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.
For the record, claim limitations “power supply unit” and “air-conditioner manipulation device” have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since “power supply” is deemed to impart implicit structure, and since sufficient corresponding structure for “air-conditioner manipulation device” is recited within respective claims 2 and 12.
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 8 and 18 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.
It is unclear what the limitation “a notification on permission on transmission of information.” The specification seems to use the same language (paras. 0014, 0024, 0065, 0078) without further explanation. The Examiner is unable to determine what this limitation is meant to connote.
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, 3-4, 9, 11, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (US 2022/0371401 A1) in view of Higashihara (US 2019/0135073 A1).
As per claims 1 and 11, Roth et al. disclose a smart air-conditioning control apparatus of a vehicle, and a method thereof, the smart air-conditioning control apparatus/method comprising: an arrangement configured to activate and deactivate a smart air-conditioning control function of the vehicle based on a user input (para. 0032; etc.); a detector configured to detect whether an occupant is seated in a seat through a sensor disposed in each of seats in the vehicle (paras. 0022-0023; 0051; etc.), when the smart air-conditioning control function is activated; and a controller configured to selectively control an air-conditioner designated to an occupied seat, which is detected as being occupied by an occupant among the seats in the vehicle (Figs. 2-3; paras. 0049-0055; etc.). Roth et al. do not particularly teach the arrangement comprising a power supply unit. Higashihara teaches a vehicle air conditioning control arrangement including controls based on seat occupancy detection (para. 0101, etc.) wherein the control arrangement comprises a power supply unit 152 that is controlled in order to operate the air conditioner (paras. 0100, 0114; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control a power supply of Roth et al. for the same purpose of driving the air conditioner to execute the heating or cooling controls (para. 0114; etc.).
As per claims 3 and 13, Roth et al. disclose wherein the seats in the vehicle comprises a driver's seat, a passenger seat, a first rear seat, and a second rear seat (Figs. 1-5; etc.).
As per claims 4 and 14, Roth et al. disclose wherein the detector is configured to detect whether an occupant is seated in each seat through a weight sensor disposed in each seat (paras. 0022-0023; etc.).
As per claims 9 and 19, Roth et al. disclose wherein the detector is configured to detect whether an occupant is seated in each seat through a body temperature detecting sensor disposed in each seat (para. 0023; etc.).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (US 2022/0371401 A1) in view of Higashihara (US 2019/0135073 A1), and further in view of Feltham (US 2023/0049777 A1).
As per claims 2 and 12, Roth et al. do not specify how the user inputs information. Feltham teaches wherein the user input is received through an air-conditioner manipulation device comprising a button and a part for at least one of voice recognition or motion recognition configured in the vehicle (para. 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use such devices as generally known ways for a user to conveniently provide input commands.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (US 2022/0371401 A1) in view of Higashihara (US 2019/0135073 A1), and further in view of Hedges et al. (US 2021/0209927 A1).
As per claims 5 and 15, Roth et al. do not teach wherein the detector is configured to detect whether an occupant is seated in a rear seat through a radar-based rear seat occupant detecting (ROA) sensor. Hedges et al. teach the concept of using radar to detect seat occupancy (paras. 0025, 0029, 0049; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly utilize radar sensing to detect seat occupancy (including rear seat occupancy: see Fig. 4 wherein the occupant/object 18 is in the rear seat) as simply an alternative known technique for such detection.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (US 2022/0371401 A1) in view of Higashihara (US 2019/0135073 A1), and further in view of Tabei et al. (US 2014/0034266 A1).
As per claims 6 and 16, Roth et al. do not teach wherein the controller is configured to integrally control the air-conditioner, and a radiant heat warmer and a heating and ventilation function of the occupied seat. Tabei et al. teach a system a controller 10 is configured to integrally control the air-conditioner (Figs. 3 and 5; etc.), and a radiant heat warmer (seat warmers 65) and a heating (Figs. 3 and 6; etc.) and ventilation (steps S18-S19; etc.) function of the occupied seat (from seat se18782nsors 73, 77, 78; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly combine control of the air conditioner of Roth et al. with that of a heat warmer for the general purpose of optimizing occupant comfort.
As per claims 7 and 17, Roth et al. disclose wherein the controller directly controls an operation of the air-conditioner, but do not teach wherein the controller transmits control information for a radiant heat warmer and heating and ventilation function to the occupied seat individually operated by a separate controller, to indirectly control an operation of the occupied seat. Tabei et al. teach the controller 10 transmits control information for a radiant heat warmer and heating and ventilation function to the occupied seat (Fig. 3). Also, again, Tabei et al. teach the ventilation (S18-S19; etc.) function of the occupied seat (from seat sensors 73, 77, 78; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly combine control of the air conditioner of Roth et al. with that of a heat warmer for the general purpose of optimizing occupant comfort. While Tabei et al. do teach a separate seating controller 17 (Fig. 3; etc.), they do not teach the seating controller controlling an operation of the occupied seat. It is considered a simple rearrangement of existing parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to move the occupied seat controls from ECU 10 to ECU 17 involving movement of the particular software from one ECU to another not affecting the general functioning of the system, particularly since ECU 17 is already dedicated to receiving and transmitting seating inputs.
As per claims 8 and 18, Roth et al. disclose wherein, when the occupied seat is detected, the controller starts the air-conditioner control. Roth et al. do not teach wherein the system provides a notification on permission on transmission of information for activation and controlling of the radiant heat warmer and the heating and ventilation function of the occupied seat. See rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the limitation “a notification on permission on transmission of information.” Since it is unclear what this limitation is meant to connote, it has not been accorded patentable weight at this time. Nevertheless, Tabei et al. do teach wherein the system provides controlling of the radiant heat warmer and the heating and ventilation function of the occupied seat as already discussed regarding claims 6 and 7. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly combine control of the air conditioner of Roth et al. with that of a heat warmer for the general purpose of optimizing occupant comfort.
As per claims 10 and 20, Roth et al. disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the air-conditioner, and a heating and ventilation function designated to the occupied seat based on a body temperature of the occupant measured through the body temperature detecting sensor (para. 0055 re. ventilation controls based on occupant temperature; paras. 0029, 0037, re. the ventilation controls being related to heating) Again, a radiant heat warmer Roth et al. do not teach control of a radiant heat warmer. Again, Tabei et al. teach such controls of seat warmers 65. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly combine control of the air conditioner of Roth et al. with that of a heat warmer for the general purpose of optimizing occupant comfort.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Migneco et al. (US 2025/0222741 A1) teach a holistic seat climate system.
Paes et al. (US 2024/0217407 A1) teach a seat surface temperature control system.
Yoshinori et al. (US 2002/0019213 A1) teach a multi-seat temperature control arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763