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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 at the end mentions adjusting the angle of the assistant vent and the main vent when earlier the claim mentions only one of the vents must be controlled by the controller. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17-18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line one misspells the word “method”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh (DE 102019101456 A1), hereinafter “Mukesh” in view of Okamoto et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0234932), hereinafter “Okamoto”.
Regarding claim 1, Mukesh discloses the same invention substantially as claimed such as a control system for vehicle air vents (18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28), the control system comprising: a main vent (22 and 28, shown in figure 4) positioned in a vehicle and configured to discharge air; an assistant vent (20 and 26) positioned over the main vent; and a controller configured to drive at least one of the main vent and the assistant vent (paragraph 26), wherein the controller is configured to use sensed parameters generated in the vehicle, to adjust an angle of the main event, and to adjust an angle of the assistant vent based on a blowing direction of the main vent (paragraphs 26 and 28), but is silent to disclose the controller further determining a heat load data. However, Okamoto teaches the use of the controller controlling the vents by taking heat load data in account (paragraph 42) for the purpose of controlling the HVAC system with accounting for extreme heat conditions from solar exposure to provide more comfort for passengers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mukesh by incorporating control of the vents with taking heat load data into account as taught by Okamoto for the purpose of controlling the HVAC system with accounting for extreme heat conditions from solar exposure to provide more comfort for passengers.
Regarding claim 2, Mukesh and Okamoto disclose the control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to collect the heat load data through at least one of an infrared camera and a visible light camera (Mukesh, camera mentioned in paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 3, Mukesh and Okamoto disclose the control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to utilize at least one of an in-cabin monitoring system or a driver monitoring system (Mukesh, mentioned in paragraphs 26-28).
Regarding claims 12-15, Mukesh and Okamoto disclose the claimed invention but is silent to go into detail about the main vent horizontal and vertical wings along with the gear configuration. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use such a blade and gear configuration, since applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with wing configuration without the gear system or diagonal type wings.
Regarding claim 16, Mukesh and Okamoto disclose the control system of claim 15 wherein the controller is further configured to activate a direct mode (Okamoto, air discharge from the foot vents 11, paragraphs 41-43), in response that the main vent is not operated toward the face of the driver, the control system is not in the heat load mode or the mild mode, and the air is not discharged through the crash pad vent.
Regarding claim 17, Mukesh and Okamoto disclose the control method of the control system of claim 1, comprising: activating, by the controller, a face target mode (Okamoto, air through vents pointed to face in figure 1), in response that the main vent is operated toward a face of an occupant, the control system is in a heat load mode or a mild mode, and air is discharged through a crash pad vent (Okamoto, knee vents) of the vehicle (Okamoto, paragraphs 41-43).
Regarding claim 18, Mukesh and Okamoto disclose the control method of the control system of claim 17, further including: activating a direct mode, in response that the main vent is not operated toward the face of the driver, the control system is not in the heat load mode or the mild mode, and the air is not discharged through the crash pad vent. Refer to rejection of claim 16 for further details since the limitations are similar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: No prior art teaches all the limitations of claims 4-5, but more specifically, a HVAC system that utilizes an infrared camera to measure temperatures of the face and body of occupants and collect internal image data of the vehicle using a visible light camera and using a learning processor to determine and learn whether heat load has been generated, and adjusting the angle of the main and assistant vents based upon the heat load data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/SYED O HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights