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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on July 29, 2026.
Receipt and entry of the amendments to the specification and to the claims filed on July 29, 2026 are acknowledged.
The amendment filed on July 29, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to paragraph [0059] of the specification which newly specify that the first row is where a driver’s seat is installed and that the second row is located behind the first row. Note that the original disclosure fails to even mention a driver’s seat installed in the first row with the second row being behind the first row.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed on July 29, 2026, applicant stated that “the first row refers to the row where the driver’s seat is installed, and the second row refers to the row located behind the first row”, and has referenced paragraphs [0070] and [0083] as support for the aforementioned statement. However, neither the referenced paragraphs [0070] and [0083] nor any of the rest of the original specification mention that the first row and the second row clearly refer to rows of seats in a vehicle. Without any evidence to support applicant’s aforementioned claim, applicant’s remarks are not found to be persuasive.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of the first species or the embodiment characterized by the second row heating flow path being formed on a surface facing a dash panel and connected to a second row duct for supplying conditioned air to a second row (readable on claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 19) in the reply filed on September 23, 2025 was acknowledged and the traversal arguments were addressed in the Office action mailed on December 30, 2025. Because the requirement was still deemed proper, the requirement was made final on December 30, 2025.
Claim 10 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected second species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 23, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims: a second row located behind a first row where a driver’s seat is installed as recited in claim 3 as amended and in all claims depending therefrom; and, a blower duct connected to the housing lower than the evaporator core as recited in claim 19. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits and speculative applications of the invention (i.e., in the first sentence, “that can simplify air flow path therein and occupy a small installation space”), because it is replete with grammatical and idiomatic informalities, including missing words (i.e., in each of “an internal condenser provided the evaporator core” and “a high voltage PTC provided the internal condenser”, one or more words are missing immediately before and after the term “provided”), because it is written in a run-on and unclear fashion, and because it contains unclear and generally incomprehensible phrases (i.e., “provided in parallel with the ground within a predetermined angular range to the ground” and “provided in parallel with the ground within a predetermined angular range from the ground” fail to clearly set forth the intended structural interrelationships intended to be encompassed thereby). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “flew through the evaporator core” in each of paragraph [0005], paragraph [0024] (both occurrences), paragraph [0064], paragraph [0066], and paragraph [0079] should be replaced with “which has flowed through the evaporator core” or similar (i.e., note that the word “flew” is the past tense of the verb “fly” and not of the verb “flow”); “to flow the internal condenser” in paragraph [0005] should be replaced with “to flow through the internal condenser”; “through which air flew” in paragraph [0015] (both occurrences) should be replaced with “through which air flows”; “for distributing and guiding air flew” in paragraph [0015] should be replaced with “for distributing and guiding air flow”; “air flew
through the evaporator core” in paragraph [0055] should be replaced with “air flow through the evaporator core”; “guides air flew” in paragraph [0059] should be replaced with “guides air flow”; and, “flow through the second row cooling flow path” in paragraph [0079] should be replaced with “flows through the second row cooling flow path”. Applicant is advised to carefully check the entire specification for additional idiomatic and/or grammatical informalities and to correct the same.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed on July 29, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to paragraph [0059] of the specification which newly specify that the first row is where a driver’s seat is installed and that the second row is located behind the first row. Note that the original disclosure fails to even mention a driver’s seat installed in the first row with the second row being behind the first row.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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: “heating unit” appearing in claim 1 and in all claims depending therefrom.
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.
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 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 3 through 9 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 has been amended after filing to recite that the second row is “located behind a first row where a driver’s seat is installed”. However, the originally filed disclosure fails to even mention either that (a) the second row is provided behind the first row or that (b) a driver’s seat is installed in the first row. In fact, the originally filed disclosure fails to even clearly suggest that the first row and the second row necessarily relate to the location of the driver’s seat or other seats in any way. Therefore, it does not appear that applicant had, at or before the time of the effective filing date of the instant application, possession of the HVAC apparatus as now recited in claims 3 through 9 including the aforementioned newly added limitations. The aforementioned newly added limitations therefore constitute impermissible new matter.
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 through 9 and 11 through 19 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, the term “flew” is used throughout the claims in generally idiomatically and grammatically informal ways. Each occurrence of the term “flew” in claims 3, 8, and 14 should be replaced with “flow”.
In claim 1, the limitation “air conditioning” is followed by “(HVAC)” in parenthesis, but it is not entirely clear whether the acronym in parenthesis is intended to be included or excluded by the claim, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. It is recommended that all terms in the claims be written out in full.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation “the ground” (three occurrences in base claim 1), thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Also, for example, it is not clear at all which structural relationships are intended to be encompassed by the limitations “in parallel with the ground within a predetermined first angular range with the ground” and “in parallel with the ground within a predetermined second angular range” in base claim 1 and in all claims depending therefrom, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. Not only is not clear what is intended to be encompassed by “the ground”, but it is also unclear exactly how a three-dimensional element (i.e., an evaporator core and/or a heating unit) is to be “in parallel” with another element (i.e., the ground); note that only lines and surfaces can be clearly in parallel with each other, whereas only surfaces or lines of three-dimensional elements can be considered to be clearly in parallel with each other. Secondly, the intended meaning of “in parallel…within a predetermined…angular range” appearing in the aforementioned limitations is also not at all clear. Lastly, it is not entirely clear how the latter of the aforementioned limitations is different from the former of the aforementioned limitations. As a whole, the aforementioned limitations are generally incomprehensible, thus rendering the claims further indefinite.
Furthermore, the terms “second row” and “first row” appearing in claims 3 through 9 and in claims 14 and 15 add indefiniteness to the claims because it is not entirely clear which elements constitute the first row and the second row, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claims.
In claim 3, the term “therethrough” in line 6 of the claim fails to clearly refer back to a particular previously recited element in the claims, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
The term “upper” in claims 11, 14, and all claims depending therefrom is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the relative locations of the housing surface and of the evaporator core, this term renders the same unclear and the claims further indefinite.
In claim 16, the limitation “Positive Temperature Coefficient” is followed by “(PTC)” in parenthesis, but it is not entirely clear whether the acronym in parenthesis is intended to be included or excluded by the claim, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. It is recommended that all terms in the claims be written out in full in lieu of using acronyms.
Any claim not specifically referred to is at least rejected as being rejected on a rejected claim.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 9, 11 through 15, and 17 through 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanaumi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,376,037 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses an HVAC apparatus 200 for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a housing or casing 202; an evaporator core 208 provided inside the housing or casing 202 in parallel with the ground within a predetermined first angular range with the ground; and a heating unit or heater core 210 provided over the evaporator core 208, wherein the evaporator core 208 and the heating unit or heater core 210 are provided in parallel with the ground within a predetermined second angular range.
With regard to claim 2, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the predetermined first angular range is a first acute angle and the predetermined second angular range is a second acute angle.
With regard to claim 3, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a second/middle or rear row heating flow path through which air flew through the heating unit or heater core 210 flows toward a second/middle or rear row, located behind a first/front row where a driver's seat is installed, is formed inside the housing or casing 202, and wherein a second/middle or rear row cooling flow path through which air flew through the evaporator core 208 flows toward the second/middle or rear row, bypassing the heating unit or heater core 210 without passing therethrough, is formed inside the housing or casing 202. See column 10, lines 7 through 15).
With regard to claim 4, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein a second/middle or rear row temperature door for opening or closing the second/middle or rear row heating flow path is provided in the second/middle or rear row heating flow path.
With regard to claim 5, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the second/middle or rear row heating flow path and the second/middle or rear row cooling flow path are formed on a surface facing a dash panel and connected to a second row/middle or rear duct 296/298 for supplying conditioned air to a second/middle or rear row (i.e., see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 6, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein a second/middle or rear row opening and closing door 300 for opening or closing the second/middle or rear row duct 296/298 is provided at a portion where the second/middle or rear row duct 296/298 is connected in the housing or casing 202 (i.e., see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 7, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the second/middle or rear row duct 296/298 for supplying the conditioned air to the second/middle or rear row is connected to the housing or casing 202 and is connected to a surface of the housing or casing 202 facing the dash panel (i.e., see Figure 2).
With regard to claim 8, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein a guide or dividing wall 287 for distributing and guiding the air flew through the evaporator core 208 to the first/front row or the second/middle or rear row is formed at a front end portion of the heating unit or heater core 210 (i.e., see Figure 2; also see column 8, lines 62 to 67, and column 9, lines 1 to 7).
With regard to claim 9, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second/middle or rear row cooling flow path is formed between the guide or dividing wall 287 and the evaporator core 208.
With regard to claim 11, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further including: a defrost door 262 and a defrost outlet 260 formed on an upper surface of the housing or casing 202 and configured to discharge conditioned air into a windshield and open or close with the defrost door 262; and a vent door 244 and a vent outlet 242 formed on the upper surface of the housing or casing 202 and configured to discharge conditioned air into an interior of the vehicle and open or close with the vent door 244, wherein the evaporator core 208 and the heating unit or heater core 210 are disposed under the defrost outlet 260 and the vent outlet 242 (i.e., see columns 11 through 14).
With regard to claim 12, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further including a floor door and a floor outlet formed on a side of the housing or casing 202 and configured to discharge conditioned air and open or close with the floor door (i.e., see column 13, lines 9 through 17).
With regard to claim 13, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further including a temperature door 294/288/286/238 provided between the evaporator core 208 and the heating unit or heater core 210.
With regard to claim 14, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein a first/front row heating flow path through which air flew through the evaporator core 208 flows to the heating unit or heater core 210 and a first/front row cooling flow path through which air flew through the evaporator core 208 bypasses the heating unit or heater core 210 are formed on an upper portion of the evaporator core 208.
With regard to claim 15, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the temperature door 294/288/286/238 is configured to selectively open the first/front row heating flow path and the first/front row cooling flow path.
With regard to claim 17, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the housing or casing 202 is formed as an inclined surface (i.e., see inclined/sloping bottom of housing or casing 202 in the vicinity of drain 226b(a) in Figure 2).
With regard to claim 18, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein a drain 226b(a) is formed at a bottom portion of the inclined surface (i.e., see Figure 2 as above).
With regard to claim 19, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further including a blower 212 and a blower duct formed by blower case 284 through which air blown from the blower flows to the housing or casing 202, wherein the blower duct formed by blower case 284 is connected to the housing or casing 202 lower than the evaporator core 208 (i.e., as shown in at least Figure 2).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanaumi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,376,037 B2).
As noted previously and as best understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, Nanaumi et al. (especially Figure 2) discloses an HVAC apparatus 200 for a vehicle discloses the heater core of claim 1 (from which claim 16 depends), wherein the predetermined first angular range is a first acute angle and the predetermined second angular range is a second acute angle. e, the apparatus comprising: a housing or casing 202; an evaporator core 208 provided inside the housing or casing 202 in parallel with the ground within a predetermined first angular range with the ground; and a heating unit or heater core 210 provided over the evaporator core 208, wherein the evaporator core 208 and the heating unit or heater core 210 are provided in parallel with the ground within a predetermined second angular range. With regard to claim 16, Nanaumi et al. further discloses the heater core or heating unit of claim 1, wherein the predetermined first angular range is a first acute angle and the predetermined second angular range is a second acute angle.
While disclosing a heating unit or heater core 210, Nanaumi et al. does not per se disclose that the heater core 210 or heating unit 210 includes an internal condenser provided over the evaporator core 208 or heating unit 210 and an internal condenser provided over the evaporator core 208 and a Positive Temperature Coefficient provided over the internal condenser. However, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, it was well-known in the art of vehicular HVAC systems to have a heating unit comprising an internal condenser provided over the evaporator core and a Positive Temperature Coefficient provided over the internal condenser in order to enhance the heating capabilities of the vehicular HVAC system and the automatic controls associated therewith while maintaining a smaller footprint of the HVAC system. Therefore, it would have been obvious at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the heating unit or heater core 210 constitute an internal condenser provided over the evaporator core 208 and a Positive Temperature Coefficient in order to optimize the size and function of the heating unit or heater core 210 within the vehicular HVAC apparatus 200, for example.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights