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:
“air conditioning system” in claim 9-10, 19-10.
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.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "one or more sensors configured to measure an external temperature of a vehicle, an interior temperature of the vehicle, and a temperature of a windshield glass of the vehicle". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear how can one sensor measure the temperature of tree separate areas. Similar deficiencies appear in claim 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a controller configured to predict a quantity of solar radiation based on measurements of the one or more sensors". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if the controller is using all the claimed temperature measurements. Similar deficiencies appear in claim 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "predict a direction of solar radiation based on the images captured by the one or more cameras". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear to which images is applicant referring to. Similar deficiencies appear in claim 11.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "(CNN0 learning model". This limitation is unclear and confusing.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziehr et al. (US 20070131782), hereinafter referred to as Ziehr, in view of Kodama et al. (US 20210291615), hereinafter referred to as Kodama, in view of Yasui (US 20220319198), hereinafter referred to as Yasui.
Re claims 1 and 11, Ziehr teaches an apparatus, comprising:
one or more sensors (e.g. 206; ¶ 28, “temperature sensors 206 may include an outside air temperature sensor, a cabin air temperature sensor, and/or other vehicle temperature sensors”) configured to measure an external temperature of a vehicle (¶ 28), an interior temperature of the vehicle (¶ 28), and a temperature of a windshield glass of the vehicle (e.g. ¶ 44, “the measured glass temperature”);
a controller (e.g. 202) configured to:
based on measurements of the one or more sensors, calculate (i) a first quantity of heat of the windshield glass (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
K
s
d
T
I
P
d
t
”; the examiner notes that
T
I
P
in the alternate embodiment is the glass temperature, see ¶ 44, “For example, in lieu of a temperature sensor mounted to the vehicle instrument panel, the system may include a temperature sensor mounted directly to the windshield for measurement of the glass temperature. In this alternate embodiment, the solar intensity would be based on an energy balance around the measured glass temperature”), (ii) a second quantity of heat exchanged between the windshield glass and an interior of the vehicle (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
K
R
E
(
T
I
P
-
T
s
u
r
r
)
” when considering the alternate embodiment as defined by ¶44), and (iii) a third quantity of heat exchanged between the windshield glass and an outside of the vehicle (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
H
A
(
T
I
P
-
T
a
i
r
)
” when considering the alternate embodiment as defined by ¶44),
predict a quantity of solar radiation (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
Q
s
o
l
a
r
”) based on the first, second, and third quantities of heat (see equation in ¶ 40), and
Ziehr does not explicitly teach the limitation of one or more cameras configured to capture images of a driving environment outside the vehicle and a driver of the vehicle; wherein the control is configured to predict a direction of solar radiation based on the images captured by the one or more cameras.
However, Kodama teaches a vehicle system comprising a camera (e.g. 21) configured to capture images of a driver of the vehicle (e.g. see Fig 11 and ¶ 106, “In the embodiment, only the occupant 6 in the driver seat is the target for calculating the radiation information of the body parts and the air temperature information of the body parts”); wherein the control is configured to predict a direction of solar radiation based on the images captured by the camera (e.g. ¶ 122, “the acquisition unit acquires the thermography of the cabin generated by the infrared camera, and the thermography includes information on the direction of solar radiation”).
Further, Yasui teaches a vehicle system comprising a camera configured to capture images of a driving environment outside the vehicle (e.g. ¶ 38, “The actual running image 171 is an image captured with the movement of a vehicle in the vehicle equipped with a camera that captures an image on a traveling direction side”); wherein the control is configured to predict a direction of solar radiation based on the images captured by the camera (e.g. ¶ 43, “the solar radiation direction estimator 126 recognizes a shadow portion included in the corrected image IM2 and a three-dimensional object that is estimated to have created the shadow in the corrected image IM2, and derives a solar radiation direction in a real space by converting a solar radiation direction based on a positional relationship between the recognized two parts on an image plane into that in the real space”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ziehr and integrated a one or more cameras configured to capture images of a driving environment outside the vehicle and a driver of the vehicle; wherein the control is configured to predict a direction of solar radiation based on the images captured by the one or more cameras, as taught by Kodama and Yasui, in order to take into account the passenger/driver more impacted by the solar radiation (see Kodama ¶ 78).
Re claim 2 and 12, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and 11. Ziehr further teaches the limitation of wherein the one or more sensors comprise:
an outdoor air temperature sensor (e.g. 206; ¶ 28, “temperature sensors 206 may include an outside air temperature sensor, a cabin air temperature sensor, and/or other vehicle temperature sensors”) configured to measure the external temperature of the vehicle;
an in-car sensor (e.g. 206; ¶ 28, “temperature sensors 206 may include an outside air temperature sensor, a cabin air temperature sensor, and/or other vehicle temperature sensors”) configured to measure the interior temperature of the vehicle; and
an auto defog sensor (e.g. 206; ¶ 28, “temperature sensors 206 may include an outside air temperature sensor, a cabin air temperature sensor, and/or other vehicle temperature sensors” … ¶44, “the measured glass temperature”) configured to measure the temperature of the windshield glass of the vehicle
Re claim 3 and 13, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 2 and 12. Ziehr further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to:
based on measurements of the one or more sensors, obtain (i) a first quantity of heat of the windshield glass obtain based on the auto defog sensor (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
K
s
d
T
I
P
d
t
”; the examiner notes that
T
I
P
in the alternate embodiment is the glass temperature, see ¶ 44, “For example, in lieu of a temperature sensor mounted to the vehicle instrument panel, the system may include a temperature sensor mounted directly to the windshield for measurement of the glass temperature. In this alternate embodiment, the solar intensity would be based on an energy balance around the measured glass temperature”), (ii) a second quantity of heat exchanged between the windshield glass and an interior of the vehicle (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
K
R
E
(
T
I
P
-
T
s
u
r
r
)
” when considering the alternate embodiment as defined by ¶44), and (iii) a third quantity of heat exchanged between the windshield glass and an outside of the vehicle (see equation in ¶ 40, the section of “
H
A
(
T
I
P
-
T
a
i
r
)
” when considering the alternate embodiment as defined by ¶44),
determine a heat quantity difference by subtracting the second and third quantities of heat from the first quantity of heat (see equation in ¶ 40); and
predict the quantity of solar radiation based on the heat quantity difference (see equation in ¶ 40).
Re claim 4 and 14, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 3 and 13. Ziehr further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to determine thermal energy of the windshield glass by applying the temperature of the windshield glass measured by the auto defog sensor to a temperature function (e.g. “
K
s
d
T
I
P
d
t
”).
Re claim 5 and 15, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and 11. Yasui further teaches the limitation of an external camera configured to capture the image of the driving environment outside the vehicle (e.g. ¶ 38, “The actual running image 171 is an image captured with the movement of a vehicle in the vehicle equipped with a camera that captures an image on a traveling direction side”). Kodama further teaches the limitation of an internal camera configured to determine a state of a passenger of the vehicle (e.g. ¶ 48, “The infrared camera 21 is positioned, for example, as shown in FIG. 1, around the upper end portion of the windshield in the cabin to realize such a shooting range, in the approximately central portion in the left-right direction of the vehicle”).
Re claim 6 and 16, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and 15. Kodama further teaches the limitation of wherein the internal camera is configured to determine a face state of the passenger (e.g. ¶ 55 “The body parts for which radiation information is calculated are, as shown by the triangles in FIG. 5, right head, left head, face, right shoulder, left shoulder, right elbow, left elbow, abdomen, right knee, left knee, right shin, and left shin of the occupant 6”).
Re claim 7 and 17, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and 15. Yasui further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to predict the direction of solar radiation based on a shadow captured the external camera (e.g. ¶ 43 “The solar radiation direction estimator 126 estimates the solar radiation direction in a landscape reflected in the actual running image IM1 based on the corrected image IM2. For example, the solar radiation direction estimator 126 recognizes a shadow portion included in the corrected image IM2 and a three-dimensional object that is estimated to have created the shadow in the corrected image IM2, and derives a solar radiation direction in a real space by converting a solar radiation direction based on a positional relationship between the recognized two parts on an image plane into that in the real space”).
Re claim 8 and 18, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and 15. Kodoma further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to store data that are measured by the internal camera and processed through a convolutional neural network (e.g. ¶ 76 and 124, “The trained model 61 is a neural network pre-recorded in the ROM or flash memory of the air conditioner ECU 40. As the neural network, for example, a well-known neural network such as CNN (Convolution Neural Network), RNN (Recurrent Neural Network), or LSTM (Long short-term memory) may be adopted” … “Further, according to the fifth aspect, the calculation unit calculates the objective variable including the plurality of radiation information from the explanatory variables including the member temperature information, using the trained model of the neural network learned by supervised learning”).
Re claim 9 and 19, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and 11. Ziehr further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to drive an air conditioning system in an interior of the vehicle based on the predicted quantity (see steps 622-626). Kodoma further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to drive an air conditioning system in an interior of the vehicle based on the predicted quantity and direction of solar radiation (e.g. ¶ 87, “The radiation information of the body parts and the air temperature information of the human bodies recorded in this way are used, for example, in determining the air flow direction in the air conditioning control process 40B, as described above”).
Re claim 10 and 20, Ziehr, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 9 and 19. Kodoma further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured control the air conditioning system to increase a quantity of air provided toward a seat in the direction of solar radiation relative to a quantity of air provided toward a seat outside the direction of solar radiation (e.g. ¶ 59, “For example, the air conditioner ECU 40 may specify one of the body parts that receives the largest amount of radiation among the body parts, and determine a predetermined direction corresponding to the specified one as the air flow direction”). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that doing the above control based on the quantity of solar radiation being greater than or equal to a set value falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ziehr, as modified, and configured the above control based on the quantity of solar radiation being greater than or equal to a set value, for the purpose of setting a band in the control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 4/9/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763