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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a method and a system. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim 1 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A method for determining whether to heat or cool a surface, the method comprising:
determining a first heat transfer rate to or from the surface based on a first temperature applied thereto, the first temperature being associated with cabin air;
determining a second heat transfer rate to or from the surface based on a second temperature applied thereto, the second temperature being associated with a material layer;
estimating a temperature of the surface based on the first heat transfer rate and the second heat transfer rate;
obtaining a setpoint temperature; and
comparing the setpoint temperature to the estimated temperature of the surface.”
Wherein the claimed limitation are functions/processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind or are mathematical concepts. For example, a human using pen and paper, determining (calculating) heat transfer rates of a surface, estimating a temperature, obtaining (thinking) of a setpoint temperature, and then comparing the setpoint temperature to the estimated temperature of the surface. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The functions described by these limitations are also functions typical of generic computing components, and the functions performed or not performed may be entirely within the realm of computer functions
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim(s) 14 recites the following (underlined) additional limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A system for performing the method of Claim 1, the system comprising:
a surface, and
at least one thermal effector thermally influencing the surface.”
Wherein a surface merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. The at least one thermal effector is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using one or more generic components. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Regarding claim 14, the additional recitation of “a surface” and “at least one thermal effector” which is merely an object on which the method operates and does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-4 further recite determining steps, which as established above, are functions/processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind or are mathematical concepts and thus recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 5-6 further characterizes the previously recited abstract limitations (further characterizing the estimated temperature).
Claims 7-13 and 20 further recite at least one thermal effector, human-machine interface, a blower, and a containment device, which are merely objects on which the method operates and does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, claims 15-19, further characterize the previously recited additional elements, and further introduce fields of use (e.g., identification of particular vehicle components) and extra-solution activity (e.g., sending/receiving data - The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here)) and therefore do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kakade et al. (20180195911; hereinafter Kakade).
Regarding claim 1, Kakade teaches a method for determining whether to heat or cool a surface, the method comprising (Kakade: Abstract):
determining a first heat transfer rate to or from the surface based on a first temperature applied thereto, the first temperature being associated with cabin air (Kakade: “The cabin air temperature module 62 is configured to solve a heat balance equation including terms representing heat transfer from the HVAC module 30 and heat transfer by convection from interior surfaces of the cabin 14” ¶ 24);
determining a second heat transfer rate to or from the surface based on a second temperature applied thereto, the second temperature being associated with a material layer (Kakade: “The surface temperature module 64 is configured to estimate one or more other (second) interior surface temperatures ... For each surface, the geometry, orientation, optical properties and material properties are known and are stored in the memory 35” ¶ 35);
estimating a temperature of the surface based on the first heat transfer rate and the second heat transfer rate (Kakade: “the surface temperature control module 64 is configured to correlate the at least a first internal surface temperature of the cabin 14 to the one or more other interior surface temperatures using a determined heat transfer by the other interior surface by convection and a determined heat transfer by the other interior surface by solar absorption” ¶ 36);
obtaining a setpoint temperature (Kakade: “The cabin air temperature module 62 is configured to iterate these calculations to determine the change in cabin air temperature so that an absolute value for cabin air temperature can be determined” ¶ 64, “The cabin air temperature module 62 is configured to output the estimated cabin air temperature, which output may be used as a control input for the automatic climate control system 32 in order to appropriately set the settings of the HVAC module 30 to achieve a desired cabin air temperature” ¶ 66); and
comparing the setpoint temperature to the estimated temperature of the surface (Kakade: “the cabin air temperate is estimated. In one embodiment, the change of heat energy in the cabin interior is determined based on the net heat transfer by convection as estimated in step 104 from the interior surfaces of the cabin 14 and the heat transfer from the HVAC module 30 as estimated in step 102” ¶ 73, “The estimate of heat transfer by convection of step 104 may produce a value on a per unit area basis” ¶ 75).
Regarding claim 2, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining a third heat transfer rate to or from the surface based on a third temperature applied thereto, the third temperature being associated with an occupant; wherein the estimated temperature of the surface is further based on the third heat transfer rate (Kakade: “The heat balance equation may also include a term representing heat generated by one or more vehicle occupants” ¶ 25, see also ¶ 26).
Regarding claim 3, Kakade teaches The method according to Claim 2, wherein the method further comprises determining a fourth heat transfer rate to or from the surface based on a fourth temperature applied thereto, the fourth temperature being associated with thermal radiation; wherein the estimated temperature of the surface is further based on the fourth heat transfer rate (Kakade: “The solar load module 60 is configured to determine, surface by surface, the solar load on each of the interior surfaces. The solar load module 60 has as inputs physical cabin data from the physical cabin data module 68 and ambient solar radiation information in order to determine heat transfer by solar radiation for each of the interior surfaces” ¶ 42).
Regarding claim 4, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 3, wherein the method further comprises determining an occupancy status; wherein if the surface is occupied, at least the first and third heat transfer rates are employed to estimate the temperature of the surface (Kakade: ¶ 26, Note: Emphasis Q_generated); wherein if the surface is unoccupied, at least the first heat transfer rate is employed to estimate the temperature of the surface (Kakade: ¶ 36, Note: Emphasis on equation); and wherein the occupancy status determines the magnitude of an effect of the thermal radiation (Kakade: “The heat balance equation may also include a term representing heat generated by one or more vehicle occupants. The number of vehicle occupants may be assumed or determined based on an input from, for example, a seat belt sensor (or other means) indicating when a seat belt has been fastened” ¶ 25).
Regarding claim 5, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 4, wherein the estimated temperature of the surface is predictive of the effect of the first, second, third, or fourth heat transfer rates, or any combination thereof, on the surface during a time of a program cycle (Kakade: “the surface temperature module 64 is configured to correlate the sensed temperature of at least a first internal surface of the cabin 14 with one or more other (or second) interior surfaces. The other interior surface temperatures may be obtained by using linear correlations to the real-time, optionally corrected, data from one or more sensors” ¶ 32, “The correlation described above may be performed by the surface temperature module 64 based on the following equation for the transparent or glass interior surfaces: Tg=Tb+Toffset where Tg is the glass temperature estimate, Tb is a base temperature, and Toffset is the offset temperature obtained from an amount of heat exchanged by each glass with the surroundings (outside and inside the cabin 14)” ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 6, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 5, wherein the estimated temperature of the surface is further based on the setpoint temperature at steady state (Kakade: “The cabin air temperature module 62 is configured to output the estimated cabin air temperature, which output may be used as a control input for the automatic climate control system 32 in order to appropriately set the settings of the HVAC module 30 to achieve a desired cabin air temperature” ¶ 66, “Using the above described methods to estimate the cabin temperature and then responsively adjusting the HVAC module 30, the desired cabin temperature can be accurately achieved and tracked in real time” ¶ 77).
Regarding claim 7, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 5, wherein the estimated temperature of the surface is further based on the setpoint temperature at steady state (Kakade: “The temperature of the interior surfaces Ts,intr is obtained by way of feedback from the surface temperature module 64 and is taken as the last calculated value for Ts,intr. The breath level temperature Tbreath,fl is obtained by way of feedback from the cabin air temperature module 62 and is taken as the last calculated value for Tbreath,fl” ¶ 49).
Regarding claim 8, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 6, wherein at or around the setpoint temperature, at least one thermal effector is not operational and/or the temperature of the surface is estimated without consideration of a heat transfer rate relative to the at least one thermal effector (Kakade: “The solar load module 60 has as inputs physical cabin data from the physical cabin data module 68 and ambient solar radiation information in order to determine heat transfer by solar radiation for each of the interior surfaces. The physical cabin data may include glass orientation, surface areas and optical properties of the glasses including transmissivity and absorptivity to account for solar radiation” ¶ 42, Note: Wherein it can be seen that the temperature is determined without the HVAC in consideration).
Regarding claim 9, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 8, wherein at least one thermal effector influences heating or cooling of the surface (Kakade: “The two dimensional table may include heat transfer coefficients for each of the interior surfaces of the shell elements including the vehicle glasses and body elements, with different entries for each shell element depending upon an air distribution mode of the HVAC module 30. The three dimensional table may also include different heat transfer coefficients depending upon an air flow rate setting of the HVAC module 30” ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 12, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 11, wherein if the estimated temperature of the surface is greater than the setpoint temperature, the at least one thermal effector operates in a cooling mode (Kakade: “The automatic climate control system 32 may use the cabin temperature estimation as an input for controlling one or more air conditioning settings” ¶ 20, “The cabin air temperature module 62 is configured to output the estimated cabin air temperature, which output may be used as a control input for the automatic climate control system 32 in order to appropriately set the settings of the HVAC module 30 to achieve a desired cabin air temperature” ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 13, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 12, wherein the method further comprises controlling the at least one thermal effector by regulating power to the thermal effector and/or controlling a speed of a blower to achieve the setpoint temperature (Kakade: “The automatic climate control system 32 may use the cabin temperature estimation as an input for controlling one or more air conditioning settings (e.g. air flow rate, temperature, etc.)” ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 14, Kakade teaches a system for performing the method of Claim 1, the system comprising:
a surface (Kakade: “The automatic climate control system 32 includes one or more temperature sensors for obtaining a temperature a surface of the vehicle 12” ¶ 22), and
at least one thermal effector thermally influencing the surface (Kakade: “The cabin temperature estimation may be based on solving a heat balance equation with terms for heat flow by convention to an interior cabin 14 of the vehicle 12 and optionally at least one of heat flow from a heating, ventilating and cooling, HVAC, module 30 and heat generated by one or more occupants of the vehicle 12, as described further below. The automatic climate control system 32 may use the cabin temperature estimation as an input for controlling one or more air conditioning settings (e.g. air flow rate, temperature, etc.)” ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 15, Kakade teaches the system according to Claim 14, wherein the surface is on a vehicle component; wherein the vehicle component includes a steering wheel, a gear shifter, a seat, a headrest, a door panel, an instrument panel, a headliner, a center console, a leg panel, a floor, or any combination thereof (Kakade: “The major interior surfaces of the cabin 14 can include an interior surface of any one or more of: the roof 16, the windshield 18, the floor 20, the doors 22, the windows 24, the instrument panel 26 etc., as will be described further below” ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 16, Kakade teaches the system according to Claim 15, wherein the at least one thermal effector includes two or more thermal effectors that cooperate in thermally influencing the surface (Kakade: “A HVAC module 30 (or air conditioning unit), which is part of an automatic climate control system 32, is located behind the instrument panel 26. A blower 36 is fluidly connected to the HVAC module 30 to cause air flow through the module 30. The HVAC module 30 includes a HVAC controller 34 which includes the processor 33 and the memory 35” ¶ 21, Note: The air conditioning unit is one thermal effector and a blower is a second thermal effector).
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, 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) 10, 11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakade in view of Kadle et al. (20050257541; hereinafter Kadle).
Regarding claim 10, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 9,
However, Kakade remains silent regarding wherein if the estimated temperature of the surface is generally equal to the setpoint temperature, an operation mode of the at least one thermal effector is set to OFF.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kadle teaches wherein if the estimated temperature of the surface is generally equal to the setpoint temperature, an operation mode of the at least one thermal effector is set to OFF (Kadle: “at time t3, the seat assembly 22 has reached a desired or comfort temperature, Tthreshold, and the thermoelectric current, 1=1Qmax, should be regulated or turned off completely to maintain the desired Tseat=Tthreshold” ¶ 36).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the HVAC system of Kakade so that it also includes the element of turning off the at least one thermal effector, as taught by Kadle, in order to maintain desired comfort (Kadle: ¶ 35, 36).
Regarding claim 11, Kakade teaches the method according to Claim 10, ...
Additionally, Kakade discloses of heating, cooling, and ventilation, such as in paragraphs 72, 73, 74; however, Kakade remains silent regarding wherein if the estimated temperature of the surface is less than the setpoint temperature, the at least one thermal effector operates in a heating mode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kadle teaches wherein if the estimated temperature of the surface is less than the setpoint temperature, the at least one thermal effector operates in a heating mode (Kadle: “At some point comfort or desired temperature is reached, based upon an outlet air temperature, Tseat, of the thermo-electric device 34. At this time, further heating would continue slightly above the comfort temperature, Tthreshold, and then the thermoelectric device could be controlled via the current I by using pulse width modulation or decreasing current” ¶ 38).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the HVAC system of Kakade so that it also includes the element of explicitly operating in a heating mode, as taught by Kadle, in order to maintain desired comfort (Kadle: ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38).
Regarding claim 17, Kakade teaches the system according to Claim 16,
Although Kakade discloses heating and cooling in paragraph 20, Kakade fails to teach wherein the thermal effector includes a resistance element, a thermoelectric device, or both.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kadle teaches wherein the thermal effector includes a resistance element, a thermoelectric device, or both (Kadle: “An auxiliary air-conditioning device comprising a thermo-electric device” ¶ 19).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the HVAC system of Kakade so that it also includes the element of explicitly containing a thermoelectric device, as taught by Kadle, in order to maintain desired comfort (Kadle: ¶ 35, 36, 37, 38).
Regarding claim 18, Kakade in view of Kadle teaches the system according to Claim 17, wherein the at least one thermal effector conductively thermally communicates with the surface (Kakade: “the cabin temperature estimation may be based on solving a heat balance equation with terms for heat flow by convention to an interior cabin 14 of the vehicle 12 and optionally at least one of heat flow from a heating, ventilating and cooling, HVAC, module 30 and heat generated by one or more occupants of the vehicle 12, as described further below. The automatic climate control system 32 may use the cabin temperature estimation as an input for controlling one or more air conditioning settings (e.g. air flow rate, temperature, etc.)” ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 19, Kakade in view of Kadle teaches the system according to Claim 17,wherein the at least one thermal effector acts upon an airstream that convectively thermally communicates with the surface or convectively thermally communicates with an element that conductively communicates with the surface (Kakade: “A HVAC module 30 (or air conditioning unit), which is part of an automatic climate control system 32, is located behind the instrument panel 26. A blower 36 is fluidly connected to the HVAC module 30 to cause air flow through the module 30” ¶ 21, see also ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 20, Kakade in view of Kadle teaches the system according to Claim 19, wherein the system further comprises a containment device located within the vehicle component; and wherein the airstream flows into the containment device (Kakade: Fig. 1 Element 14, “the vehicle 12 includes a passenger compartment or cabin 14 ... A HVAC module 30 (or air conditioning unit), which is part of an automatic climate control system 32, is located behind the instrument panel 26. A blower 36 is fluidly connected to the HVAC module 30 to cause air flow through the module 30” ¶ 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Petrovski (20060130490) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle heating and cooling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights