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 Objections
Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-16 recites the limitation “an air conditioning outlet of a vehicle” in the preamble which should be recited to “the air conditioning outlet of the vehicle” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
the limitation “a temperature acquisition module” in claim 17 includes a generic/nonce term “module” coupled with function “acquisition” or “collecting” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a temperature acquisition module” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a temperature sensor” [0091]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a target value determining module” in claim 17 includes a generic/nonce term “module” coupled with function “determining” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification does not provide any corresponding structure to the limitation. Thus, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation. For examination purposes, any manner of value determining will read on the limitation;
the limitation “an air conditioning outlet working mode determining module” in claim 17 includes a generic/nonce term “module” coupled with function “determining” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification does not provide any corresponding structure to the limitation. Thus, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation. For examination purposes, any manner of mode or operation determining will read on the limitation; and
the limitation “a working module” in claim 17 includes a generic/nonce term “module” coupled with function “working” or “enable” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification does not provide any corresponding structure to the limitation. Thus, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation. For examination purposes, any manner of enabling will read on the limitation.
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 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.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a target value determining module” of claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of “determining” is performed. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the “determining” function. The use of the term "a target value determining module" is not adequate structure for performing the “determining” function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an electronic control unit (ECU)” paragraph [0083] of PG Pub.
Claim limitation “an air conditioning outlet working mode determining module” of claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of “determining” is performed. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the “determining” function. The use of the term "an air conditioning outlet working mode determining module" is not adequate structure for performing the “determining” function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an electronic control unit (ECU)” paragraph [0083] of PG Pub.
Claim limitation “a working module” of claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of “enable” is performed. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the “enable” function. The use of the term "a working module" is not adequate structure for performing the “enable” function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an electronic control unit (ECU)” paragraph [0083] of PG Pub.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-16 and 18-21 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 “the working mode” in line 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a target working mode”, “a plurality of preset working modes” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the target working mode”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the working mode” in line 3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a target working mode”, “a plurality of preset working modes” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of preset working modes”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the working mode” in line 3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a target working mode”, “a plurality of preset working modes” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of preset working modes”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in a cooling state, when the target value is within the first value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, when the target value is within the second value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, and the second value range is higher than the first value range” in lines 3-7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 5 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether the steps “the target value is within the first value range” and “the target value is within the second value range” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in a cooling state, in response to the target value is within the first value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, in response to the target value is within the second value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, and the second value range is higher than the first value range”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “when the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the second value range toward the first value range; alternatively, when the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the first value range toward the second value range” in lines 3-6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 6 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the ambient temperature increases” and “the user set temperature increases” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in response to the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the second value range toward the first value range; alternatively, in response to the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the first value range toward the second value range”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “in a cooling state, when the target value is within the first value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, when the target value is within the second value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the third working mode, and when the target value is within the third value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, the third value range is higher than the second value range, and the second value range is higher than the first value range” in lines 3-10 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 7 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the target value is within the first value range” “the target value is within the second value range” and “the target value is within the third value range” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in a cooling state, in response to the target value is within the first value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, in response to the target value is within the second value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the third working mode, and in response to the target value is within the third value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, the third value range is higher than the second value range, and the second value range is higher than the first value range”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “when the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the second value range toward the first value range, or the target value changes from the third value range toward the second value range, or the target value changes from the third value range toward the first value range; alternatively, when the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the first value range toward the second value range, or the target value changes from the second value range toward the third value range, or the target value changes from the first value range toward the third value range” in lines 3-10 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 8 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the ambient temperature increases” and “the user set temperature increases” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in response to the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the second value range toward the first value range, or the target value changes from the third value range toward the second value range, or the target value changes from the third value range toward the first value range; alternatively, in response to the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the first value range toward the second value range, or the target value changes from the second value range toward the third value range, or the target value changes from the first value range toward the third value range”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “when the target value is within the fourth value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, when the target value is within the fifth value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, and the fifth value range is higher than the fourth value range” in lines 3-7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 9 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the target value is within the fourth value range” and “the target value is within the fifth value range” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in response to the target value is within the fourth value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, in response to the target value is within the fifth value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, and the fifth value range is higher than the fourth value range”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “when the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the fifth value range toward the fourth value range; alternatively, when the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the fourth value range toward the fifth value range” in lines 3-6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 10 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the ambient temperature increases” and “the user set temperature increases” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in response to the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the fifth value range toward the fourth value range; alternatively, in response to the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the fourth value range toward the fifth value range”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “in a heating state, when the target value is within the fourth value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, and when the target value is within the fifth value range, a temperature of a heat radiator of the vehicle is collected, and when the temperature of the heat radiator is equal to or higher than a first threshold, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, when the temperature of the heat radiator is lower than the first threshold, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, and the fifth value range is higher than the fourth value range” in lines 3-11 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 11 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the target value is within the fourth value range”, “the target value is within the fifth value range”, “the temperature of the heat radiator is equal to or higher than a first threshold” and “the temperature of the heat radiator is lower than the first threshold” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in a heating state, in response to the target value is within the fourth value range, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, and in response to the target value is within the fifth value range, a temperature of a heat radiator of the vehicle is collected, and in response to the temperature of the heat radiator is equal to or higher than a first threshold, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the first working mode, in response to the temperature of the heat radiator is lower than the first threshold, the air conditioning outlet is controlled to be in the second working mode, and the fifth value range is higher than the fourth value range”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “when the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the fifth value range toward the fourth value range; alternatively, when the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the fourth value range toward the fifth value range” in lines 3-6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 12 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the ambient temperature increases” and “the user set temperature increases” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in response to the ambient temperature increases, the target value changes from the fifth value range toward the fourth value range; alternatively, in response to the user set temperature increases, the target value changes from the fourth value range toward the fifth value range”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “controlling the air conditioning outlet to sweep air back and forth between the first coordinate point and the second coordinate point when the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the third working mode; controlling the air conditioning outlet to blow air toward the third coordinate point when the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the first working mode; and controlling the air conditioning outlet to blow air toward the fourth coordinate point when the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the second working mode” in lines 6-13 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 15 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether steps “the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the third working mode” “the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the first working mode” and “the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the second working mode” are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “controlling the air conditioning outlet to sweep air back and forth between the first coordinate point and the second coordinate point in response to the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the third working mode; controlling the air conditioning outlet to blow air toward the third coordinate point in response to the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the first working mode; and controlling the air conditioning outlet to blow air toward the fourth coordinate point in response to the working mode of the air conditioning outlet is the second working mode”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “controlling, when the user is detected, the air conditioning outlet to blow air toward the specific coordinate point in the working mode according to the recorded specific coordinate point and working mode” in lines 5-7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include step that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether step “the user is detected” is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “controlling, in response to the user is detected, the air conditioning outlet to blow air toward the specific coordinate point in the working mode according to the recorded specific coordinate point and working mode”.
Claims 4, 13-14 and 18-21 are rejected by their virtual dependencies of claims 1-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumada et al. (JP2004090853A).
Regarding claim 1, Kumada discloses a method for controlling an air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) of a vehicle (see figure 5), comprising:
collecting an ambient temperature (the inside air temperature Tr detected by sensor 91 and the outside air temperature Tam detected by sensor 92; paragraph [0042]) and a user set temperature (the set temperature Tset; paragraph [0056]);
determining a target value (the target blow-off temperature TMP) according to the ambient temperature (Tam) and the user set temperature (Tset; see paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and figure 8);
determining a target working mode (an “FACE” mode) the from a plurality of preset working modes (the “AUTO” mode, “FACE” mode, “B/L” mode, “FOOT” mode, “OFF” swing mode, “U-D SWING” swing mode, “R-L SWING” mode) of an air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) according to the target value (TAM), the working mode (the “FACE” mode) including a preset air outlet direction (a preset swing range; paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 5, 8 and 10); and
enabling the air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) to work in the target working mode (an “FACE” mode; paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 2, Kumada discloses the working mode (the “AUTO” mode, “FACE” mode, “B/L” mode, “FOOT” mode, “OFF” swing mode, “U-D SWING” swing mode, “R-L SWING” mode) includes a first working mode and a second working mode, the first working mode including a preset first air outlet direction in which the air conditioning outlet faces the user (the “FACE” mode), and the second working mode (the “OFF” mode) including a preset second air outlet direction in which the air conditioning outlet does not face the user (paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 3, Kumada discloses the working mode (the “AUTO” mode, “FACE” mode, “B/L” mode, “FOOT” mode, “OFF” swing mode, “U-D SWING” swing mode, “R-L SWING” mode) further includes a third working mode, the third working mode (the “R-L SWING” mode) including a preset third air outlet direction in which the air conditioning outlet intermittently faces the user (paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 4, Kumada discloses the first working mode is a centralized blowing mode (the “FACE” mode), the second working mode is an indirect blowing mode (the “OFF” mode), and the third working mode is a left-right sweeping mode (the “R-L SWING” mode; paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Kumada discloses the ambient temperature (the inside air temperature Tr detected by sensor 91 and the outside air temperature Tam detected by sensor 92) includes a temperature inside the vehicle (Tam) and a temperature outside the vehicle (Tr; paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Kumada discloses a device for controlling an air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) of a vehicle (see figure 5), comprising:
a temperature acquisition module (the outside temperature sensor 92 and temperature setting switch 75k and 75I) configured to collect an ambient temperature (Tam) and a user set temperature (Tset; paragraph [0056] and [0060]);
a target value determining module (see step 200 of figure 8) configured to determine a target value (TMP) according to the ambient temperature (Tam) and the user set temperature (Tset; see paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and figure 8);
an air conditioning outlet working mode determining module (see figure 6) configured to determine a target working mode (an “FACE” mode) from a plurality of preset working modes (the “AUTO” mode, “FACE” mode, “B/L” mode, “FOOT” mode, “OFF” swing mode, “U-D SWING” swing mode, “R-L SWING” mode) of the air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) according to the target value (TMP), the working mode including a preset air outlet direction (a preset swing range; paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 8 and 10); and
a working module (the swing mechanisms 71 and 72) the configured to enable the air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) to work in the target working mode (the “FACE” mode; paragraphs [0053]-[0058]; see figures 4, 6, 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 18, Kumada discloses a vehicle (see figure 5), wherein an air outlet direction of an air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) is controlled using the method for controlling an air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) of a vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kumada as modified discloses a plurality of control modes (see figures 5-6) are provided for the air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) of the vehicle, the method for controlling an air conditioning outlet (16a-16b and 17a-17b) of a vehicle is executed in a specific control mode (a specific control mode of the plurality of preset working modes: the “AUTO” mode, “FACE” mode, “B/L” mode, “FOOT” mode, “OFF” swing mode, “U-D SWING” swing mode, “R-L SWING” mode), and the specific control mode is turned on or off (the on or off switch on control panel 75-77) by an operation of a user (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Kumada discloses a computing device comprising:
a communication interface (the operation panel 75; see figure 6);
at least one processor (ECU 3) connected to the communication interface (75-77; paragraph [0032]; see figure 1 and 6); and
at least one memory (ROM) connected to the processor (3) and storing a program instruction (see figures 8 and 10), when being executed by the at least one processor (3), the program instruction (see figures 8 and 10) causing the at least one processor (3) to execute the method for controlling an air conditioning outlet (24, 25, 26 and 27) of a vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 21, Kumada discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a program instruction (see figures 8 and 10), when being executed by a computer (the ECU 3), the program instruction causing the computer (microcomputer; paragraph [0032]) to execute the method for controlling an air conditioning outlet (24, 25, 26 and 27) of a vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Kumada taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed control feature of the device for controlling the air conditioning outlet of the vehicle as required in claims 5-12 and 14-16. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the device for controlling the air conditioning outlet of the vehicle of Kumada in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 5-12 and 14-16 are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763