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 Claims
Claims 1-5 of US Application No. 18/968,126, filed on 04 December 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 04 December 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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: “control device for controlling a movable part . . . configured to execute rainfall determination” 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. After reviewing the specification, the Examiner has identified the following corresponding structures:
control device – electronic control unit (see Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0008]-[0009]).
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 and 5 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 “the vehicle is equipped with a second movable part that does not assume the second state”. However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends recites “a movable part . . . is able to switch between a first state in which space inside of a vehicle cabin and space outside of the vehicle are disconnected and a second state in which the space inside of the vehicle cabin and the space outside of the vehicle are connected”. Claim 1 defines a moveable part as being switchable between a first state and a second state. Claim 4 introduces a first moveable part and a second movable part. However, the first and second moveable parts are still the moveable parts recited in claim 1 and are both subject to the limitations of claim 1, i.e., have a first state and a second state as defined in the claim. However, claim 4 subsequently eliminates the second state for the second moveable part, which directly contradicts the requirements of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it depends from claim 4, which is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over https://web.archive.org/web/20220122042046/https://github.com/teslamotors/light-show#readme (teslamotors/light show, “Tesla”) in view of Peterson et al. (US 2011/0190962 A1, “Peterson”).
Regarding claim 1, Tesla discloses a light show guide and teaches:
control device for controlling a movable part applied to a vehicle equipped with the movable part that is able to switch between a first state in which space inside of a vehicle cabin and space outside of the vehicle are disconnected and a second state in which the space inside of the vehicle cabin and the space outside of the vehicle are connected, [ ] (closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
Tesla fails to teach that is configured to execute rainfall determination processing for determining whether rainfall is occurring, wherein when determination is made that rainfall is occurring in the rainfall determination processing, the movable part is not controlled to the second state.
However, Peterson discloses a system and method for controlling power windows of a vehicle and teaches:
control device [ ] that is configured to execute rainfall determination processing for determining whether rainfall is occurring (at 104, exterior condition, e.g., rain, temperature, solar load, is monitored – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0033]), wherein when determination is made that rainfall is occurring in the rainfall determination processing, the movable part is not controlled to the second state (at 106, based on a measured valued from step 104 as measured by one or more condition sensors 60, 62, 64, determination is made if opening windows should be inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]; at 108, if the determination at 106 is ‘YES’, opening of power windows is inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light show of Tesla to determine rainfall and not control the movable part to the second state based on the determined rainfall, as taught by Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent rain from entering a vehicle through an open window (Peterson at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Tesla further teaches:
wherein the movable part includes at least one of a door and a power window (closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
Regarding claim 3, Tesla further teaches:
wherein
the vehicle further includes a speaker (music plays from the cabin speakers during the show – see at least ‘Closure channels’ at ‘Other notes’),
the control device is configured to execute particular processing of outputting music from the speaker, and also operating the movable part (music plays from the cabin speakers during the show – see at least ‘Closure channels’ at ‘Other notes’; during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
The combination of Tesla and Peterson further teaches:
when determination is made in the rainfall determination processing that rainfall is occurring, music is output from the speaker without controlling the movable part to the second state in the particular processing (at 106, based on a measured valued from step 104 as measured by one or more condition sensors 60, 62, 64, determination is made if opening windows should be inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]; at 108, if the determination at 106 is ‘YES’, opening of power windows is inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]; i.e., opening of windows is inhibited but there is no inhibition of music).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light show of Tesla to output music but no control the movable part to the second state, as taught by the combination of Tesla and Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the vehicle to run the light show (Tesla at ‘Running a custom show on a vehicle’) while preventing rain from entering a vehicle through an open window (Peterson at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Tesla further teaches:
wherein
the movable part is a first movable part (during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’),
the vehicle further is equipped with a second movable part that does not assume the second state (during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’),
the control device is configured to perform control to output music from the speaker, and also to operate the first movable part and the second movable part in the particular processing (music plays from the cabin speakers during the show – see at least ‘Closure channels’ at ‘Other notes’; during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’), and
[ ].
The combination of Tesla and Peterson further teaches:
when determination is made that rainfall is occurring in the rainfall determination processing, music is output from the speaker, and also the second movable part is operated, without controlling the first movable part to the second state in the particular processing (at 106, based on a measured valued from step 104 as measured by one or more condition sensors 60, 62, 64, determination is made if opening windows should be inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034]; at 108, if the determination at 106 is ‘YES’, opening of power windows is inhibited – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]; i.e., opening of windows is inhibited but there is no inhibition of music or movement of mirrors).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light show of Tesla to output music and operate the second moveable part but not control the first movable part to the second state, as taught by the combination of Tesla and Peterson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the vehicle to run the light show (Tesla at ‘Running a custom show on a vehicle’) while preventing rain from entering a vehicle through an open window (Peterson at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Tesla further teaches:
wherein the second movable part is a side mirror (during the show, closures, e.g., liftgates, mirrors, windows, doors, may be opened, danced, closed – see at least ‘Closure channels’).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666