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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/01/2023, 03/21/2025 & 07/10/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 7-8 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.
A) Claim 7 recites the limitation "the right seat" and “the left seat” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, Claim 7 has been construed to be dependent on Claim 2, not Claim 1.
B) Claim 8 is also rejected due to its dependency on Claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102013009603A1 to Kryst.
A) As per Claims 1 & 16, Kryst teaches an air conditioning control device that controls an air conditioner installed in a vehicle (Kryst: Figure 8), comprising:
a controller that controls a display screen of a touch panel display and controls the air conditioner based on a touch operation on the display screen, wherein the display screen includes a seat image representing a seat (Kryst: Figure 8, Seat with Item P) and a reference area image representing a reference area (Kryst: Figure 8, area to left of P with Item SR0), and the controller:
in a case where the touch operation has a direction from the reference area image to the seat image, outputs a control command to increase airflow of air coming out from the air conditioner (Kryst: Figure 8, moving finger from SR0 to SR); and
in a case where the touch operation has a direction from the seat image to the reference area image, outputs a control command to decrease the airflow of the air coming out from the air conditioner (Kryst: Figure 8, moving finger from SR to SR0).
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) 1-5, 9, 12 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication Number 2021/0048213 A1 to Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst.
A) As per Claim 1, Albrecht-Buehler teaches an air conditioning control device that controls an air conditioner installed in a vehicle (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1), comprising:
a controller that controls a display screen of a touch panel display and controls the air conditioner based on a touch operation on the display screen, wherein the display screen includes a seat image representing a seat (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, left and right have driver and passenger seat respectively) and a reference area image representing a reference area (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, area from Item 3, 3’, 6 & 7 between two seats):
Albrecht-Buehler does not teach that in a case where the touch operation has a direction from the reference area image to the seat image, outputs a control command to increase airflow of air coming out from the air conditioner; and
in a case where the touch operation has a direction from the seat image to the reference area image, outputs a control command to decrease the airflow of the air coming out from the air conditioner.
However, Kryst teaches in a case where the touch operation has a direction from the reference area image to the seat image, outputs a control command to increase airflow of air coming out from the air conditioner (Kryst: Figure 8, moving finger from SR0 to SR); and
in a case where the touch operation has a direction from the seat image to the reference area image, outputs a control command to decrease the airflow of the air coming out from the air conditioner (Kryst: Figure 8, moving finger from SR to SR0).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Albrecht-Buehler by making the airflow control scheme with a swipe, as taught by Kryst, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Albrecht-Buehler with these aforementioned teachings of Kryst since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the control scheme of Kryst for the control scheme of Albrecht-Buehler.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 2, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the seat image includes a right seat image representing a right seat and a left seat image representing a left seat in a case where a traveling direction of the vehicle is taken to be a front (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, left and right have driver and passenger seat respectively).
C) As per Claim 3, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the reference area image is located between the right seat image and the left seat image on the display screen (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, left and right have driver and passenger seat respectively).
D) As per Claim 4, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the right seat image and the left seat image are displayed on the display screen in an arrangement when each seat is viewed from a rear, or in an arrangement in which the seats face each other (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, left and right have driver and passenger seat respectively).
E) As per Claim 5, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the seats represented by the right seat image and the left seat image face the reference area image on the display screen (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, area from Item 3, 3’, 6 & 7 between two seats).
F) As per Claim 9, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the display screen includes an airflow image represented by a pattern between the seat image and the reference area image, and the number of patterns displayed from the reference area image toward the seat image increases as the airflow increases (Kryst: Figure 8, different Item “I” show intensity of different airflow streams).
G) As per Claim 12, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the display screen includes an adjustment icon that can adjust a temperature setting of the air conditioner by a first touch operation in one direction and a second touch operation in another direction (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, Item 7 with Item 5 above changes temperature settings), and the controller:
in a case where the adjustment icon is operated by the first touch operation, outputs a control command to increase the temperature setting (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, Item 7 with Item 5 above changes temperature settings with “+” icon); and
in a case where the adjustment icon is operated by the second touch operation, outputs a control command to decrease the temperature setting (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, Item 7 with Item 5 above changes temperature settings with “-“ icon).
H) As per Claim 15, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the air conditioner includes a defroster, a front air outlet configured to blow air toward a front of the seat, and a lower air outlet configured to blow air toward a lower portion of the seat, the display screen includes, between the seat image and the reference area image, a first touch area for enabling the touch operation for adjusting air from the front air outlet, a second touch area for enabling a touch operation for controlling the defroster, and a third touch area for enabling the touch operation for adjusting air from the lower air outlet, and the controller, in a case where the first touch area is touched, outputs a control command to control output of the air output from the front air outlet, in a case where the second touch area is touched, outputs a control command to control the defroster, and in a case where the third touch area is touched, outputs a control command to control output of the air from the lower air outlet (Albrecht-Buehler: Figure 1, top Item 3’ is defroster, middle is to seat and bottom arrow is to footwell).
Claim(s) 6, 10 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of EP2896524A1 to Wild.
A) As per Claims 6 & 10, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches that the reference area image includes an icon and is located in a central portion of the display screen, the right seat image is located on a right side of the reference area image on the display screen, and the left seat image is located on a left side of the reference area image on the display screen (Kryst: Figure 8, Item SR0 would be in middle of screen and two seats in Albrecht-Buehler).
Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst does not teach that the icon is a fan icon.
Wild teaches a fan icon (Wild: Figure 3, Item 6).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst by making the icon a fan icon, as taught by Wild, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst with these aforementioned teachings of Wild with the motivation of making it more clear what attribute of the air is being controlled.
B) As per Claim 13, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches all the limitations except that the display screen includes a color image that represents magnitude of the temperature setting of the air conditioner in color, in a case where the temperature setting is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature threshold, the color becomes red, and in a case where the temperature setting is less than the temperature threshold, the color becomes blue.
However, Wild teaches the display screen includes a color image that represents magnitude of the temperature setting of the air conditioner in color, in a case where the temperature setting is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature threshold, the color becomes red, and in a case where the temperature setting is less than the temperature threshold, the color becomes blue (Wild: pg. 6, first paragraph).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst by making the temperature control with color, as taught by Wild, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst with these aforementioned teachings of Wild with the motivation of making it more clear what attribute of the air is being controlled.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst and Wild as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of EP3067227 A1 to Groning.
A) As per Claim 11, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst and Wild teaches all the limitations except that the reference area image includes a plurality of scales surrounding the fan icon, the fan icon has an animation function in which a rotational speed of the fan changes depending on speed of the air coming out from the air conditioner, and the plurality of scales increase or decrease depending on the airflow of the air coming out from the air conditioner.
However, Groning teaches the reference area image includes a plurality of scales surrounding the icon (Groning: Figure 3, Item 22), the fan icon has an animation function in which a rotational speed of the fan changes depending on speed of the air coming out from the air conditioner (Groning: pg. 2, paragraph 2), and the plurality of scales increase or decrease depending on the airflow of the air coming out from the air conditioner.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst and Wild by having scales and fan animation, as taught by Groning, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst and Wild with these aforementioned teachings of Groning with the motivation of making it more clear what attribute of the air is being controlled.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of KR20160105587A to Choi.
A) As per Claim 7, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst teaches all the limitations except that the display screen includes a synchronization switch button for synchronously adjusting right seat air coming out from the air conditioner toward the right seat and left seat air coming out from the air conditioner toward the left seat, and the controller:
in a case where the synchronization switch button is ON, outputs a control command for controlling output of both the right seat air and the left seat air in response to the touch operation; and
in a case where the synchronization switch button is OFF, outputs a control command for controlling output of one of the right seat air and the left seat air in response to the touch operation.
However, Choi teaches that the display screen includes a synchronization switch button for synchronously adjusting right seat air coming out from the air conditioner toward the right seat and left seat air coming out from the air conditioner toward the left seat, and the controller:
in a case where the synchronization switch button is ON, outputs a control command for controlling output of both the right seat air and the left seat air in response to the touch operation; and
in a case where the synchronization switch button is OFF, outputs a control command for controlling output of one of the right seat air and the left seat air in response to the touch operation (Choi: pg. 2, paragraph 4-6; pg. 4, paragraph 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst by having the sync mode, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst with these aforementioned teachings of Choi with the motivation of providing further control methods for better occupant comfort.
B) As per Claim 8, Albrecht-Buehler in view of Kryst and Choi teaches that the controller:
in a case where the synchronization switch button is ON, outputs a control command for controlling any one of airflow, air direction, and temperature of both the right seat air and the left seat air in response to the touch operation; and in a case where the synchronization switch button is OFF, outputs a control command for controlling any one of airflow, air direction, and temperature of one of the right seat air and the left seat air in response to the touch operation (Choi: pg. 2, paragraph 4-6; pg. 4, paragraph 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762