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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 10 and 19: Applicant claims
one or more sensors configured to determine an actual temperature and an actual heat index of the area, wherein the actual heat index is determined according to temperature and humidity levels;
Applicant claims two conflicting ways of generating an actual heat index: determining an actual heat index via sensors, and also determining the actual heat index according to temperature and humidity levels.
Applicant disclosure describes air temperature sensor 140 providing temperature data to the climate control controller 138, and humidity sensor 142 providing humidity data to the climate control controller 138, (see at least Fig. 2, [0042]) and determining an actual heat index of the aircraft area based on measurements provided from temperature sensor 140 and humidity sensor 142. (see at least Fig. 2 and [0058]) However, this is in conflict with applicant claim that this determination comes from one or more sensors, which does not have structural support in Applicant specification. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1, 10 and 19: Applicant claims a fan speed of a cold air supply to the area; that is considered indefinite because cold is an adjective describing the air supply that does not appear to have clear metes and bounds provided in the Applicant specification such that one of ordinary skill would understand the metes and bounds of the claimed cold air supply in order to differentiate the supply from, for example, a hot air supply. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In view of Applicant disclosure [0040], the Office recommends amending cold air supply to cooled air supply or conditioned air supply in order to overcome this rejection.
In regards to claims 11-12: Claims 11-12 claim a method further limiting an aircraft of claim 8, which is a system claim. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Claims 11-12 appear to be intending to further limit the method of claim 10. Therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution, claims 11-12 are interpreted as such for the remainder of this prosecution.
In regards to claims 4 and 13: Applicant claims wherein the one or more user interfaces of the cockpit area are electrically connected to every hybrid climate control system of the aircraft, however, there is no clear metes and bounds provided by Applicant disclosure for the limitation every hybrid climate control system of the aircraft, and therefore the metes and bounds of the term are unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 7: Claim 7 claims the user interface further comprises a selection between the allowable configurations A, B, and C, for quickly transitioning from one settings configuration to another. However, the term quickly does not appear to have clear metes and bounds provided in the Applicant specification such that one of ordinary skill would understand the metes and bounds, and is therefore subjective and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 9: Applicant claims wherein the climate controller automatically limits fan speed and/or disables one or more fans during one or more aircraft events, such as engine start-up, to reduce workload and power consumption. MPEP 2173.05(d) states that descriptions of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. Accordingly, because claim 9 cites an example such as engine start-up, it is considered indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicks (US 20190061957 A1) herein Nicks, in view of Ren et al. (CN 105523185 A) herein Ren and Larson et al. (US 20170096048 A1), herein Larson.
In regards to Claim 1, Nicks discloses the following:
1. A hybrid climate control system for an area in an aircraft, (see at least Abstract “aircraft cabin temperature control”) comprising:
one or more sensors configured to determine an actual temperature and an actual heat index of the area, wherein the actual heat index is determined according to temperature and humidity levels; (see at least [0014] “ECS regulates the temperature of the air provided to the cabin (and/or the zones) based on feedback from one or more temperature sensors disposed in fixed, predetermined locations in the cabin”, [0015] “climate characteristic may be any controllable characteristic, such as temperature, humidity (absolute and/or relative), heat index,”, and “mobile electronic devices are often equipped with sensors, such as temperature sensors (for providing temperature data to the user and/or for safety shut-down purposes), humidity sensors, etc.”, see also [0020] “humidity sensors that measure the humidity and/or relative humidity of the air” and [0048] “cabin air monitor 302 may operate to monitor and/or regulate a heat index value, which is based on the combination of temperature and humidity.”)
a climate controller, (see at least Fig. 1 “ECS Controller”) configured to control:
a temperature of a conditioned air supply to the area; (see at least [0025] “temperature control”) and
a fan speed of a cold air supply to the area; (see at least [0020] “obtain and regulate any other climate characteristic that can be controlled by the ECS, such as, for example… air flow.” and [0026] “ECS controller 220 may control other characteristics of the air provided by the ECS 202, such as the air flow (including the air speed and/or direction)”)
wherein the climate controller controls the temperature and the fan speed according to a control settings configuration, (see at least [0025] “adjustment control”)
the control settings configuration comprising:
a desired temperature; (see at least [0025] “desired temperature for each zone”)
a selection between automatic temperature control and manual temperature control, (see at least [0031] “flight attendant 306, who can then manually change the settings at the temperature control panel 222” and [0060] “current temperature setting and/or relative humidity setting are manually entered into the flight attendant electronic device 304 by the flight attendant 306… In other examples, the current temperature manager 332 and/or the current humidity manager 344 may determine the current temperature setting and/or relative humidity setting automatically”, inherent that there is a meaningful selection performed by the flight attendant 306 during the control of Nicks, [0060])
Nicks suggests the following; (see at least [0025] “ECS controller 220 uses feedback from one or more temperature sensors in the cabin 200 to regulate the temperature in each zone”) however for the sake of compact prosecution, the following is more explicitly taught by Ren:
wherein automatic temperature control comprises determining a differential between the actual temperature and the desired temperature and modifying control of a conditioned air supply based on the differential between the actual temperature and the desired temperature; (see at least [0010] “when the absolute value of the difference between the target cabin temperature value and the actual cabin temperature value is less than the set threshold A, the initial opening degree of the temperature control valve is 0 degrees when the system starts, and the opening degree of the temperature control valve is adjusted after startup.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ren with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a high degree of system integration, high control precision, and a high degree of automation onboard a large aircraft where mission modes, bleed air, ram air, environmental control systems and cabin capacity are especially complex. (Ren, [0004])
As best understood, Nicks discloses the following:
a desired fan speed; (see at least [0020] “obtain and regulate any other climate characteristic that can be controlled by the ECS, such as, for example… air flow.” and [0026] “ECS controller 220 may control other characteristics of the air provided by the ECS 202, such as the air flow (including the air speed and/or direction)”)
and a selection between automatic and manual fan control, (see at least [0020] “articles of manufacture disclosed herein may be used to similarly obtain and regulate any other climate characteristic that can be controlled by the ECS, such as, for example… air flow”, [0031] “flight attendant 306, who can then manually change the settings” and [0068] “In addition to or as an alternative to temperature and relative humidity, the example process of FIG. 5 may likewise be used to enhance control of other climate characteristics, such as air flow, heat index, and/or air quality.”)
As best understood, Nicks discloses an automatic fan control and manual adjustment (i.e. selection) of fan control, as cited, however Nicks does not disclose or suggest the following, which is taught by Larson:
wherein automatic fan control comprises determining a differential between the actual heat index and a target heat index and modifying one or more fan speeds to reduce the differential between the actual heat index and the target heat index; (see at least [0048] “[0048] System controller 26 controls… speed of blower fan 46 via control of speed of motor 48.”, [0053] “setting a target temperature within comfort zone 86 and/or a target relative humidity within comfort zone 86.” and [0054] “When… system controller 26 determines if the value of the parameters… is within comfort zone 86. If it is, damper 44 is opened to allow inside air to also flow through secondary airway 38 and mix with the flow through primary airway 34. Operation of compressor 58 may be discontinued and speed of blower fan 46 reduced.”, wherein the measured and target comfort zones of Larson is fully equivalent to the claimed actual heat index and the target heat index per Fig. 2 and [0051].)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Larson with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing vehicle air conditioning system efficiency while still effectively controlling air temperature and humidity. (Larson, [0008] - [0010])
Nicks discloses the following:
and one or more user interfaces electrically connected to the climate controller for the area, wherein the one or more user interfaces are configured for receiving selections of the settings configuration. (see at least Fig. 2, item 222 and [0031] “flight attendant 306, who can then manually change the settings at the temperature control panel 222)
In regards to Claim 2, Nicks discloses the following:
2. The hybrid climate control system of claim 1, wherein the aircraft is a turbine aircraft. (see at least Fig. 1)
In regards to Claims 10-11: Claims 10-11, as best understood, represent the methods performed by the systems of claims 1-2, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same as claims 3-5, above.
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicks in view of Ren and Larson, as applied, in further view of Centofante (US 20090221224 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Nicks discloses the following:
3. The hybrid climate control system of claim 1, wherein a separate hybrid climate control system is provided for each of a plurality of aircraft areas, (see at least Fig. 2, zones A-zone F) the plurality of aircraft areas comprising at least a cockpit area and a cabin area. (see at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and [0007] “FIG. 2 is a schematic view of an example cabin” and [0032] “cabin air monitor 302 may similarly receive data from other mobile electronic devices in the cabin 200, such as those owned and/or operated by the flight attendant(s), the pilot(s), and/or any other person or entity”, inherent)
While it is the position of the Office that the aircraft of Nicks inherently includes a cockpit, for the sake of compact prosecution, this feature is more explicitly taught by Centofante. (see at least Fig. 1 and [0025] “Climate zone 12 comprises the aircraft cockpit while climate zones 14, 16, 18 contain various passenger regions of the aircraft cabin.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Centofante with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing comfort-related expectations of cabin crew and/or air passengers to be individually catered to in the individual climate zones. (Centofante, [0002])
In regards to Claim 4, Nicks does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Centofante:
4. The hybrid climate control system of claim 3, wherein the one or more user interfaces of the cockpit area are electrically connected to every hybrid climate control system of the aircraft, such that the one or more user interfaces of the cockpit area can control the settings configuration of each area of the plurality of aircraft areas. (see at least [0029] “climate control arrangement 34 for determining an ambient temperature actual value for each climate zone. In a manner that is also not shown an ambient temperature desired vale may also be stipulated for each of the climate zones 12 to 20, for example at the control panel in the cockpit or in the passenger region of the aircraft 10. The cabin crew can individually set a respectively desired ambient temperature desired value for each climate zone”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Centofante with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing comfort-related expectations of cabin crew and/or air passengers to be individually catered to in the individual climate zones. (Centofante, [0002])
In regards to Claim 5, Nicks discloses the following:
5. The hybrid climate control system of claim 3, wherein the one or more user interfaces are digital touchscreens which display each selected settings configuration of a plurality of connected aircraft areas. (see at least [0025] “temperature control panel includes a digital display of the current temperature for each zone (as read by the respective temperature sensors), the current temperature setting for each zone, and an adjustment control to increase or decrease the temperature setting for each zone”)
In regards to Claims 12-14: Claims 12-14, as best understood, represent the methods performed by the systems of claims 3-5, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same as claims 3-5, above.
Claims 6-7, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicks in view of Ren and Larson, as applied, in further view of Greiner et al. (US 20080183334 A1) herein Greiner.
In regards to Claim 6, Nicks does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Greiner:
6. The hybrid climate control system of claim 1, wherein the settings configuration further comprises:
a series of allowable configurations comprising:
A.) a Fully Manual System State, wherein the temperature and the fan speed are manually controlled; (see at least [0012] “The status of the manual overrides is then determined, and the HVAC system is automatically controlled to effect defogging of the windshield when it is determined that none of the manual overrides have been selected.”, [0027] “the present invention can automatically control any of the five climate control options that are manually controllable as shown in FIG. 4--i.e., mode, temperature, fan, recirculation, and air conditioning. It is contemplated that each of the [0028] illustrated in FIG. 3 are mutually exclusive. That is, a control system, such as the control system 40 shown in FIG. 2, will be configured to operate an automatic defog operation in accordance with only one of the five options at any one time.”)
B.) a Partially Automatic System State, wherein the temperature is automatically controlled but the fan speed is manually controlled; (see at least [0030] “In Option 3, a limited function of the automatic defog operation is allowed regardless of which of the three overrides is selected by the vehicle occupant. Automatic operation of mode and temperature functions are allowed in all eight states, but states 3, 5, and 7 limit some of the automatic functions. For example, just as in state 4 of Option 2, each of states 3, 5, and 7 in Option 3 allow only limited automatic control of the fan system 30”) and
C.) a Fully Automatic System State, wherein the temperature and the fan speed are automatically controlled; (see at least [0028] “For example, in each of the Options 1-5 illustrated in FIG. 3, the automatic defog operation ("Auto Defog Actions") is run if none of the three manual overrides is selected” and [0034] “[0034] Option 5 provides full functionality of the automatic defog operation”)
and a non-allowed configuration, wherein the system is prevented from operating in a state of both manual temperature control and automatic fan speed control, and if the non- allowed configuration is selected, the system will automatically transition the fan speed to manual control. (see at least [0028] “The first option, which has seven states, can be succinctly summarized as two states, since six of the seven states are the same. In sum, if any of the three manual overrides are chosen in Option 1, then the automatic defog operation is ended or not run--i.e., it is prohibited. Conversely, in Option 2, there are four states, although the first state is common to Option 1 and the other three options. In Option 2, if either the air conditioning override or the recirculation override is chosen, the automatic defog operation is ended or not run. If the fan system override is selected, however, the automatic defog operation is allowed to run.”, see also Fig. 3 “Manual Override” and “A/C OFF”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Greiner with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing automatic climate control systems to monitor a temperature and humidity level of the vehicle cabin to determine if a defogging operation of the windshield, in order to provide a supply of relatively dry air to the windshield to quickly effect the defogging operation (Greiner, [0005]) while also providing a balance between meeting the comfort requirements of the vehicle occupants, and quickly and efficiently defogging a windshield to provide a clear view for the operator. (Greiner, [0007])
In regards to Claim 7, Nicks does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Greiner:
7. The hybrid climate control system of claim 6, wherein the user interface further comprises a selection between the allowable configurations A, B, and C, for quickly transitioning from one settings configuration to another. (see Fig. 3 and [0028]-[0035] “options 1-5”, as previously cited.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Greiner with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing automatic climate control systems to monitor a temperature and humidity level of the vehicle cabin to determine if a defogging operation of the windshield, in order to provide a supply of relatively dry air to the windshield to quickly effect the defogging operation (Greiner, [0005]) while also providing a balance between meeting the comfort requirements of the vehicle occupants, and quickly and efficiently defogging a windshield to provide a clear view for the operator. (Greiner, [0007])
In regards to Claim 19: Independent claim 19, as best understood, represents a hybrid climate control system for a vehicle that includes all the same or similar limitations of the hybrid climate control system of claims 1 + 6, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1 and 6, above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicks in view of Ren and Larson, as applied, in further view of Hayasaka et al. (US 6301909 B1) herein Hayasaka.
In regards to claim 8, Nicks is silent, but Hayasaka teaches the following:
8. The hybrid climate control system of claim 1, wherein the hybrid climate control system is configured to automatically transition one or more automatic control functions to manual control when a failure of the one or more automatic control functions is detected. (see at least Col. 8, lines 9-19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hayasaka with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a uncontrollable state of the air conditioner during a failure event. (Hayasaka, Col. 2, lines 19-28)
In regards to claim 17: Claim 20 is the method performed by the system of claim 8, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 8, outlined above.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicks in view of Ren and Larson, as applied, in further view of Yoshiguchi et al. (US 20150045978 A1) herein Yoshiguchi.
In regards to claim 9, Nicks is silent, but Yoshiguchi teaches the following:
9. The hybrid climate control system of claim 1, wherein the climate controller automatically limits fan speed and/or disables one or more fans during one or more aircraft events, such as engine start-up, to reduce workload and power consumption. (see at least [0060] “load shedding” and [0071] “two recirculation fans provided for making air in the cabin more comfortable.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Yoshiguchi with the invention of Nicks, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of load shedding (Load Shed) function of intentionally cutting off the power supply to the devices having no influence on the flight thereof upon detecting a failure hindering the generator from generating the power, so as to avoid the loss of power. (Yoshiguchi, [0005])
In regards to claim 18: Claim 18 is the method performed by the system of claim 9, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 9, outlined above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicks in view of Ren and Larson, as applied, in further view of Greiner as applied to claim 6, in view of Hayasaka as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Yoshiguchi as applied to claim 9.
In regards to claim 20: Claim 20 is the hybrid climate control system for a vehicle of claims 1 + 6 + 8 + 9, and are rejected the same or similar to claims 1, 6, and 8-9, outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
March 6, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669