DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/21/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 3 have been amended and claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by Hashida and 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Cristante (details below). Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4 and 6 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection (under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by Hashida and 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Cristante; details below) are made and it does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hashida et al. (US PUB. 20200086926 A1; hereinafter, “Hashida”).
Regarding claim 1, Hashida discloses: a vehicle (“vehicle”, figs. 1-3 and ‘Abstract’) comprising:
a vehicle body frame (“vehicle front portion structure”; ‘Abstract’); an air conditioner unit including an evaporator (“AC”, [0032], note that: evaporator is the part of air conditioning unit where refrigerant absorbs heat from the space being cooled.)
a prime mover (“a motor 42m that is a front-wheel-drive drive source”; [0032] is considered as prime mover)
a radiator (radiator 50, fig. 1) configured to exchange heat between outside air and a first refrigerant (“water”) that cools the prime mover [ para. 0035 teaches: “the water-cooled condenser 54 and the radiator 50 are interconnected by pipes 52 (not shown in fig. 1) for circulating the coolant”; thus, a radiator configured to exchange heat between outside air and a first refrigerant that cools the prime mover]; and
a condenser (“condenser 54”) configured to exchange heat between the outside air and a second refrigerant (“refrigerant on compressor 46” [0035]) that flows through the evaporator (via compressed refrigerant in the air conditioner compressor 46 [0035])
wherein the vehicle body frame (“vehicle front portion structure”) includes a tubular frame (“18 with 20, fig. 1 and [0024]) extending in a vehicle width direction in a tubular shape [para. 0026 teaches: “the cross member 20 interconnects the front-end portions 16A of the right and left pair of front side members 16 in the vehicle width direction” and fig. 1 shows tubular in shape], and the air conditioner unit (“AC”) is mounted to the tubular frame (18) via a stay (rear member 16),
the stay (16, [0022]) includes a tubular portion (16A portion) extending in the vehicle width direction (left and right 16; thus, extending in the vehicle width direction), and a plate portion (plate surface portion of 16, fig. 1) having a board shape (para 0022 teaches that cross-sectional shape of plate surface portion 16 is orthogonal to the vehicle front and rear direction and is substantially rectangular; thus, board shape) and extending in an upper-lower direction (figs. 1-3) and the vehicle width direction (left to right, fig. 1), and
the plate portion (portion of 16) is configured to cover (fig. 1) at least a portion of a front (fig. 1 shows a portion of a front via 36) of the air conditioner unit (AC that includes compressor 46) when viewed from a front side of the vehicle (arrow pointing FR in fig. 1), and at least a portion of the plate portion is disposed behind the radiator (50) and the condenser (54) and is disposed at a position overlappinq the radiator and the condenser [fig. 1 shows a portion of the plate portion is disposed behind 50 and 52 and overlapping the radiator and condenser] when viewed from the front side of the vehicle (arrow pointing FR in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hashida further discloses that the vehicle wherein a length of an upper end portion of the plate portion (plate surface portion of 16) in the vehicle width direction (fig. 1) is larger than a length of a lower end portion of the plate portion in the vehicle width direction [ para. 0022 teaches that side members 16 (plate surface portion of 16) each have a closed cross-sectional structure whose cross-sectional shape orthogonal to the vehicle front and rear direction is substantially rectangular; note that any cross-sectional shape taken orthogonal to the vehicle front-rear direction and if it is rectangular, an upper end portion of the cross section extends wider in the vehicle width direction than a lower end portion; thus, upper end portion of the plate portion in the vehicle width direction is larger than a length of a lower end portion of the plate portion in the vehicle width direction.]
Regarding claim 6, Hashida further discloses that the tubular frame (18) is provided with at least one extension portion (20A, fig. 1 and [0026]) extending from (fig. 1) the tubular frame (18), the stay (16) is fixed to the extension portion (via gusset 26G).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Cristante et al. (US 20020063003 A1; hereinafter, “Cristante”).
Regarding claim 4, Hashida further discloses that the stay (16) is fixed to the tubular frame (18 via gusset 26G, fig. 1). Hashida doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that an elastic member interposed between the stay and the tubular frame; however,
Cristante in another pre-assembled front unit for motor vehicles, similar to Hashida teaches that an elastic member (44, [0017]) interposed between the stay (40) and the tubular frame (tubular distributor 24, fig. 1) [ para. 0017 teaches that each supporting plate 40 is equipped with a pair of holes 42 (fig. 6) in which an elastomer material block 44 with a hole 46 is inserted. The holes 46 of which plate 40 receive the lower pins 20, 26 of the condensers and the radiator with a slight interference]. It should be noted that it is well known to incorporate elastomeric vibration isolation brackets and structural frame, particularly in HVAC front modules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastic member between the stay and the tubular frame as taught by Cristante into the gusset of Hashida with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously reduce vibration transmission and improve noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) characteristics. Such modification represents a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions, yielding no unexpected result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20020068521 A1 to Hisashi discloses: the blower case and the air conditioning case are disposed to be supported by and to be fixed to the supporting member.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu, Valentin can be reached on 571-272-6265. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights