CTNF 18/722,403 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 07-30-02 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 23, 25-27, 31-32, 34, 36-37, and 41-42 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 23 recites “wherein said air-conditioning system controller is configured to control said degree of darkening for said plurality of window panes in priority, for setting the predetermined setpoint temperature of said passenger compartment”. It is unclear what “in priority” comprises or compares for priority. For examination purposes Examiner will consider any priority either before or after to meet this claim limitation. The same issue occurs in claim 34. Claim 25 recites “wherein said plurality of window panes have an upper region relative to the vehicle, and said plurality of window panes are configured to be electrically darkened only in said upper region”. The term “upper” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper” 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. For examination purposes Examiner will consider any region above another region to be the upper region. The same issue occurs in claim 36. Claim 27 recites “a door controller; said air-conditioning system controller being connected to said door controller; and said air-conditioning system controller being configured to take into consideration opening times of said vehicle doors and an associated exchange of air and heat between said passenger compartment and an environment of the vehicle, for setting the predetermined setpoint temperature of said passenger compartment”. It is unclear what structure is present because the door controller has no structure to provide inputs. It is also unclear what the door controller does because it is not linked to any action in the claim. For examination purposes Examiner will consider any consideration either direct or indirect of door opening times to meet the claim limitation. The same issue occurs in claim 37. Claim 31 recites “a position determination system for ascertaining a vehicle position, said air- conditioning system controller being connected to said position determination system for controlling said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes based on said ascertained position”. It is unclear what structure is present because the position determination system has no structure to provide inputs. It is also unclear what the position determination system does because it is not linked to any action in the claim. For examination purposes Examiner will consider any consideration either direct or indirect of ascertained position to meet the claim limitation. The same issue occurs in claim 41. Claim 32 recites “wherein said air-conditioning system controller is configured to control said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes to permit said plurality of window panes to be darkened at least one of before or after passenger use”. It is not clear what structure is present in the device because an air condition system controller as claimed does not have the structure to determine prior or future passenger use. For examination purposes Examiner will consider any controller which operates and results in use prior or after passenger use to meet the claim limitation. The same issue occurs in claim 42. 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) 22-24, 27-28, 32-35, 37-38, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20210061053 to Warey et al. (Warey) . Regarding claims 22 and 33, Warey teaches a passenger compartment (100, Figure 1); an air-conditioning system (Paragraph 0021); an air-conditioning system controller controlling said air-conditioning system (170 and 175, Figure 1); at least one temperature sensor for said passenger compartment (180, Figure 1, Paragraph 0025), said at least one temperature sensor connected to said air-conditioning system controller (Paragraph 0025 and Figure 1); an air-conditioning device; a plurality of air ducts for supplying said passenger compartment with conditioned inlet air provided by said air-conditioning device and for removing air from said passenger compartment (HVAC provided per Paragraph 0021); said air-conditioning system controller controlling said air-conditioning device for regulating a temperature of said passenger compartment by causing said air- conditioning device to deliver temperature-adjusted inlet air for setting a predetermined setpoint temperature of said passenger compartment (Claim 1); and a plurality of window panes configured to be darkened and having an electrically settable degree of darkening (Paragraph 0026); said air-conditioning system controller configured to control said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes for setting the predetermined setpoint temperature of said passenger compartment (claim 1 and Paragraphs 0030-0036). Regarding claims 23 and 34, Warey teaches wherein said air-conditioning system controller is configured to control said degree of darkening for said plurality of window panes in priority, for setting the predetermined setpoint temperature of said passenger compartment (Paragraph 0030-0036 disclose an iterative process which indicates priority). Regarding claims 24 and 35, Warey teaches which further comprises at least one of an outside-temperature sensor or at least one environment-sensor arrangement connected to said air-conditioning system controller (Paragraph 0025 includes an ambient air temperature sensor outside of the passenger compartment). Regarding claims 27 and 37, Warey teaches vehicle doors; a door controller (any controller meets this limitation because the door controller does not do anything in the claim nor does it interact with anything in the claim therefore a subset of 170 or 180 can be considered the door controller. Alternatively any of the other controllers in the device could be considered the door controller); said air-conditioning system controller being connected to said door controller; and said air-conditioning system controller being configured to take into consideration opening times of said vehicle doors and an associated exchange of air and heat between said passenger compartment and an environment of the vehicle, for setting the predetermined setpoint temperature of said passenger compartment (The time is considered by utilizing the temperature sensors and the change in temperature over time and the device controls based on these inputs). Regarding claims 28 and 38, Warey teaches wherein said air-conditioning system controller is a central controller configured to control said degree of darkening of all of said plurality of window panes (Paragraphs 0030-0036 and claim 1). Regarding claims 32 and 42, Warey teaches wherein said air-conditioning system controller is configured to control said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes to permit said plurality of window panes to be darkened at least one of before or after passenger use (Paragraphs 0030-0036 disclose darkening which would be before or after passenger use. Anytime it is darkened would be before future passenger use or after a pervious passenger use regardless of if there are currently passengers in the vehicle) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 25-26 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warey in view of KR1020070005366 to Oh et al. (Oh) . Regarding claims 25 and 36, Warey is silent on wherein said plurality of window panes have an upper region relative to the vehicle, and said plurality of window panes are configured to be electrically darkened only in said upper region. Oh teaches wherein said plurality of window panes have an upper region relative to the vehicle, and said plurality of window panes are configured to be electrically darkened only in said upper region (Figures 2-7 show segmented coloring of windows dependent on light detection. This indicates it is configured to electrically darken only the upper region of the window when light is only detected in the upper region of the window). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Warey with the teachings of Oh to provide wherein said plurality of window panes have an upper region relative to the vehicle, and said plurality of window panes are configured to be electrically darkened only in said upper region. Doing so would minimize the darkening of a window providing greater vision for a user and/or would prevent glare for occupants of the vehicle. Regarding claim 26, the modified device of Warey teaches wherein said plurality of window panes have a remaining region being transmissive to mobile telephony waves (both Warey and Oh have windows which are transmissive to telephony waves as there is no structure that prevents this) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 29 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warey in view of U.S. Patent 5878809 to Heinle (Heinle) . Regarding claims 29 and 39, Warey is silent on at least first and second longitudinal sides of the vehicle each having some of said plurality of window panes; at least two environment-sensor arrangements configured to determine light intensity on said at least first and second longitudinal sides; said air-conditioning system controller connected to said at least two environment-sensor arrangements; and said air-conditioning system controller configured to control said degree of darkening of said window panes on said first longitudinal side independently of said window panes on said second longitudinal side, in dependence on respectively detected light intensities. Heinle teaches at least first and second longitudinal sides of the vehicle each having some of said plurality of window panes; at least two environment-sensor arrangements configured to determine light intensity on said at least first and second longitudinal sides; said air-conditioning system controller connected to said at least two environment-sensor arrangements; and said air-conditioning system controller configured to control said degree of darkening of said window panes on said first longitudinal side independently of said window panes on said second longitudinal side, in dependence on respectively detected light intensities (Col. 3 lines 6-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Warey with the teachings of Heinle provide at least first and second longitudinal sides of the vehicle each having some of said plurality of window panes; at least two environment-sensor arrangements configured to determine light intensity on said at least first and second longitudinal sides; said air-conditioning system controller connected to said at least two environment-sensor arrangements; and said air-conditioning system controller configured to control said degree of darkening of said window panes on said first longitudinal side independently of said window panes on said second longitudinal side, in dependence on respectively detected light intensities. Doing so would decrease the light intensity on and increase the comfort of a passenger and/or increase the efficiency of the vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 30-31 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warey in view of U.S. PGPUB 20040076015 to Aoki et al. (Aoki) . Regarding claims 30 and 40, Warey teaches said passenger compartment has at least one of at least one side window or at least one door window (windows disclosed throughout and a vehicle would normally have one of these). Warey is silent on said plurality of window panes configured to be darkened include at least one of said at least one side window or said at least one door window. Aoki teaches said plurality of window panes configured to be darkened include at least one of said at least one side window or said at least one door window (1, Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Warey with the teachings of Aoki to provide said plurality of window panes configured to be darkened include at least one of said at least one side window or said at least one door window. Doing so would provide structure already likely present in Warey and/or would increase the efficiency of the vehicle. Regarding claims 31 and 41, Warey is silent on a position determination system for ascertaining a vehicle position, said air- conditioning system controller being connected to said position determination system for controlling said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes based on said ascertained position. Aoki teaches a position determination system for ascertaining a vehicle position, said air- conditioning system controller being connected to said position determination system for controlling said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes based on said ascertained position (Figure 12 especially S6 and S15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Warey with the teachings of Aoki to provide a position determination system for ascertaining a vehicle position, said air- conditioning system controller being connected to said position determination system for controlling said degree of darkening of said plurality of window panes based on said ascertained position. Doing so would increase the efficiency of the vehicle. 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: 18/722,403 Page 2 Art Unit: 3762
Prosecution Insights