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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Fig. 4)” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. Further, the labeling of Temp3 in figure 3A appears to be misplaced and not aligned with the chart. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
In claim 1 line 2, the recited limitation “the vehicle occupant”, “the weather outside of the vehicle” in line 5, “the vehicle compartment climate inside” are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the recited limitation a boosted vehicle compartment temperature” in line 15 is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the boosted vehicle compartment temperature recited or if this is a different boosted vehicle compartment temperature. Claim 8 appears to be rejected for the same reason.
In claim 2 line 3, the recited limitation a destination location” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to destination location recited previously or if this is a different destination location. Claim 9 appears to be rejected for the same reason.
In claim 5 line 5, the recited limitation “the end of the predetermined time” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 12 appears to be rejected for the same reason.
In claim 6 lines 2-3, the recited limitation “the system” and “the desired boosted vehicle compartment” are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 13 appears to be rejected for the same reason.
In claim 7 lines 3-4, the recited limitation “the current vehicle compartment climate” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 14 appears to be rejected for the same reason.
In claim 15 line 5, the recited limitation “the processing circuitry” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. Independent claims recite determine a first temperature of the weather outside of the vehicle; determine a second temperature of the vehicle compartment climate inside of the vehicle, a determination that the first temperature is lower than the second temperature, and a determination that the first temperature is higher than the second temperature. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processing circuitry”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as temperatures of a destination of a vehicle and outside temperatures and temperature inside the vehicle could determine a first temperature of the weather outside of the vehicle; determine a second temperature of the vehicle compartment climate inside of the vehicle, a determination that the first temperature is lower than the second temperature, and a determination that the first temperature is higher than the second temperature. The mere nominal recitation of “processing circuitry” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of adjust the vehicle compartment climate by increasing the temperature inside of the vehicle to a third temperature that is higher than the second temperature while approaching a destination location to achieve a boosted vehicle compartment temperature that is offset from the second temperature; adjust the vehicle compartment climate by decreasing the temperature inside of the vehicle to a fourth temperature that is lower than the second temperature while approaching the destination location to achieve a boosted vehicle compartment temperature that is offset from the second temperature, and processing circuitry. The adjustment steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a processing circuitry is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even 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.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the adjustment steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
The dependent claims do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obert et al (US 20200062078 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Obert discloses a vehicular system for controlling a vehicle compartment climate in order to achieve a comfort experience for the vehicle occupant when the vehicle occupant is leaving the vehicle (see at least [0061]), the system comprises: a processing circuitry configured to: - determine a first temperature of the weather outside of the vehicle (see at least [0061], temperature profile 68); - determine a second temperature of the vehicle compartment climate inside of the vehicle (see at least [0049], 0051], [0056], and [0058], temperature of the air of the interior 12); and - in a determination that the first temperature is lower than the second temperature, adjust the vehicle compartment climate by increasing the temperature inside of the vehicle to a third temperature that is higher than the second temperature while approaching a destination location to achieve a boosted vehicle compartment temperature that is offset from the second temperature (see at least [0061], “The concept is for the controller 26 to control the climate system 22 in a manner that prepares the user 32 of the vehicle 10 for the temperature profile 68 of the destination location 56. If the temperature profile 68 of the destination location 56 is “cold” (i.e., assumed to be colder than a comfortable ambient temperature), then it can be assumed that the user 32 exiting the vehicle 10 and entering the destination location 56 will become “cold,” and, thus, the controller 26 controls the climate system 22 in a manner to warm the user 32 before arriving at the destination location 56. For example, if the destination location 56 is assigned a categorization 66 as a “movie theater” and thus assigned a temperature profile 68 of “cold,” then the controller 26 can activate the heating element 40 and activate the blower 38 to direct warmed air into the interior 12 to heat the user 32 of the vehicle 10 before the user 32 arrives at the destination location 56.”. Obert discloses increasing the temperature of the interior of the vehicle to a pre-set temperature (third temperature) when the temperature at the destination is lower than an ambient comfortable temperature. Since the system triggers increasing the temperature inside the vehicle. This implies that the interior temperature was not at the comfortable ambient temperature.); and in a determination that the first temperature is higher than the second temperature, adjust the vehicle compartment climate by decreasing the temperature inside of the vehicle to a fourth temperature that is lower than the second temperature while approaching the destination location to achieve a boosted vehicle compartment temperature that is offset from the second temperature (see at least [0061], “if the temperature profile 68 of the destination location 56 is “warm” (i.e., assumed to be warmer than a comfortable ambient temperature) then it can be assumed that the user 32 exiting the vehicle 10 and entering the destination location 56 will become “warm” at the destination location 56, and, thus, the controller 26 controls the climate system 22 in a manner to cool the user 32 before arriving at the destination location 56. For example, if the destination location 56 is assigned a categorization 66 of “bakery” or “tanning salon” (or some other “warm” place) and thus assigned a temperature profile of “hot,” then the controller 26 can activate the cooling element and activate the blower 38 to direct cooled air into the interior 12 to cool the user 32 of the vehicle 10 before the user 32 arrives at the destination location 56. The controller 26 can provide more weight to the location data 52 (specifically the temperature profile 68 of the destination location 56) than to the commands 50 of the user 32 regarding pre-set temperature, in order to warm the user 32 or cool the user 32 before reaching the “cold” or “warm” destination location 56, respectively.”. Obert discloses decreasing the temperature of the interior of the vehicle to a pre-set temperature (fourth temperature) when the temperature at the destination is higher than an ambient comfortable temperature. Since the system triggers decreasing the temperature inside the vehicle. This implies that the interior temperature was not at the comfortable ambient temperature.).
With respect to claim 2, Obert discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: - determine a destination location; and determine an estimated time of arrival at the destination location (see at least [0061-0062], [0065], and [0073]).
With respect to claim 3, Obert discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: - determine that the vehicle is approaching the destination location (see at least [0061-0062], [0065], and [0073]).
With respect to claim 4, Obert discloses wherein in a determination that the vehicle is determined to arrive at the destination location within a predetermined period of time, adjust the vehicle compartment climate while approaching the destination location during the predetermined period of time to achieve the boosted vehicle compartment temperature after the predetermined period of time when the vehicle is determined to have arrived at the destination location (see at least [0061-0062], [0065], and [0073]).
With respect to claim 5, Obert discloses wherein in a determination that the vehicle is determined to arrive at the destination location within a predetermined period of time, adjust the vehicle compartment climate while approaching the destination location during the predetermined period of time to achieve the boosted vehicle compartment temperature at a certain point in time before the end of the predetermined period of time (see at least [0061-0062], [0065], and [0073]).
With respect to claim 6, Obert discloses wherein the predetermined period of time is set via a user interface by user input, or the predetermined period of time is determined by the system in order to achieve the desired boosted vehicle compartment climate within the predetermined period of time (see at least [0061-0062], [0065], and [0073]).
With respect to claim 7, Obert discloses wherein adjusting the current vehicle compartment climate to the boosted vehicle compartment temperature is initiated via a user interface by input by a vehicle occupant at any time and/or wherein adjusting the current vehicle compartment climate to the boosted vehicle compartment temperature is terminated via a user interface by input by a vehicle occupant at any time (see at least [0050] and [0075]).
With respect to claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. As such, claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, and 7 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 15, it is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 8. As such, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 8 and is incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights