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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 10/24/2024. A filing date 10/24/2024 is acknowledged. 18832928 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2023/017204 and International Filing Date 5/2/2023. The sought benefit of JP application 2022-087106 (which was filed on 5/27/2022) is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7, 8 are independent claims.
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.
3. 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: a first control unit, a second control unit in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The environmental device 20 is an example of a “first control unit”. The control device 100 is an example of a “second control unit” ([0025]).
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 § 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 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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isamu Ogawa et al (US Publication 20200060597 A1, hereinafter Ogawa), and in view of Eric Theisinger et al (US Publication 20250065890 A1, hereinafter Theisinger).
As for independent claim 1, Ogawa discloses: An environment control system ([0040], The environmental information acquiring unit 101 acquires information about the temperature around a user and noise information indicating the magnitude of noise as environmental information) comprising: a first control unit configured to control an environment in a room where an individual stays ([0163], an external device to perform control to remove the discomfort factor); a measurement unit configured to measure a value indicating the environment in the room ([0040], The environmental information acquiring unit 101 acquires information detected by a temperature sensor, for example, as the temperature information. The environmental information acquiring unit 101 acquires information indicating the magnitude of sound collected by a microphone, for example, as the noise information); an environment model that is constructed using, as input data, a correspondence relationship between a behavior pattern in response to a stress of the individual and the value indicating the environment (Abstract, checks behavioral information against action patterns stored in advance, and detects a matching action pattern; a reaction detecting unit that checks the behavioral and biological information about a user against reaction patterns stored, and detects a matching reaction pattern; a discomfort determining unit that determines that the user is in an uncomfortable state, when a matching action pattern is detected, or a matching reaction pattern is detected and the detected reaction pattern matches a discomfort reaction pattern) and outputs a target value for suppressing the stress of the individual when a time-series change in the value indicating the environment is input ([0074], The action pattern IDs 112c are the identification information acquired by the action detecting unit 104 at the times indicated by the time stamps 112a);
Ogawa discloses detecting user is in discomfort state but does not expressly disclose detecting a stress state, and Ogawa discloses removing discomfort factors but does not clearly disclose controlling the measured value to a target value, in an analogous art of managing environment data based on user’s state in an indoor environment, Theisinger discloses: a stress of the individual (Theisinger: [0045], generate a driver stress assessment 294, which may be an estimated level of stress of the driver based on the patterns of the raw data) … and a second control unit configured to control the first control unit and the value indicating the environment measured by the measurement unit approaches the target value acquired by inputting the time-series change in the value indicating the environment into the environment model (Theisinger: Abstract, based on the vehicle environment status information and an estimated physiological state of the driver, adjusting one or more environmental controls of the vehicle; [0038], The cabin temperature data may include one or more settings of an air conditioning (AC)/heating system of the vehicle, such as a target AC temperature status and/or any changes made by the driver, a strength status of an AC system and/or any changes made by the driver, and an AC mode (e.g., direct or diffuse); [0107], desired passenger compartment temperature);
Ogawa and Theisinger are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing environment data based on user’s state in an indoor environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ogawa using the teachings of Theisinger to include detecting driver’s stress level and adjusting one or more environmental controls to the target settings. It would provide Ogawa’s system with enhanced capabilities of reduce the stress of the driver (Theisinger: [0086]).
As for claim 2, Ogawa-Theisinger discloses: wherein the value indicating the environment includes a room temperature in the room, the measurement unit includes a temperature sensor configured to measure the room temperature,
the first control unit includes an air conditioner configured to control the room temperature in the room, the environment model includes a room temperature model that is constructed using, as input data, a correspondence relationship between the behavior pattern in response to the stress of the individual and the room temperature and outputs a target value of the room temperature for suppressing the stress of the individual when a time-series change in the room temperature is input, and the second control unit controls the air conditioner and the room temperature measured by the temperature sensor approaches the target value of the room temperature acquired by inputting the time-series change in the room temperature into the room temperature model (Ogawa: [0040], The environmental information acquiring unit 101 acquires information about the temperature around a user and noise information indicating the magnitude of noise as environmental information. The environmental information acquiring unit 101 acquires information detected by a temperature sensor, for example, as the temperature information; Theisinger: [0029], controller 102 may adjust interior temperature control 138 to decrease a temperature of the cabin).
As for claim 3, Ogawa-Theisinger discloses: the value indicating the environment includes a humidity in the room, the measurement unit includes a humidity sensor configured to measure the humidity, the first control unit includes a humidifier configured to control humidity in the room, the environment model includes a humidity model that is constructed using, as input data, a correspondence relationship between the behavior pattern in response to the stress of the individual and the humidity and outputs a target value of the humidity for suppressing the stress of the individual when a time-series change in the humidity is input, and the second control unit controls the humidifier and the humidity measured by the humidity sensor approaches the target value of the humidity acquired by inputting the time-series change in the humidity into the humidity model (Ogawa: [0164], Using the humidity information and the brightness information acquired by the environmental information acquiring unit 101, the state estimation device 100 can estimate that the user is in an uncomfortable state due to dryness, a high humidity, a situation that is too bright, or a situation that is too dark; Theisinger: [0097], humidity sensors to measure the humidity content of the cabin).
As for claim 4, Ogawa-Theisinger discloses: wherein the value indicating the environment includes illuminance in the room, the measurement unit includes an illuminance sensor configured to measure the illuminance, the first control unit includes an illuminating instrument configured to control the illuminance in the room, the environment model includes an illuminance model that is constructed using, as input data, a correspondence relationship between the behavior pattern in response to the stress of the individual and the illuminance and outputs a target value of the illuminance for suppressing the stress of the individual when a time-series change in the illuminance is input, and the second control unit controls the illuminating instrument and the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor approaches the target value of the illuminance acquired by inputting the time-series change in the illuminance into the illuminance model (Ogawa: [0164], information about brightness detected by an illuminance sensor may be acquired; Theisinger: [0004], adjust a lighting of the vehicle).
As for claim 5, Ogawa-Theisinger discloses: the value indicating the environment includes a value indicating a volume of sound in the room, the measurement unit includes a microphone configured to measure the volume of the sound,
the first control unit includes a sound insulation unit configured to suppress entry of sound from the outside into the room, the environment model includes a noise model that is constructed using, as input data, a correspondence relationship between the behavior pattern in response to the stress of the individual and the value indicating the volume of the sound and outputs a target value of the value indicating the volume of the sound for suppressing the stress of the individual when a time-series change in the value indicating the volume of the sound is input, and the second control unit controls the sound insulation unit and the value indicating the volume of the sound measured by the microphone approaches the target value of the value indicating the volume of the sound acquired by inputting the time-series change in the value indicating the volume of the sound into the noise model (Ogawa: [0040], The environmental information acquiring unit 101 acquires information indicating the magnitude of sound collected by a microphone, for example, as the noise information. The environmental information acquiring unit 101 outputs the acquired environmental information to the discomfort determining unit 108 and the learning database 112; Theisubger: [0022], a noise level in the cabin of the vehicle; [0024], an audio volume control 132 of an audio system of the vehicle, an audio selector control 134 of the audio system; [0097], microphones to receive user input in the form of voice commands, to enable a user to conduct telephone calls, and/or to measure ambient noise in the cabin).
As per claim 7, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
5.. Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Theisinger as applied on claim 1, and further in view of Christopher Ricci (US Publication 20130144470 A1, hereinafter Ricci).
As for claim 6, Ogawa-Theisinger does not disclose an atmospheric pressure value, in another analogous art of managing climate control based on user’s state, Ricci discloses: the value indicating the environment includes an atmospheric pressure in the room, the measurement unit includes an atmospheric pressure sensor configured to measure the atmospheric pressure, the first control unit includes an atmospheric pressure adjustment instrument configured to control the atmospheric pressure in the room, the environment model includes an atmospheric pressure model that is constructed using, as input data, a correspondence relationship between the behavior pattern in response to the stress of the individual and the atmospheric pressure and outputs a target value of the atmospheric pressure for suppressing the stress of the individual when a time-series change in the atmospheric pressure is input, and the second control unit controls the atmospheric pressure adjustment instrument and the atmospheric pressure measured by the atmospheric pressure sensor approaches the target value of the atmospheric pressure acquired by inputting the time-series change in the atmospheric pressure into the atmospheric pressure model (Ricci: [0028], The climate control operation typically includes one or more of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, and air movement and one or more of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; [0037], A typical use of a climate control system is to alter the environmental comfort of an indoor environment. In a vehicle, climate control parameters or settings typically refer to air or contacted surface (e.g., seat and/or steering wheel) temperature, air pressure, fan speed (or air flow rate), (absolute and/or relative) humidity level, and degree or level of ultraviolet light penetration level into the vehicle interior (which may be controlled by polarization of windows, visor position, and the like); [0098], the automatically selected or occupant-recommended set of vehicle climate control parameters or settings is a function of plural sensed exterior climate parameters, such as temperature, (relative or absolute) humidity, air (or barometric) pressure).
Ogawa and Theisinger and Ricci are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing environment data based on user’s state in an indoor environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ogawa using the teachings of Ricci to include detecting driver’s stress level based on contextual information including air pressure. It would provide Ogawa’s system with enhanced capabilities of reduce the stress of the driver.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Sobhany (US Publication 20210261050) REAL-TIME CONTEXTUAL VEHICLE LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights