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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an energy storage device,” and “a control device” in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “energy storage device” is sufficiently described in the specification as a battery (see paragraph 43).
The “control device” is sufficiently described in the specification as a microcomputer (see paragraphs 25, 46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0244130 A1) and in view of Sixta (WO 2022/194314 A1) and further in view of Hirabayashi (US 2015/0099443 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lee teaches a vehicle (vehicle, see abstract and paragraph 40), comprising; an engine (engine, paragraph 33); an air conditioner (air conditioner of the vehicle, see paragraph 40) configured to perform air conditioning in a vehicle cabin (air conditioner controlling vehicle indoor temperature, see paragraph 74); and a control device (at least control unit 35) configured to, when a remote air conditioning request is received from user equipment (user terminal such as a smartphone, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 37-38) with a system of the vehicle stopped (remote air conditioning request for a parked/stopped/off vehicle, see figs. 2, 5 and paragraph 20), turn on a remote air conditioning request signal after starting the system (air conditioning control signal at S3 after start-up of vehicle at S1, see fig. 5), and execute remote air conditioning on a condition that a recognized shift that is a recognized shift position is a parking position (drive air conditioner at step S7 after determining that the vehicle is parked, see paragraph 20 and fig. 5), the remote air conditioning being air conditioning in which the air conditioner is operated with the engine in operation (air conditioning operating with vehicle engine started, see figs. 5, 1 and paragraph 14), wherein the control device is configured to, when the recognized shift is not the parking position, suspend prohibition of the remote air conditioning when an elapsed time since starting of the system is less than a predetermined time (air conditioning continued during neutral mode, see paragraphs 20, 48 and 66), and determine prohibition of the remote air conditioning when the elapsed time is equal to or more than the predetermined time (air conditioning performed for a set time period since the start-up time, see paragraphs 21, 40, 59 and 64).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach a generator configured to generate electricity using power from the engine; and an energy storage battery connected, together with the generator and the air conditioner, to a power line.
Sixta discloses a vehicle (see abstract and page 6, paragraph 1) including an automatic vehicle control system (see fig. 1 and abstract), an engine (vehicle engine, page 6, paragraph 1); an energy storage battery (battery, page 6, paragraph 1) connected, together with the generator and the air conditioner, to a power line (battery 2, air conditioner and fan 4 are connected to power lines, see fig. 2 and page 6, paragraph 1, page 4, paragraph 4); and a control device (control unit 5) configured to receive a remote air conditioning operation signal (see fig. 1); start a timer when the vehicle is in the active state with engine operational (see vehicle active mode with engine operational, page 6, paragraph 3); and turn of the air conditioner and/or fan after the elapsed time, since the start of the vehicle active state, passes the limit time (see fan off after time crossing the limit time, fig. 1 and page 28, paragraph 7 – page 29, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle air conditioning system of Lee by providing a battery as the energy storage device that is connected to the power lines along with the air conditioning fan based on the teachings of Sixta in order to allow an additional power source that could power the low voltage control and auxiliary circuitry without using the engine power. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to reprogrammed the controller of Lee to begin the start time from the start of the system/engine and determining prohibition of remote air conditioning by ending all or some of the air conditioning function (such as fan) at the end of a predetermined time from the start time based on the teachings of Sixta for the advantage of conserving power by keeping track of the exact time for which power has been consumed.
Lee also does not explicitly teach a generator configured to generate electricity using power from the engine and the generator connected to a power line.
However, Hirabayashi teaches a vehicle (see abstract) including an engine (see paragraph 46); a generator (MG1 MG2) configured to generate electricity using power from the engine (see paragraph 46); and an energy storage battery (360) connected, together with the generator (MG1, MG2) and the air conditioner, to a power line (generator and/or battery power transmitted to wheels and air conditioner, see paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle and the air conditioning system of Lee by providing a generator configured to generate electricity using power from the engine; and an energy storage battery connected, together with the generator and the air conditioner, to a power line based on the teachings of Hirabayashi in order to allow an additional power source that is powered by the engine and that stores electric power for pre-air conditioning, automatic air conditioning, battery charging and for some operations transmitting power to the wheels of the vehicle (see paragraphs 5-8 and 46, Hirabayashi).
In regards to claim 2, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that control device (35) is configured to, when the system is started (see fig. 5), start predetermined control for detecting the shift position (control unit 35 determines the gear state of parking/not parking, see paragraph 48) and set the recognized shift to a non-parking position that is an initial value (control unit 35 determines and sets that gear is not in the parking mode, see paragraph 48 and fig. 5, for later control operations), and when the predetermined control is completed, set the recognized shift to a detected shift position (control unit 35 determines and sets the detected parking/non-parking shift position for the start of the air conditioning control operation at S3, fig. 5).
In regards to claim 3, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses that the predetermined time is set to a time longer than a time required for the predetermined control (air conditioning control operation start to end includes the time period for air conditioner to reach set value, see fig. 9, while predetermined control for detecting shift position takes initial stage of the start-up and air conditioning control, therefore the time of operation of the air conditioner is longer than the predetermined control time, see fig. 5). In Sixta teaches determining sleep/active modes of the vehicle, which indicate parking status of the vehicle (page 6, paragraph 3), where determination of the sleep mode or active mode requires less time than operating the air conditioner/fan for a set amount of time (see fig. 1; page 4, paragraph 5; page 6, paragraph 3; and claim 18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763