CTNF 18/656,023 CTNF 90606 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 requires multiple setting conditions for each vehicle model. The disclosure indicates a setting condition for each vehicle and does not indicate multiple setting conditions for each vehicle. Claim 5 requires an impeding condition be evaluated. This is based on the evaluation result. There is no calculation indication on how to determine the evaluation result. The specification does give an example of a cloudy windshield but does not indicate how this is determined nor the structure required to determine this. The specification also does not indicate a relationship between travel data and the impeding condition. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-3 and 5 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ large ” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ large ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear when a difference is large and is not large. Two different people of ordinary skill in the art may also come to vary different conclusions on what is considered large or not large . Claim 2 recites “wherein: the control unit is configured to determine that the switching control is to be performed when the acquired environmental data and travel data of the vehicle satisfy a setting condition; the setting condition is a condition under which a fuel efficiency difference is large, and is set based on either or both of an environmental condition of the vehicle and a travel condition of the vehicle; and the fuel efficiency difference is obtained by subtracting a fuel efficiency of the vehicle when the switching control is not in operation from a fuel efficiency of the vehicle when the switching control is in operation when a cabin of the vehicle is being cooled”. The claim requires that switching control is performed when the environmental data and travel data of the vehicle satisfy a setting condition. There is no relationship in the claim to compare the environmental data and the travel data to a setting condition. It is unclear how the switching is ever engaged. It is also noted that the setting condition is related to a fuel efficiency difference being large. Again, this does not indicate when to satisfy a setting condition. Claim 5 recites “wherein: the in-vehicle device further includes an input unit; the control unit is configured to, after causing the output unit to output the notification, cause the input unit to receive an evaluation result indicating whether having performed the switching control or not performing the switching control impedes travel of the vehicle; an impeding condition is identified based on the evaluation result, the impeding condition being a condition under which the travel of the vehicle is impeded when the switching control is performed: and the control unit is configured to, even when the determination is made that the switching control is to be performed, not cause the output unit to output the notification when the acquired environmental data and travel data of the vehicle satisfy the impeding condition”. It is unclear what is considered impeding travel of the vehicle. The specification gives an example of a cloudy windshield. It is unclear if a change in power load, a change in airflow, or a change in comfort of a user is considered an impeding condition. Additionally, it is unclear how travel data and the impeding condition relate to each other or how a comparison would be made . 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires both environmental data and travel data to be used. Claim 2 only requires one of the data to be used because they are claimed in the alternative . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20190039435 to Hasan (Hasan) . Regarding claim 1, Hasan teaches a control unit configured to determine whether to perform switching control for switching from an outside air mode to a recirculated air mode in a vehicle (34, Figure 2), based on acquired environmental data (212, 220, and/or 224, Figure 5) and travel data (216, Figure 5) of the vehicle, wherein the control unit is configured to, when determination is made that the switching control is to be performed, either perform a notification process for recommending to perform the switching control, or perform the switching control (232 and 240, Figure 5). Regarding claim 2, Hasan teaches wherein: the control unit is configured to determine that the switching control is to be performed when the acquired environmental data and travel data of the vehicle satisfy a setting condition; the setting condition is a condition under which a fuel efficiency difference is large (Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0049 indicate efficiency is changed by factors in 220 and 224, Figure 5), and is set based on either or both of an environmental condition of the vehicle and a travel condition of the vehicle (212, 216, 220, and 224, Figure 5); and the fuel efficiency difference is obtained by subtracting a fuel efficiency of the vehicle when the switching control is not in operation from a fuel efficiency of the vehicle when the switching control is in operation when a cabin of the vehicle is being cooled (comparison is done using temperature sensors to increase efficiency. As a result of the comparison of the temperaures the result is the fuel efficiency is compared. It is noted that Applicant did not provide units, a sample calculation, nor any indication of how fuel efficiency is calculated and uses temperature differences as an example that shows an efficiency difference (Paragraphs 0047-0048 of the specification)). Regarding claim 3, Hasan teaches wherein a plurality of the setting conditions is set for each vehicle model (212, 216, 220, and/or 224, Figure 5). Regarding claim 4, Hasan teaches wherein: the information processing device is an in-vehicle device (device is in a vehicle) further including an output unit; and the control unit is configured to cause, as the notification process, the output unit to output a notification recommending to perform the switching control (output unit is the device moving the damper as any action as a result of the determination meets the claim language). Regarding claim 5, Hasan teaches wherein: the in-vehicle device further includes an input unit; the control unit is configured to, after causing the output unit to output the notification, cause the input unit to receive an evaluation result indicating whether having performed the switching control or not performing the switching control impedes travel of the vehicle; an impeding condition is identified based on the evaluation result, the impeding condition being a condition under which the travel of the vehicle is impeded when the switching control is performed; and the control unit is configured to, even when the determination is made that the switching control is to be performed, not cause the output unit to output the notification when the acquired environmental data and travel data of the vehicle satisfy the impeding condition (Paragraphs 0047 and 0048 indicates not performing switching when fogging is being prevented. This is also indicated at 212, Figure 5). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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. /STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/656,023 Page 2 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/656,023 Page 3 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/656,023 Page 4 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/656,023 Page 6 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/656,023 Page 7 Art Unit: 3762
Prosecution Insights