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.
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: “refrigerating system” in claim 20.
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.
For the record, “refrigerating system” has been interpreted as comprising the corresponding structure described a para. 0033 of the specification, 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 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 4, 10-15, and 16-20 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “and or” in line 4 of the claim, rendering the claim unclear as to which is intended. For clarity, this limitation should read “and/or”.
Claims 10-15 recite method steps, but incorrectly depend from apparatus claim 8. They also refer to various features not recited in claim 8. It is believed that claims 10-15 were intended to depend from independent claim 9, rather than from claim 8. For purposes of compact prosecution, claims 10-15 have been examined based on this interpretation. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
Claim 16 recites “air temperature T” at line 5 of the claim. Since the “T” is never further used in the claims it is unclear whether it is intentional, and should be removed from the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a plurality of servo motors operatively coupled to a respective one of the plurality of air vents…”. As written, this appears grammatically incorrect with respect to how “respective” is applied. The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to more properly read “a plurality of servo motors each respectively operatively coupled to a corresponding one of the plurality of air vents…”.
Claims 17-20 are also rejected since they depend from claim 16.
Claim 19 recites “wherein blower” in line 1 of the claim. This limitation should be corrected to read “wherein the blower”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Frank et al. (US 2017/0088098 A1).
As per claim 1, Frank et al. disclose a vehicle AC control system comprising:
at least one heat mapping sensor (infrared imaging module 1202) ;
at least one position sensor 1212;
at least one temperature sensor (para. 0195; etc.); and
at least one processor 1204 communicatively coupled to receive inputs from the at least one heat mapping sensor, the at least one position sensor, and the at least one temperature sensor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to direct airflow within the vehicle based on the inputs (para. 0165; etc.).
As per claim 4, Frank et al. disclose wherein the processor of the AC control system receives input variables from the heat mapping sensor, the at least one position sensor, and the at least one temperature sensor, and determines output variables based on the input variables for at least one of air vent positioning, air vent air flow speed, and or refrigerant flow rate (para. 0165; etc.).
As per claim 5, Frank et al. disclose wherein the heat mapping sensor is an infrared thermal imaging camera1202 (para. 0154; etc.).
As per claim 6, Frank et al. disclose wherein the at least one heat mapping sensor is mounted on a driver side location, a passenger side location, a rear vehicle location, or a combination thereof (para. 13A; etc.).
As per claim 7, Frank et al. disclose wherein the at least one heat mapping sensor is configured to provide heat mapping of a single passenger or multiple passengers (para. 13A; etc.).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Martinez (US 2005/0103876 A1).
As per claim 9, Martinez et al. disclose a method of controlling thermal comfort of a passenger in a vehicle, comprising: identifying an out of range temperature location on at least one passenger, directing air flow from at least one air vent to the out of range temperature location, wherein the air flow from the at least one air vent continues until a target temperature is reached, wherein identifying an out of range temperature location comprises detecting an out of range temperature location through at least one temperature sensor within the vehicle (Abstract; para, 0007; etc.).
As per claim 10, Martinez et al. do not teach wherein identifying an out of range temperature location comprises providing input variables from the heat mapping sensor, the at least one position sensor, and the at least one temperature sensor, to a processor of an AC unit of the motor vehicle. Frank et al. using providing input variables from the heat mapping sensor, the at least one position sensor, and the at least one temperature sensor, to a processor of an AC unit of the motor vehicle to control airflow within the vehicle (para. 0165; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use these combined sensors within the system of Martinez et al. to fully determine the position and temperatures of the various vehicle temperature zones.
As per claim 11, Martinez disclose wherein directing airflow from at least one air vent comprises determining output variables from a processor 401 of an AC unit, wherein the output variables comprise air vent positioning, air vent air flow speed, or refrigerant flow rate (paras. 0024, 0027; etc.).
As per claim 13, Martinez discloses wherein the at least one heat mapping sensor is configured to provide heat mapping of a single passenger or multiple passengers (Fig. 2: infrared cameras 201, 202; etc.).
As per claim 14, Martinez discloses identifying an additional out of range temperature location on at least one passenger, once a target temperature is reached (Abstract; para. 0007; etc.).
As per claim 15, Martinez discloses wherein the at least one heat mapping sensor is mounted on a driver side location, a passenger side location, a rear vehicle location, or a combination thereof (para. 0023; Fig. 2; etc.).
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, 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0301767 A1).
As per claim 2, Frank et al. disclose controlling the air flow direction based on instructions from the at least one processor and the inputs (para. 0165; etc.), but do not teach the vent being operated by a servo motor. Alexander et al. teach operating the direction of a vehicle vents 16 by a servo motor 122 (paras. 0005, 0007, 0035-0038; 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 the vents of Frank et al. via a servo motor as a simple mechanical linkage to drive the vane movement.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. in view of Martinez.
As per claim 3, Frank et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is programmed to identify an out of range temperature location on at least one passenger based on the inputs, and direct air flow from at least one air vent to the out of range temperature location. Martinez teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to identify an out of range temperature location on at least one passenger based on the inputs, and direct air flow from at least one air vent to the out of range temperature location (Abstract; para. 0007; 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 the vents of Frank et al. for the purpose of efficiently cooling/heating only the areas where it is required.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. in view of Wijaya et al. (US 2011/0166747 A1).
As per claim 8, Frank et al. do not teach wherein the at least one position sensor comprises a LIDAR sensor. Wijaya et al. teaches using a LIDAR sensor as a position sensor (para. 0026; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use LIDAR within the system of Frank et al. for the purpose of taking advantage of measurement accuracies and efficiencies such sensing provides.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0301767 A1).
As per claim 12, Martinez discloses wherein directing air flow from at least one air vent to the out of range temperature location (Abstract; para. 0007; etc.), but does not teach the controlling being performed via a servo motor coupled to at least one air vent. Alexander et al. teach operating the direction of a vehicle vent 16 by a servo motor 122 (paras. 0005, 0007, 0035-0038; 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 the vents of Martinez via a servo motor as a simple mechanical linkage to drive the vane movement.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. in view of Alexander et al. and Martinez.
As per claim 16, Frank et al. disclose an AC control system for a vehicle comprising:
a heat mapping sensor (infrared camera 1202) configured to generate a thermal map of a location within the vehicle;
a position sensor 1212 configured to identify the location within the vehicle;
a temperature sensor (para. 0195; etc.) configured to detect an air temperature T within the vehicle;
a plurality of air vents for directing air flow from a blower (para. 0166); and
a processor 1204 configured to receive input data from the heat mapping sensor, the position sensor, and the temperature sensor.
Frank et al. do not teach: a blower; a plurality of servo motors operatively coupled to a respective one of the plurality of air vents, wherein the plurality of servo motors are configured to adjust an orientation of the plurality of air vents; or wherein, in response to input data the processor is programmed to determine an out of range temperature location and to control at least one of the plurality of servo motors for adjusting the orientation of at least one of the plurality of air vents and directing the air flow from the at least one of the plurality of air vents towards the out of range temperature location.
Regarding the servo motors, Alexander et al. teach operating the direction of a vehicle vents 16 by a servo motor 122 (paras. 0005, 0007, 0035-0038; 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 the vents of Frank et al. via a servo motor as a simple mechanical linkage to drive the vane movement.
Regarding the system comprising a blower, Martinez teaches a fan used in conjunction with the vents (paras. 0004, 0019, 0029; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a blower in the system of Frank et al. for the same purpose of controllably moving conditioned air into the vehicle cabin.
Regarding wherein in response to input data the processor is programmed to determine an out of range temperature location and to control at least one of the plurality of servo motors for adjusting the orientation of at least one of the plurality of air vents and directing the air flow from the at least one of the plurality of air vents towards the out of range temperature location, Martinez teaches wherein the at least one processor is programmed to identify an out of range temperature location on at least one passenger based on the inputs, and direct air flow from at least one air vent to the out of range temperature location (Abstract; para. 0007; 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 the vents of Frank et al. for the purpose of efficiently cooling/heating only the areas where it is required. The use of servo motors would again have been obvious for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph.
As per claim 19, Frank et al. do not teach wherein the blower is driven by a blower motor and the processor is programmed to control a flow rate of the air flow from the blower by adjusting an output of the blower motor. Martinez teaches wherein the blower is driven by a blower motor and the processor is programmed to control a flow rate of the air flow from the blower by adjusting an output of the blower motor (paras. 0004, 0019, 0029; 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 blower within the system of Frank et al. for the same purpose of controllably moving conditioned air into the vehicle cabin.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. in view of Alexander et al. and Martinez, and further in view of Wu (US 2020/0141354 A1).
As per claim 17, Frank et al. do not teach wherein the plurality of air vents include an air nozzle having a flap and the processor is programmed to control an orientation of the flap for adjusting a flow rate of the air flow from the plurality of vents. Wu teaches a nozzle air flow direction device comprising flaps for controlling airflow direction as being known in the art (para. 0002; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use a nozzle/flap arrangement within the system of Frank et al. for the purpose of controllably directing the airflow as desired.
As per claim 18, Frank et al. do not teach wherein the air nozzle is a thrust vector nozzle. Wu et al. teach wherein the air nozzle is a thrust vector nozzle (title; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use a thrust vector nozzle within the system of Frank et al. for the purpose of controllably directing the airflow as desired.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. in view of Alexander et al. and Martinez, and further in view of Macneille et al. (US 2020/0062074 A1).
As per claim 20, Frank et al. do not teach further comprising a refrigerating system, wherein the processor is programmed to control a flow of a refrigerant within the refrigerating system. Macneille et al. teach a vehicle vent control arrangement further comprising a refrigerating system, wherein the processor is programmed to control a flow of a refrigerant within the refrigerating system (para. 0064; 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 refrigerant flow within a refrigerating cycle in the system of Frank et al. for the purpose or managing the degree of cooling provided to the vehicle cabin as desired.
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
Prosecution Insights