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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are 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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the air-sending device of claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to start the forced swing mode when a time elapsed since the forced swing mode was performed last time exceeds a first time. The language suggests a second start fan swing mode after a time duration associated with starting the first fan swing mode. This creates ambiguity as to whether an additional fan swing mode is implemented after the first swing mode is started. It is unclear whether there are concurrent or overlapping forced swing modes, different swing modes engaged after the first swing mode, and/or the first swing mode is terminated for a time period before repeating the forced swing mode.
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) 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (PG/PUB 20050103876) in view over Prugh (PG/PUB 20200341457).
Claim 1.
Martinez teaches an air-sending device but does not expressly teach the time and regardless limitations described below (e.g. as interpreted, performing automatic control actions responsive to time durations indicative of user emergency) comprising:
a fan configured to blow air into a space (0004-0005, 0029)
an airflow direction adjusting unit configured to adjust an airflow direction of the air blown out from the fan (0020-21, 0024)
a controller configured to control the fan and the airflow direction adjusting unit (0025, Figure 4, 0032) and
an infrared sensor configured to obtain a thermal image of the space (0010, 0019, 0023)
wherein the controller is configured to detect a user staying in the space based on the thermal image (ABSTRACT, 0007, 0024, 0028), and when a time period of detecting a user in the space exceeds a first time, execute a forced swing mode regardless of a setting made by a user for the airflow direction, the forced swing mode being a mode in which a swing operation in which the airflow direction adjusting unit is controlled to change the airflow direction over time is forcibly performed (Prugh, 0088, 0116 e.g. see indicating unconscious user based on time duration in association with biometric data, 0220 for taking automatic control actions (e.g. regardless of system settings made by a user), see also “settings at the property,” and see Martinez for forced swing modes of fan operation (e.g. analogous to settings at the property) involving temperature, direction, and fan speed directed toward occupants)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Prugh, namely implementing automatic control actions responsive to determining user motionless states, to the teachings of Martinz, namely monitoring occupant temperatures within a vehicle for controlling fan speed and direction, would achieve an expected and predictable result of automatically directing fan direction toward an occupant exhibiting emergency states (e.g. motionless for predetermined time durations). Prugh is reasonably pertinent to implementing automatic control actions based on user inactivity as described, summary of invention.
Claim 2.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but does not express wherein
the controller is configured to start the forced swing mode when a time elapsed since the forced swing mode was performed last time exceeds a first time (e.g. as interpreted, continued swing mode for duration of emergency, i.e., duration in which the fan is controlled, supra claim 1)
Claim 6.
The air-sending device of claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to continue the swing operation after the forced swing mode is ended (e.g. as interpreted, configured to repeat the same control for another emergency, supra claim 1)
Claim 10.
The air-sending device of claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to control the fan in the forced swing mode so that a volume of air sent to the user detected in the space is set to be larger than a volume of air sent in other directions (Martinez, 0024)
Claim 12.
The air-sending device of claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to control the airflow direction adjusting unit in the forced swing mode so that a direction of air blown out from the fan is changed with the position of the person as a center (Martinez, 0024 e.g. see driver side position)
Claim 17. The air-sending device of claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to control the fan in the forced swing mode so that a volume of air sent to a ventilation opening is set to be smaller than a volume of air sent in other directions (Martinez, 0024 e.g. see driver vs passenger cooling volumes)
Claim 20.
An air-sending system comprising:
a plurality of the air-sending devices of claim 1, the plurality of air-sending devices being configured to operate in conjunction with each other (Martizes, see multiple fans/vents, 0019, Figure 1-103 105 107 109)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (PG/PUB 20050103876) in view over Prugh (PG/PUB 20200341457) in view over Wiens-kind (PG/PUB 20170321923)
claim 3.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but does not teach the notification below. Wiens-kind teaches the notification below, wherein
the controller is configured to notify a user of start of the forced swing mode when the forced swing mode is started (0209, see notifying a user of recent commands, supra claim 1 for recent fan mode commands)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Wiens-kind, namely notifying a user of recent commands, to the teachings of Martinez, as modified, namely implement automatic forced fan mode commands would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements. Wiens-kind is in the same field of endeavor and pertinent to apprise a user of building alarms, as described.
Claims 4-5 and 7 ae rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (PG/PUB 20050103876) in view over Prugh (PG/PUB 20200341457) in view over Schmitt et al. (PG/PUB 20230310915)
Claim 4.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but does not expressly teach a start instruction. Schmitt teaches the start instruction wherein
the controller is configured to start the forced swing mode when the controller receives a start instruction from a user (Schmitt, ABSTRACT, see selecting control command responsive to emergency, and supra claim 1 for automatic control action for fan control, see also individual fan control of Martinez)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Schmitt, namely presenting building commands to a user in response to detected emergencies, to the teachings of Martinez, as modified, namely providing a forced fan swing mode control responsive to emergencies, would achieve an expected and predictable result of presenting a forced fan swing mode to a user for selection in response to an emergency. Schmitt is reasonably pertinent to controlling a building environment based on emergency situations and would commend itself to enabling emergency responders to control the vehicle environment.
Claim 5.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but does not teach the end instruction. Schmitt teaches the end instruction, wherein
the controller is configured to end the forced swing mode when the controller receives an end instruction from a user ((Schmitt, 0007, 0045 e.g. see shutoff commands, supra claim 1 for forced swing mode command/action)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Schmitt, namely presenting building commands to a user in response to detected emergencies, to the teachings of Martinez, as modified, namely providing a forced fan swing mode control responsive to emergencies, would achieve an expected and predictable result of presenting a forced fan swing mode to a user for selection in response to an emergency. Schmitt is reasonably pertinent to controlling a building environment based on emergency situations and would commend itself to enabling emergency responders to control the vehicle environment.
Claim 7.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but does not teach the user limitations. Schmitt teaches the user limitations, wherein
the controller is configured to ask a user whether or not to permit starting of the forced swing mode and start the forced swing mode when the controller receives from the user a permission for starting the forced swing mode (Schmitt, see presenting available commands as user permissions, claim 1, Figure 1B-160)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Schmitt, namely presenting building commands to a user in response to detected emergencies, to the teachings of Martinez, as modified, namely providing a forced fan swing mode control responsive to emergencies, would achieve an expected and predictable result of presenting a forced fan swing mode to a user for selection in response to an emergency. Schmitt is reasonably pertinent to controlling a building environment based on emergency situations and would commend itself to enabling emergency responders to control the vehicle environment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (PG/PUB 20050103876) in view over Prugh (PG/PUB 20200341457) in view over Mellink (PG/PUB 20210283439)
Claim 9.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but doesn’t teach the number of users. Mellink teaches the number of users, the controller is configured to start the forced swing mode when a number of users detected in the space is equal to or greater than a threshold (0060-62)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Mellink for activating fans based on occupant count to the teachings of Martinez, as modified, for engaging a fan swing mode, would achieve an expected and predictble result of cooling vehicle occupants for energy saving control as described.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (PG/PUB 20050103876) in view over Prugh (PG/PUB 20200341457) in view over Chen (PG/PUB 20210356161)
Claim 13.
The air-sending device of claim 1 but does not teach the window limitations. Chen teaches the window limitations, wherein
the controller is configured to detect a window being opened in the space based on the thermal image, and start the forced swing mode when the window is opened (0030, 0035 e.g. see image based determining of window states, see associated HVAC control while window is opened, 0038-39, supra claim 1 for equivalent control HVAC/forced fan mode)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Chen, namely controlling airflow/HVAC during window open states, to the teachings of Martinez, as modified, namely controlling a forced fan swing mode during an emergency within a vehicle, would achieve an expected and predictable result of controlling fan airflow concurrent with open windows using image analysis during the emergency to provide expedited cooling and ventilation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (PG/PUB 20050103876) in view over Prugh (PG/PUB 20200341457) in view over Shimba (PG/PUB 20080275573)
Claim 21.
The air-sending system of claim 20 but does not teach the link limitations. Shimba teaches the link limitations, wherein
the controller of one of the plurality of air-sending devices is configured to communicate with the controller of another air-sending device to transmit thereto an instruction for starting a link operation and an instruction for ending a link operation (ABSTRACT, Figure 13, 0006)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Shimba, namely linking device operation based on respective states, to the teachings of Martines, supra claim 1, namely controlling multiple fans configured for forced swing modes, would achieve an expected and predictable result of coordinating second fan operation to the first fan operation for coordinated cooling and temperature management. Shimba is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to linking device operation for achieving a target goal as described, summary of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 relevancy for emergency response actions based on occupant states
20250304034 20220401689 20170028811 20160363341 12444291 20190010948 20160363341 20180017278 20060286923 12410933 20190310598 7027627 20170028811 20050103876 20170122613 11581099 20230000396*** 20200341457 20190353379 20140266669 20200341457 20200341457
See displaying available commands based on events, 20150339917
20210247097
20220300287
20160077511
20160200169
20210086778
20220235959 20220401689 20210356153 20210244352 20210086778 20210074138 (lack of movement distress) , 10741044 20170124842 20170028811 20160363341 20060286923 20050103876 10741044 20230310915 20180330586 20210140668 20230310915
20200191427 20180375444
Claim 2 relevancy
20220282886 20170045253
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117