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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 14-15 and lines 16-17 of claim 1 teach respectively that “the physiological user data are determined form the image data” and “the physiological user data for the user are determined from the image data”. Despite the slight difference in wording, these limitations appear to be duplicates, reciting the same scope, and one of the two should be deleted from claim 1.
Throughout the claims, the word “data” is used with verbs which indicate it to be singular as well as verbs that indicate it to be plural, with examples presented below.
Singular uses of data include:
Claim 1, line 9: “the setting data contains”,
Claim 1, line 17: “the image data includes”, and
Claim 5, line 3: “the image data includes”.
Plural uses of “data” include:
Claim 1, line 10: “the psychological user data are”;
Claim 1, line 13-14, “with which image data are” and “the physiological user data are”,
Claim 3, line 2, “the psychological user data are”
Claim 4, lines 2-3, “the image data for acquiring the psychological user data are”,
Claim 6, line 3, “sensor data are”,
Claim 7, line 2, “the psychological user data for users are”,
Claim 8, line 3 “the context data are”,
Claim 8, line 5, “the context data include”,
Claim 9, lines 2-3, “the user input data are”, and
Claim 9, line 4, “the user input include”.
Revision of the claims to provide consistency in the use of the word “data” is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-9 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.
Lines 13-15 of claim 1, recite “further comprising a camera system in the interior of the vehicle” and further describes the function of this camera system. Claim 1 recites “a method for individualized setting of an air conditioner in a vehicle for a user with the previous elements the method was taught to comprise (e.g. in lines 2-8) being steps or actions such as “acquiring setting data” and “predicting individualized settings”. As presented, lines 13-15 limit the method itself to further comprise the claimed camera system rather than teaching some previous physical structure used in the method (e.g. the vehicle of line 2 or the sensor system of line 10) to comprise the camera system.
It is not clear what scope is given to the claims by the teachings of physical structure as elements of the method itself and, if the claim is interpreted as requiring that some previously recited structure must instead further comprise the camera system, it is not clear which structure (e.g. the vehicle generally or the sensor system more specifically) could include the camera system to fall within the claim’s scope. For these reasons, the scope of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the camera system has been interpreted as being an element of the vehicle as such broad interpretation includes any the camera system being a subcomponent of any component of the vehicle and thus does not unduly limit the scope of the claim.
Further, regarding “the physiological user data”, claim 1 teaches in lines 10-11 that this data is “obtained using a sensor system withing an interior of the vehicle” but teaches within lines 14-17 that “the physiological user data is obtained from the image data” which is acquired by the camera system. These recitations appear to require that the same data is derived from two sources, although the use of the differing verbs “obtained” and “determined” regarding the sensor system and the image data makes it unclear if the claim intends instead to recite different steps in the process which uses the physiological user data. Further, these limitations may be read as requiring that the data is determined/obtained using both the sensor system and the camera system/image data, such as if the camera system and sensor system have some degree of overlap in their structures, or as requiring that the physiological user data is diverse and contains data determined/obtained from multiple sources. However, the claim does not clearly establish either of these interpretations so it is unclear whether either or both of them would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1. For this reason, the scope of claim 1 with regard to the physiological user data cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3-9 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
524
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2022/0176778 A1 to Migneco et al in view of US Publication No. 2017/0020432 A1 to Kusukame et al.
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 1, in figs. 1 and 27, shown above, a method for individualized setting of an air conditioner (HVAC system 21) in a vehicle (10) for a user (11), comprising:
acquiring setting data for the air conditioner (including physiological data taught in ¶¶ 23-30 and environmental data taught in ¶¶ 14-22),
training an individualized comfort model for the air conditioner in an AI unit with the acquired data (as taught in ¶¶ 36-38, a machine learning structure of the controller 22 may be used to identify patterns in the input data and predict thermal trends to generate settings optimize operation of the HVAC system based on individual data collected for the occupant 11),
predicting individualized settings for the air conditioner on the basis of the trained comfort model (as taught in ¶ 38),
wherein the setting data contains physiological user data for the user (the data taught in ¶ 23-30 to be obtained by the occupant condition sensor 24), wherein the physiological user data are obtained using an a sensor system within an interior of the vehicle (the sensors 23 and 24, and particularly the occupant condition sensor 24 in the vehicle 10) and sent to the AI unit (at the controller 22 as taught in ¶¶ 36-38),
further comprising a camera system in the interior of the vehicle with which image data are acquired, and the physiological user data are determined from the image data (as taught in ¶¶ 23-31, “one or more of the occupant condition sensors 24 may be embodied as an infrared image-based sensor, such as a conventional infrared camera as shown in FIG. 1” for detecting both thermal comfort and identifying features which may identify a specific individual occupant 11).
Migneco does not teach that the physiological data derived from the image data specifically includes “one or more of skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or wakefulness”. Kusukame teaches limitations in ¶¶ 52-53, an arousal level prediction apparatus which biological information obtaining unit (11) for obtaining biological information of a user, this information including heart rate, respiratory rate, a body surface temperature (i.e. “skin temperature” as taught in claim 1) and a body surface temperature distribution and teaches various cameras and image sensors as examples of sensors (30) for collecting this data. Further, Kusukame teaches in ¶ 135 that the arousal level prediction apparatus (10) of their invention may be installed in an automobile for determining a future arousal level of a driver and communicating with an air conditioner of the vehicle so that “an environment in which the user is unlikely to become drowsy can be created” (thus teaching a prediction of wakefulness as taught in claim 1 to be among the data determined by the system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Migneco with the particular biological/physiological data collection taught by Kusukame in order to allow the alertness of an occupant (particularly a driver) to be judged and predicted and the temperature in the vehicle interior to be controlled to maintain not only comfort as taught by Migneco but also alertness as taught by Kusukame in ¶ 135 in order to ensure safer operation of the vehicle.
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 3, the method according to claim 2, wherein the physiological user data are obtained from the image data using at least one AI-based method and/or an extraction process (as taught in ¶ 38, the predictive model embodied as the machine learning structure may use the thermal image data of the occupant).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 4 in fig. 1, shown above, the method according to claim 2, wherein the camera system contains a camera (specifically an infrared camera as taught in ¶ 31), wherein the image data for acquiring the physiological user data are acquired with the camera (as taught in ¶ 31).
Migneco as modified by Kusukame as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 5, the method according to claim 1 wherein the image data includes one or more of information including heart rate, respiratory rate, facial expressions, and movements of the user’s eyes, all of which is indicative of various emotional states, and particularly teaches tiredness and specifically drowsiness as a state to be detected and addressed.)
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 6 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation system contains a sensor system (occupant condition sensors 24) in the interior of the vehicle (as shown), wherein sensor data are acquired with the sensor system, and the physiological user data for the user are determined from the sensor data (as taught in ¶¶ 23-30, “Each of the occupant condition sensors 24 may be embodied as any conventional sensing device that is adapted to generate a signal that is representative of the associated condition of the occupant 11 of the vehicle seat 12.”)
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 7 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 6, wherein the physiological user data for the user are obtained from the sensor data, e.g. skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or weight (with at least the weight of the occupant taught to be among the data in fig. 2 and ¶¶ 23-30).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 8 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the setting data for the air conditioner contain context data for the vehicle (10, measured by vehicle condition sensors 23), wherein the context data are acquired with a sensor system (23) in the control architecture (20, as shown in fig. 2), and the context data include the interior temperature, and/or exterior temperature, and/or humidity, and/or position of the sun, and/or light intensity, and/or air pressure (with “temperature outside of the vehicle”, “humidity outside of the vehicle”, “temperature inside of the vehicle”, and “humidity inside of the vehicle” taught to be among the data measured by the sensor 23 as taught in ¶ 14-22.)
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 9 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the setting data for the air conditioner include user input data, wherein the user input data are entered by the user, and the user input data include temperature settings, and/or fan settings, and/or heated seat settings, and/or heated surface settings, and/or heating and/or cooling settings (as taught in ¶ 36, the controller 22 may operate the HVAC system 21 of the vehicle 10 in a standard mode “regulating the heating, cooling, and/or ventilating effects generated by the HVAC system 21 in response to the operation of one or more manually operable control devices, such as push buttons and rotatable knobs, by the occupant of the vehicle seat” teaching the temperature settings, fan settings, and heating and cooling settings taught in claim 9. Further, as taught in ¶¶ 37-38, such operation may be followed by adjustments to these effects based on data received by the sensors 23 and 24).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 10 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a control architecture (control system 20, including the controller 22 and sensors 23 and 24) for executing the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the control architecture is designed to:
acquire the setting data for the air conditioner (HVAC system 21, this setting data acquired for example as the user inputs of the standard mode described in ¶ 36),
train the individualized comfort model for the air conditioner with the acquired data in the AI unit (the machine learning structurer taught in ¶ 38, allowing the HVAC system to operate in a predictive mode based on trends of historic input),
predict the individualized settings for the air conditioner based on the trained comfort model (as the predictive mode discussed in ¶ 38), and
determine the physiological user data (as per ¶¶ 23-31, physiological data for the operation of the control system 22 is collected by the occupant condition sensor 24) for the setting data for the user using the evaluation system (via the occupant condition sensors 24) and send the physiological user data to the AI unit (taught in ¶ 38).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco and Kusukame as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0009307 A1 to Neveu et al.
It is noted that the following additional ground of rejection is presented based on the alternative forms of image data presented in claim 5, showing that the states not rendered obvious by the combination of Migneco and Kusukame are also obvious, albeit based on the teachings of an additional reference and do not represent any deficiency in the rejection of claim 5 presented above.
Regarding claim 5, Migneco teaches a control system (20) for an HVAC system (21) in a vehicle (10), the control system including occupant condition sensors (24) providing data to a controller (22) to control operation of the HVAC system (21) and particularly teaches in ¶ 31 that an infrared camera may be used as one or more of the occupant condition sensors (24) may be embodied as an infrared camera which may both identify an individual user based on facial features and determine “thermal comfort zoning scores”. Migneco does not teach this this camera system determining other physiological user parameters such as age, gender, size, and weight as taught in claim 5. Neveu teaches a thermal management system for a motor-vehicle passenger compartment in which data for the control of the system is gathered using a driver monitoring system (DMS) camera operating near infrared as well as an infrared camera (¶¶ 16-22) and teaches in ¶¶ 25-29 that it is possible, form the DMS camera, to measure “physical characteristics of the passenger and notably his sex, age, height and volume. It is possible to deduce weight therefrom.” (emphasis by examiner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Migneco with the plural cameras and the range of physiological data sensed thereby in order to allow the operations of the HVAC system of Migneco to be more particularly tailored to the comfort of the user based on more and more specific inputs, thus improving user comfort and efficiency of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 of the reply that the amendments to the abstract set forth overcome the objections thereto set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 9 June 2026.
In response, examiner agrees and these objections have been withdrawn.
It is noted that the objection to the title set forth in the Non-Final Rejection have not been addressed and this objection has been maintained.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 of the reply that the amendments to the claims removing the terms “control architecture” and “evaluation system” overcome the objections to the drawings set forth in the Non-Final Rejection as these elements are no longer claimed and therefore do not need to be depicted in the drawings. Applicant further argues on pp. 5-6 in that the removal of these elements obviates their interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and overcomes the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) arising from such interpretation.
In response, examiner agrees. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn and the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) based on such interpretation.
Applicant argues on pp. 6-7 that the amendment to independent claim 1 overcomes the rejections of this claim by the limitations from cancelled claim 2 and amended claim 4 which have been added to the independent claim, arguing that Migneco does not teach the physiological data derived from the image data to include skin temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, or wakefulness and that the secondary reference of Neveu does not render obvious these limitations as a secondary reference.
In response, examiner agrees but directs applicant’s attention to the new grounds of rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Migneco in view of Kusukame.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights