of Wheeler.
Response to Arguments
27. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 and 11-18 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. Rooijakkers (US 20110260505 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of positioning the windbreak in an initial windbreak position using a windbreak position table in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0015] and [0018]. Rooijakkers teaches to position the windbreak in a fully extended position when the vehicle is traveling at low speeds and to position the windbreak in a not yet fully extended position when the vehicle is traveling at high speeds.
28. Toge (JP 2005096646 A; already of record), in view of Rooijakkers (US 20110260505 A1), and in further view of Wheeler (US 20190112861 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
29. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dittrich (US 20100078963 A1)
31. 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.
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights