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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/31/26 has been entered. Claims 22-28, 30-38 and 40-42 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/16/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Heinle darkens windows based on seat occupancy not side based.
Examiner asserts that occupancy on one side of the vehicle provides the claimed limitations. Applicant does not exclude occupancy in their claims.
Applicant asserts that Heinle does not teach controlling an entire longitudinal side.
Examiner asserts that Applicant is arguing features not claimed.
Applicant states that darkening only the sun facing side while keeping the shaded side transparent is not taught.
Examiner directs attention to the passage cited in Heinle which indicates darkening based on solar intensity. This provides the features that Applicant is arguing. It is further noted that Applicant is arguing features that are not claimed.
Applicant argues that it is impermissible hindsight to change from per passenger seat control to side-wise control of all panes.
Examiner asserts Applicant is arguing features that are not claimed. It is further noted that when a side of the vehicle is occupied or the entire vehicle is occupied this would occur. The claims do not state that darkening must occur evenly or based off the same control signal.
A new reference has been used to explicitly teach a rail car.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 23, 27, 34, and 37 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. Claims 23 and 34 recite only using the air conditioning device when setpoint temperature is still not attained after increasing darkening. This “only” limitation is not found in the specification nor is there a function that teaches when to initiate the air conditioning device after darkening occurs.
Claims 27 and 37 recite “a door controller connected to said vehicle doors”. There is no disclosure of a door controller connected to a plurality of doors.
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 27 and 37 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.
Claims 27 and 37 recite “a door controller connected to said vehicle doors; 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 received from said door controller”. It is unclear what the structure of the door controller comprises. There are no sensors claimed nor structure indicative of detection of opening times of doors. It is not clear if the door controller comprises sensors and other structure or is simply a controller. For examination purposes Examiner will consider this simply a controller.
Claims 32 and 42 recite “for pre-cooling in a parked or upgraded state of the vehicle”. It is unclear what an upgraded state of a vehicle comprises. Examiner is unfamiliar with this term and cannot find a definition or description upon a search. Examiner will interpret this as parked.
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) 22-24, 27-28, 32-35, 37-38, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 20210061053 to Warey et al. (Warey) in view of U.S. Patent 5878809 to Heinle (Heinle) and WO2018185053 to Huber et al. (Huber).
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).
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 and the device being a rail vehicle.
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.
Huber teaches climate control on a rail vehicle (Page 5, Paragraph 2 of translation). 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 Huber to provide a rail vehicle. Doing so would be a simple substitution of parts and/or a rail vehicle and car are recognized as equivalent alternatives by Huber.
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 initially increase said degree of darkening and to additionally operate said air-conditioning device only when the predetermined setpoint temperature is still not attained (the device controls the air conditioning device when temperature setpoint is not reached immediately after darkening).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Warey teaches vehicle doors; a door controller connected to said vehicle door (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 and they are part of the device and therefore connected to the doors); 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 received from said door controller 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 for pre-cooling in a parked or upgraded state of the vehicle. (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 and would be considered for precooling).
Claim(s) 25-26 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warey in view of Heinle, Huber, and 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 located in an upper half of 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 located in an upper half of 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 located in an upper half of 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).
Claim(s) 30-31 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warey in view of Heinle, Huber, and 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 from a satellite based positioning determination system, 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 from a satellite based positioning determination system, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights