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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2024 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 07/02/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 07/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-12 were cancelled by this amendment. Claims 13-32 are addressed in this office action.
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) 13, 17-19, 23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck et al. (US 20070084597 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Heck, in view of Qi et al. (US 20210291617 A1), herein after will be referred to as Qi.
Regarding Claim 13, Heck teaches a heat management method for an external user terminal of an entertainment electronics system for streaming multimedia content in a vehicle (“streaming box”) (A control device and method for electronic components generating heat in a motor vehicle; [0018]), the method comprising:
ascertaining an electrical signal by the vehicle (A device, such as a temperature sensor or power meter, for detecting heat generation of electronic components connected to the control unit; [0018]); and
automatically actuating an air pump device of the vehicle in response to ascertaining the heat discharge (The control unit automatically actuates the fan (an air pump) based on the detected heat generation signal exceeding a threshold; [0018] [0019]).
Heck does not explicitly teach ascertaining a heat supply requirement of the streaming box on a basis of the electrical signal and a predefined reference.
However, Qi discloses an ambient temperature control system for an in-vehicle server using the vehicle’s air condition when the ambient temperature is lower than the temperature threshold ([0010] [0054]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system detects the ambient temperature falling below the heat requirement threshold and turns on the air conditioner in a warm working mode.
Heck and Qi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of thermal management within a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck to incorporate the teachings of controlling the air conditioner based on the ambient temperature thresholds as taught by Qi based on the motivation to release excess heat detected within the electronic components of the vehicle and protect the components from overheating. This provides the benefit of maintaining the electronic components within their required operating temperature, thereby improving the reliability and performance of the system.
Regarding Claim 17, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck further teaches the electrical signal represents energy consumption by the streaming box (A device for detecting the power consumption of electronic components; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 18, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck further teaches executing a temperature measurement by at least one temperature sensor of the vehicle for generating the electrical signal (The device generating an electrical signal for control unit can be a temperature sensor; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 19, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck further teaches the streaming box is arranged in a housing of the vehicle (The electronic components within the fan’s suction connection is arrange within the vehicle’s dashboard structure; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 23, Heck teaches a heat management device for an external user terminal of an entertainment electronics system for streaming multimedia content (“streaming box”) in a vehicle (A control device for managing heat from electronic components in a vehicle; [0018]), the heat management device comprising:
a data input (The control unit receives signals from the heat detection device and electronic components; [0018]);
a processor (The control unit performs the comparison and activation log based on sensor input functioning as a processor; [0018]); and
a data output (The control unit sends activation signals to the electric motors which is a data output; [0018]),
wherein the heat management device is configured to: ascertain an electrical signal via the data input (The control unit is configured to receive the heat generation values from the device via its connection; [0018]); and
actuate an air pump device of the vehicle via the data output (The control unit activates the electric motors based on the requirement; [0018]).
Heck does not explicitly teach ascertain a heat supply requirement of the streaming box on a basis of the electrical signal and depending on a predefined reference by the processor.
However, Qi discloses an ambient temperature control system for an in-vehicle server using the vehicle’s air condition when the ambient temperature is lower than the temperature threshold ([0010] [0054]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system detects the ambient temperature falling below the heat requirement threshold and turns on the air conditioner in a warm working mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck to incorporate the teachings of controlling the air conditioner based on the ambient temperature thresholds as taught by Qi based on the motivation to release excess heat detected within the electronic components of the vehicle and protect the components from overheating. This provides the benefit of maintaining the electronic components within their required operating temperature, thereby improving the reliability and performance of the system.
Regarding Claim 27, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck further teaches the electrical signal represents energy consumption by the streaming box (A device for detecting the power consumption of electronic components; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 28, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck further teaches execute a temperature measurement by at least one temperature sensor of the vehicle for generating the electrical signal (The device generating an electrical signal for control unit can be a temperature sensor; [0018]).
Regarding Claim 29, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck further teaches the streaming box is arranged in a housing of the vehicle (The electronic components within the fan’s suction connection is arrange within the vehicle’s dashboard structure; [0018]).
Claim(s) 14, 20-22, 24, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck in view of Qi, as applied in claim 13 and 23, and in further view of Dage et al. (US 5833133 A), herein after will be referred to as Dage.
Regarding Claim 14, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach in response to ascertaining the heat discharge or heat supply requirement, ascertaining an interior temperature of the vehicle; and actuating the heating/air-conditioning device to adjust the interior temperature.
However, Dage discloses a microprocessor-controlled HVAC system for passenger comfort in a vehicle by receiving an input from an in-car temperature sensor for sensing the interior temperature of the vehicle (Col 2 lines 51-54). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of ascertaining an interior temperature of the vehicle because the temperature sensor is sensing the cabin air temperature for control purposes. Dage further teaches using the interior temperature in a control equation to regulate the temperature where the microprocessor sends a signal to the blower control module to drive the blower motor (Col 3 lines 7-57, Col 4 lines 13-17). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of actuating the heating/air-conditioning device to adjust the interior temperature because the controller is actuating the blower to adjust the temperature based on the control equation.
Heck, Qi, and Dage are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle HVAC control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of using an in-car temperature sensor as an input to the control logic and actuating the HVAC to adjust the interior temperature as taught by Dage based on the motivation to automatically control the HVAC settings to regulate the interior temperature of the vehicle. This provides the benefit of providing a constant range of temperature for the operator and passengers within the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 20, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach ascertaining a user operating action for influencing functioning of the air pump and/or the heating/air-conditioning device of the vehicle; and, based on the ascertained heat discharge or heat supply requirement, actuating the air pump and/or the heating/air-conditioning device of the vehicle in a manner that is different than would be the case in the absence of the ascertained heat discharge or heat supply requirement.
However, Dage discloses a microprocessor-controlled HVAC system that accepts user inputs by a temperature and blower speed potentiometers (Col 2 lines 59-66). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of ascertaining a user operation action because it describes receiving the users input for the desired settings of the system. Dage further teaches an automatic mode where the microprocessor calculates and actuates the blower speed based on system requirements from sensor inputs and an air discharge temperature equation (Col 2-3 lines 67-2, Col 3 lines 7-49). This teaching is equivalent to the claim limitation of actuation the air pump in a manner that is different because the system controller automatically determines a blower speed based on its own calculated requirements which differs from a manual user settings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of receiving user inputs to manually adjust the settings and an automatic mode where the system determines the settings based on sensor inputs and equations as taught by Dage based on the motivation to provide thermal management to the electronic components in automatic mode and allow the user to override the system by toggling back to manual mode. This provides the benefit of allowing user convenience to control the HVAC system when needed and provide thermal protection to the electronic components.
Regarding Claim 21, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach ascertaining a user operating action for adjusting an air flow of the heating/air-conditioning system of the vehicle to a first value; and based on the ascertained heat discharge or heat supply requirement of the streaming box, alter the air flow to a second value, which is greater than the first value.
However, Dage discloses a microprocessor-controlled HVAC system that accepts user airflow settings via potentiometer (Col 2 lines 59-66). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a user operating action for adjusting airflow to a first value because the potentiometer adjustments to a user’s desired fan speed setting is manually inputted by the user. Dage further teaches an automatic mode where the microprocessor actuates the blower speed based on the air discharge temperature equation (Col 2-3 lines 67-2, Col 3 lines 7-49). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed alter the air flow to a second value, which is greater than the first because the system automatically calculates and implements a potentially higher blower speed based on the system needs, which overrides a lower user setting first value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of a user set airflow value and an automatic mode altering the airflow when the requirement demands are higher than the users settings as taught by Dage based on the motivation to provide the necessary airflow to thermally protect the electronic components when the user settings are lower than what is required for the electronic components. This provides the benefit of ensuring that sufficient airflow is provided to the electronic components and temperature is maintained within the operational temperature range.
Regarding Claim 22, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 21. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach outputting an output, which represents the first value, to the user.
However, Dage discloses providing a user interface for the HVAC control where the user’s selection controls the blowers speed via rotary knob mounted onto a potentiometer (Col 4 lines 26-28). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the position of the users input on the rotary knob provides the visual output of the setting selected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of the user input to control the blowers speed through a rotary knob as taught by Dage based on the motivation to provide user control over the output speed of the blowers. This provides the benefit of allowing the user to change the amount of output based on their desired temperature.
Regarding Claim 24, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach in response to ascertaining the heat discharge or heat supply requirement, ascertain an interior temperature of the vehicle; and actuate the heating/air-conditioning device to adjust the interior temperature.
However, Dage discloses a microprocessor-controlled HVAC system for passenger comfort in a vehicle by receiving an input from an in-car temperature sensor for sensing the interior temperature of the vehicle (Col 2 lines 51-54). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of ascertaining an interior temperature of the vehicle because the temperature sensor is sensing the cabin air temperature for control purposes. Dage further teaches using the interior temperature in a control equation to regulate the temperature where the microprocessor sends a signal to the blower control module to drive the blower motor (Col 3 lines 7-57, Col 4 lines 13-17). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of actuating the heating/air-conditioning device to adjust the interior temperature because the controller is actuating the blower to adjust the temperature based on the control equation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of using an in-car temperature sensor as an input to the control logic and actuating the HVAC to adjust the interior temperature as taught by Dage based on the motivation to automatically control the HVAC settings to regulate the interior temperature of the vehicle. This provides the benefit of providing a constant range of temperature for the operator and passengers within the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 30, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach ascertain a user operating action for influencing functioning of the air pump and/or the heating/air-conditioning device of the vehicle; and, based on the ascertained heat discharge or heat supply requirement, actuate the air pump and/or the heating/air-conditioning device of the vehicle in a manner that is different than would be the case in the absence of the ascertained heat discharge or heat supply requirement.
However, Dage discloses a microprocessor-controlled HVAC system that accepts user inputs by a temperature and blower speed potentiometers (Col 2 lines 59-66). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of ascertaining a user operation action because it describes receiving the users input for the desired settings of the system. Dage further teaches an automatic mode where the microprocessor calculates and actuates the blower speed based on system requirements based on sensor inputs and equations (Col 2-3 lines 67-2, Col 3 lines 7-49). This teaching is equivalent to the claim limitation of actuation the air pump in a manner that is different because the system controller automatically determines a blower speed based on its own calculated requirements which differs from a manual user settings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of receiving user inputs to manually adjust the settings and an automatic mode where the system determines the settings based on sensor inputs and equations as taught by Dage based on the motivation to provide thermal management to the electronic components in automatic mode and allow the user to override the system by toggling back to manual mode. This provides the benefit of allowing user convenience to control the HVAC system when needed and provide thermal protection to the electronic components.
Regarding Claim 31, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach ascertain a user operating action for adjusting an air flow of the heating/air-conditioning system of the vehicle to a first value; and based on the ascertained heat discharge or heat supply requirement of the streaming box, alter the air flow to a second value, which is greater than the first value.
However, Dage discloses a microprocessor-controlled HVAC system that accepts user airflow settings via potentiometer (Col 2 lines 59-66). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a user operating action for adjusting airflow to a first value because the potentiometer adjustments to a user’s desired fan speed setting is manually inputted by the user. Dage further teaches an automatic mode where the microprocessor actuates the blower speed based on the air discharge temperature equation (Col 2-3 lines 67-2, Col 3 lines 7-49). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed alter the air flow to a second value, which is greater than the first because the system automatically calculates and implements a potentially higher blower speed based on the system needs, which overrides a lower user setting first value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of a user set airflow value and an automatic mode altering the airflow when the requirement demands are higher than the users settings as taught by Dage based on the motivation to provide the necessary airflow to thermally protect the electronic components when the user settings are lower than what is required for the electronic components. This provides the benefit of ensuring that sufficient airflow is provided to the electronic components and temperature is maintained within the operational temperature range.
Regarding Claim 32, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 31. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach output an output, which represents the first value, to the user.
However, Dage discloses providing a user interface for the HVAC control where the user’s selection controls the blowers speed via rotary knob mounted onto a potentiometer (Col 4 lines 26-28). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the position of the users input on the rotary knob provides the visual output of the setting selected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of the user input to control the blowers speed through a rotary knob as taught by Dage based on the motivation to provide user control over the output speed of the blowers. This provides the benefit of allowing the user to change the amount of output based on their desired temperature.
Claim(s) 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck in view of Qi, as applied in claim 13 and 23, and in further view of Jairazbhoy et al. (US 5669813 A), herein after will be referred to as Jairazbhoy.
Regarding Claim 15, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach compensating for a changed mode of operation of the air pump by actuating a valve of the vehicle.
However, Jairazbhoy discloses an apparatus for cooling electronic devices using vehicle ventilation ducts, incorporating valves to manage airflow based on the system state. Specifically, actuating an inlet and outlet valves to a specific position when the main blower changes to a shut off mode of operation (Col 2 lines 41-49, Col 2 lines 59-65). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the valves position change in direct response to a change in the blower’s operational state.
Heck, Qi, and Jairazbhoy are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle HVAC control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of using an inlet and outlet valve actuation coordinated with the blower’s operational mode as taught by Jairazbhoy based on the motivation to manage the airflow in the system and prevent backflow. This provides the benefit of improving the efficiency and optimizing the system by routing the air flow based on the mode of operation.
Regarding Claim 25, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach compensate for a changed mode of operation of the air pump by actuating a valve of the vehicle.
However, Jairazbhoy discloses an apparatus for cooling electronic devices using vehicle ventilation ducts, incorporating valves to manage airflow based on the system state. Specifically, actuating an inlet and outlet valves to a specific position when the main blower changes to a shut off mode of operation (Col 2 lines 41-49, Col 2 lines 59-65). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the valves position change in direct response to a change in the blower’s operational state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of using an inlet and outlet valve actuation coordinated with the blower’s operational mode as taught by Jairazbhoy based on the motivation to manage the airflow in the system and prevent backflow. This provides the benefit of improving the efficiency and optimizing the system by routing the air flow based on the mode of operation.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck in view of Qi, as applied in claim 13 and 23, and in further view of Beckert et al. (US 5794164 A), herein after will be referred to as Beckert.
Regarding Claim 16, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 13. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach the streaming box comprises a housing and a power supply unit in the housing, wherein the power supply unit is connected to electrics of on-board electrical system.
However, Beckert discloses a vehicle computer system mounted in a dashboard or conventional car stereo housing (Col 4 lines 4-6). Beckert further teaches a support module that is mounted in the vehicle’s dashboard includes a power supply subsystem (Col 5 lines 61-64) and that the power supply subsystem derives power from the vehicle’s battery (Col 6 lines 3-5). These teachings are equivalent to the claim limitations of a housing and power supply unit in the housing wherein the power supply is connected to the electronics of on-board electrical system because the computer system resides in a housing that contains a power supply that is powered by the vehicle battery.
Heck, Qi, and Beckert are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle electronic components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of a housing containing an internal power supply unit connected to the vehicle’s electrical system as taught by Beckert based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to provide a contained housing unit for the electronic components for thermal management. This provides the benefit of a properly housed and powered integration into the vehicle’s interior and electrical system.
Regarding Claim 26, Heck and Qi remains as applied above in claim 23. Heck and Qi do not explicitly teach the streaming box comprises a housing and a power supply unit in the housing, wherein the power supply unit is connected to electrics of on-board electrical system.
However, Beckert discloses a vehicle computer system mounted in a dashboard or conventional car stereo housing (Col 4 lines 4-6). Beckert further teaches a support module that is mounted in the vehicle’s dashboard includes a power supply subsystem (Col 5 lines 61-64) and that the power supply subsystem derives power from the vehicle’s battery (Col 6 lines 3-5). These teachings are equivalent to the claim limitations of a housing and power supply unit in the housing wherein the power supply is connected to the electronics of on-board electrical system because the computer system resides in a housing that contains a power supply that is powered by the vehicle battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Heck and Qi to incorporate the teachings of a housing containing an internal power supply unit connected to the vehicle’s electrical system as taught by Beckert based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to provide a contained housing unit for the electronic components for thermal management. This provides the benefit of a properly housed and powered integration into the vehicle’s interior and electrical system.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Woodbury (US 20130213082 A1)
Gudivada (US 20230400975 A1)
Sunaga (US 5729989 A)
Obradovich (US 6009355 A)
Breed (US 7918100 B2)
DeLine (US 9434314 B2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663