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 .
This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: In line 12, Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article, e.g., “to increase a treatment capacity.”
Claim 2: Applicant is respectfully advised to amend the claim to correct grammar, make clear the references to the intended antecedents, and provide the missing articles, so that the claim is more easily understood, e.g., “wherein the wirelessly sending and receiving of data external to the vehicle.”
Claim 3: Applicant is respectfully advised to amend the claim to correct grammar, make clear the references to the intended antecedents, and provide the missing articles, so that the claim is more easily understood, e.g., “wherein the wirelessly sending and receiving of data external to the vehicle.”
Claim 5: Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article, e.g., “if there is a treatment demand.”
Claim 6: In line 3, “before to control” appears to be a misstatement of “before controlling.” In addition, “to increase treatment capacity” appears to lack an article, e.g., “to increase the treatment capacity.”
Claim 7: In line 2, “which is operable connected” appears to be a typographical error for “which is operably connected.”
Claim 8: In line 3, “simultaneously and independent from each other” appears to include a typographical error, i.e., “simultaneously and independently from each other.”
Claim 9: Line 4 appears to contain a typographical error (i.e., wherein a first vehicle is configured to . . .request). Lines 6-7 appear to contain the following typographical errors: “receive the request and control [[an ]]the air treatment system of the second vehicle to increase the treatment capacity,” noting that claim 1 provides antecedents for both terms.
Claim 10: The last line appears to contain the following typographical errors: “capable of receiving . . . and controlling a respective air treatment system to increase the treatment capacity.”
Claim 12: In line 4, “receiving, on a supply vehicle” appears to be a misstatement of “receiving, [[on ]]by a supply vehicle.” See claim 13, line 4. In the last line, Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article, e.g., “to increase a treatment capacity.” Applicant is respectfully advised to amend lines 6-7 to “an air treatment system of the supply vehicle” to provide a proper antecedent for the last two lines of the claim (“the air treatment system of the supply vehicle”).
Claim 16: In the last line, there appears to be a typographical error, e.g., “greater than or equal to the demand.”
Claim 17: In line 3, “simultaneously and independent from each other” appears to include a typographical error, i.e., “simultaneously and independently from each other.”
Claims 18-20: Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article, e.g., “the treatment . . . the treating.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2 and 3 recite limitations written as steps of a method, but the claim recites a system (a vehicle/an air treatment system) rather than a method. Therefore, these limitations are interpreted as limiting the system of claim 1 by the capabilities the steps imply. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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 1-11, 13-16, and 18-19 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 1: The claim recites, “a communication interface configured to wirelessly send and receive data external to the vehicle” (lines 4-5). It is unclear how the phrase “external to a vehicle” limits the claim. Plausible interpretations appear to be that the communication interface is external to a vehicle; or that the data both originate from a location external to a vehicle or are sent to a location external to the vehicle. Referring to the specification, Fig. 1A and [0087] appear to indicate a communication interface 30 inside a vehicle, suggesting that the second interpretation is intended, but in this case, it is unclear how both the data sent and the data received can be “external to the vehicle” if the communication interface that sends and receives them is inside the vehicle. For the purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted as reciting that the communication interface wirelessly sends data to and receives data from some counterpart that is external to the vehicle.
Claims 2-11 and 18-19 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2: The claim recites, “[t]he vehicle of claim 1 . . . sending an RF signal from one vehicle and receiving the same RF signal by another vehicle.” It is unclear if “the vehicle” corresponds to the “one vehicle” or the “another vehicle.”
Claim 3 is rejected upon the same basis as claim 2, i.e., it is unclear what the nexus is between the vehicle of claim 1 and “one vehicle” and/or “another vehicle.”
Claim 7: The claim recites, “further comprising a driving assistant circuit or an autonomous driving circuit, which is operable connected to the communication interface to send to external and receive from external driving data.” It is unclear what is meant by “to send to external and receive from external driving data,” i.e., it is unclear how data can be interpreted as a destination to which something is sent to or received from, and it is unclear what is being sent and received.
Claim 13: It is unclear if “a request for air treatment” (lines 4-5) is different from “a request for treatment” (claim 12, lines 4-5) since the apparent antecedent is not acknowledged. It is unclear if “an acknowledgement” (line 5) is different from “an acknowledgement” (claim 12, line 9) since the apparent antecedent is not acknowledged. Consequently, it is unclear how the steps of claim 13 are integrated with the steps of claim 12. For the purposes of examination only, the “request for treatment” (claim 12) is interpreted to be sent by the demand vehicle (claim 13), and the acknowledgement that is sent from the supply vehicle (claim 12) is interpreted to be received by the demand vehicle (claim 13).
Claims 14-16 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 13.
Claim 15: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the additional treatment capacity utilized.” Suggested alternative text is “the increase in the treatment capacity” (implicit in claim 12, last line).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 1-20.
The concept of a vehicle comprising: an air treatment system for treating environment air; a control circuit; a communication interface configured to wirelessly send and receive data external to the vehicle and operably coupled to the control circuit, wherein the control circuit is configured to: via the communication interface, receive a request for treatment; determine if the air treatment system has an additional treatment capacity available; via the communication interface, send an acknowledgement if additional treatment capacity is available; and control the air treatment system to increase treatment capacity, wherein the communication interface comprises a first communication channel and a second communication channel, wherein the second communication channel is configured to send and receive air treatment data, comprising the receiving the request for treatment and sending the acknowledgement, and wherein the first communication channel has a lower latency than the second communication channel and/or the first communication channel has a higher reliability than the second communication channel (claim 1)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
Likewise, the concept of a method of treating environmental air by a supply vehicle configured to communicate with external interfaces via a first communication channel and a second communication channel, the method comprising: receiving, on a supply vehicle and via the second communication channel, a request for treatment; determining, by a control circuit of the supply vehicle, that an air treatment system has an additional treatment capacity available; sending, from the supply vehicle and via the second communication channel, an acknowledgement, wherein the first communication channel has a lower latency and/or a higher reliability than the second communication channel; and by the control circuit of the supply vehicle, controlling the air treatment system of the supply vehicle to increase treatment capacity (claim 12)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Seki et al. (US 2020/0122549 A1), which discloses a vehicle 10 with an air conditioning device 80 (Fig. 2; [0043]) (i.e., an air treatment system for treating environment air) comprising:
a pre-air conditioning proposal unit 123 of an air conditioning control device 100 ([0061]) (i.e., a control circuit);
an air conditioning control service server ([0094]) (i.e., a communication interface) for sending content, such as the press of a remote air conditioning start button, of an input of a driver on an information terminal 510 such as a smartphone to the pre-air conditioning proposal unit 123 ([0094], [0095]);
wherein the pre-air conditioning proposal unit 123 receives an operation from the driver via the server 500 to implement air conditioning ([0092]) (i.e., wherein the control circuit is configured to: via the communication interface, receive a request for treatment);
determine if the state of charge (SOC) of a battery 40 is equal to or above a first predetermined value ([0083], [0100])), wherein stored electric energy of the battery 40 may be insufficient for comfortable air conditioning ([0091]) (i.e., determine if the air treatment system has an additional treatment capacity available);
display an air conditioning proposal function selection screen if the SOC of the battery 40 is equal to or greater than the first predetermined value via the pre-air conditioning proposal unit 123 ([0100]) via the server 500 ([0092]) (i.e., via the communication interface, send an acknowledgement if the additional treatment capacity is available); and
execute a proposed-type pre-air conditioning ([0095]) (i.e., control the air treatment system to increase a treatment capacity).
However, because Seki teaches the executing of the pre-air conditioning as a simple activation of an air treatment of a single vehicle, Seki does not suggest configurations as claimed above in which there are first and second communication channels, wherein the first communication channel has a lower latency than the second communication channel and/or the first communication channel has a higher reliability than the second communication channel.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772