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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 13, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Japanese Patent No. JP 2024-006969, filed January 19, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 5, and 13 recite “a printed matter printed with a specific pattern is stuck onto an image-capturing location of the vehicle cabin forming panel” as part of the claimed vehicle. The specification fails to sufficiently describe what the printed matter material is and how the printed matter with a specific pattern is defined. The specification fails to state that the above “printed matter” and “specific pattern” is known in the vehicle cabin control arts. The specification fails to recite relevant prior art that describes how to discern what the “printed matter” and “specific pattern” are as mentioned in Applicant’s Specification for use controlling the interior conditions of a vehicle cabin. There are no working examples of the claimed “printed matter” and “specific pattern” in the Specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been required to perform undue experimentation to determine how to make and use the present vehicle cabin control since there is no description, example, prior art cited, or drawing cited in the original disclosure describing how the above claimed “printed matter” and “specific pattern” are determined for use in vehicle cabin control.
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 1-15 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.
As to claims 1, 14, and 15, the recitation “calculating an amount of water vapor in the vehicle cabin based on the first parameter and the second parameter” is vague and indefinite. The claim first obtains a first parameter related to an amount of water vapor entering and exiting a vehicle cabin, and then subsequently calculates an amount of water vapor in the vehicle cabin based on the first parameter and a second parameter related to condensation. It is unclear how to calculate the amount of water vapor as it appears self-referential and redundant in that the amount of water vapor has already been obtained so it is unclear how to calculate this second mention of an amount of water vapor. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1.
Additionally, as to claim 2, the recitation “a roof panel serving as the vehicle cabin forming panel in a space between the roof panel and an interior member located closer to the vehicle cabin than the roof panel is.” The claim attempts to define the structure of a vehicle interior as the space between a roof panel and itself which renders the relationship of the roof panel to the vehicle interior impossible to discern. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2
Additionally, as to claims 5 and 13, the recitation “highly thermally conductive material” is vague and indefinite The term “highly” appears subjective, i.e., what constitutes high as compared to other materials, and context/application specific. Applicant’s Specification is silent regarding what this material is rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as it is impossible to discern what is highly thermally conductive in this circumstance. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al., US 20250333023 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xu.
As to claim 1, Xu discloses an air conditioning control method for a vehicle comprising:
obtaining a first parameter related to an amount of water vapor entering inside of a vehicle cabin defined by a front windshield and a vehicle cabin forming panel, and an amount of water vapor exiting from the inside of the vehicle cabin (Humidity – See at least ¶27);
obtaining a second parameter related to condensation occurring on the vehicle cabin forming panel in the vehicle cabin (Risk of condensation – See at least Abstract);
calculating an amount of water vapor in the vehicle cabin based on the first parameter and the second parameter (Humidity – See at least ¶27); and
executing antifogging operation for the front windshield by an air conditioner that blows air-conditioning air into the vehicle cabin, based on the amount of water vapor (Actuator command – See at least Abstract; Air-conditioning control to reduce risk of condensation – See at least ¶97; Examiner notes the disclosed control is similarly based on water vapor as claimed because the risk of condensation is based on humidity, i.e., “amount of water vapor.”).
Independent claims 14 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory categories of invention.
As to claim 7, Xu discloses the air conditioner executes the antifogging operation when a dew point based on the amount of water vapor exceeds a temperature of the front windshield (Dewpoint in relation to temperature of windshield – See at least ¶101.
As to claims 8, and 10, Xu discloses the air conditioner executes, as the antifogging operation, at least one of increasing a volume of air-conditioning air blown toward the front windshield, raising a temperature of the air-conditioning air, and increasing a ratio of outside air in the air-conditioning air (Actuation to lower risk – See at least Abstract; Heating and cooling to mitigate condensation, i.e., raising temperature of air – See at least ¶93-94 ).
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 20250333023 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xu.
As to claim 2, Xu fails to explicitly disclose the second parameter is a parameter related to condensation occurring on a roof panel serving as the vehicle cabin forming panel in a space between the roof panel and an interior member located closer to the vehicle cabin than the roof panel is. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu and include the feature of performing the claimed condensation control with respect to a roof panel, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize the disclosure of Xu which is directed to controlling condensation on a glazed surface of a vehicle interior would apply to any orientation of a glazed surface, including a roof, as a roof is a typical feature of vehicles.
As to claims 3 and 11, Xu discloses the second parameter is related to an amount of condensation occurring on the vehicle cabin forming panel (Risk of condensation – See at least Abstract). Xu fails to explicitly disclose the amount of water vapor in the vehicle cabin is calculated to be smaller as the amount of condensation increases. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu and include the feature of the amount of water vapor in the vehicle cabin is calculated to be smaller as the amount of condensation increases, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art with a fundamental understanding of condensation would readily and unquestionably recognize condensation is a function of water being removed from air.
Claims 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 20250333023 A1, in view of Naserian et al., US 20230406063 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xu, and Naserian, respectively.
As to claims 4, and 12, Xu fails to explicitly disclose the second parameter related to the amount of condensation is obtained by processing a captured image of the vehicle cabin forming panel with condensation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu and include the feature of the second parameter related to the amount of condensation is obtained by processing a captured image of the vehicle cabin forming panel with condensation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Naserian teaches it is well-known and routine to use a camera as part of a vehicle control system to mitigate condensation, like the condensation mitigation of Xu (See at least Abstract of Naserian).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 20250333023 A1, in view of Hoke et al., US 20170356835 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xu, and Hoke, respectively.
As to claim 6, Xu discloses the first parameter includes a ventilation amount in the vehicle cabin, the number of occupants, and an absolute humidity of outside air (Number of occupants, humidity outside vehicle – See at least ¶43; Air flow rate, i.e., “ventilation amount” – See at least ¶191).
Xu fails to explicitly disclose a spatial volume in the vehicle cabin. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu and include the feature of a spatial volume in the vehicle cabin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Hoke teaches it is well-known and routine when managing the heating and cooling of a vehicle interior to consider vehicle interior spatial volume (See at least ¶9 Hoke).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 20250333023 A1, in view of Maeda et al., US 20190030997 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xu, and Maeda, respectively.
As to claim 9, Xu fails to explicitly disclose the front windshield has a water-absorbing antifogging film, and the air conditioner executes the antifogging operation when a water absorption amount of the antifogging film calculated based on the amount of water vapor exceeds a saturated moisture amount of the antifogging film. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu and include the feature of the front windshield has a water-absorbing antifogging film, and the air conditioner executes the antifogging operation when a water absorption amount of the antifogging film calculated based on the amount of water vapor exceeds a saturated moisture amount of the antifogging film, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Maeda teaches it is well-known and routine to use a windshield equipped with a water-absorbing antifogging film, and performing condensation control in response to condensation conditions of the water-absorbing antifogging film in the condensation control arts (See at least Abstract of Maeda).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668