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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2026 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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: “compressed air device” in claim 11.
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.
A “compressed air device” is considered “an ejector nozzle” (pg. 3, lines 1-2) or equivalents.
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 11-19 and 21 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.
Claim 11, line 17, recites “compressed air”. It is unclear if this is the same compressed air previously recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination “compressed air” will be considered - - the compressed air - - .
Claim 11, line 14, recites “said compressed air device”. It is unclear what “compressed air device” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “compressed air device”. For purposes of examination “the compressed air device” will be considered - - a compressed air device - - . Further, the compressed air device is considered an ejector nozzle from the 112f interpretation. However, an “ejector nozzle” is already claimed and it is unclear if this is a new ejector nozzle. For purposes of examination the compressed air device will be considered as the ejector nozzle.
Claims 12-19 and 21 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (JP2006010295) in view Pearson (US 20090165868).
Per claim 11, Nishino teaches an air-conditioning system, the air-conditioning system comprising:
an air treatment part having an evaporator (3) and a condensate collection trough (12);
a supply air fan (1) configured to cause an air stream to flow past said evaporator,
wherein condensate that precipitates on said evaporator is collected in said condensate collection trough, and
wherein said condensate collection trough is in communication with an outlet opening (13) to an environment of the condensate collection trough (the environment in which the condensate is being discharged to) for enabling a discharge of the condensate collected in said condensate collection trough; and
an ejector nozzle (15) connected to a compressed air reservoir (15, “compressed air”, pg. 3, third paragraph of translation) and being configured to assist in a discharge of the condensate from said condensate collection trough through said outlet opening (“When air is ejected from the ejector nozzle 15 when connected to 14 and 17 is in a vacuum state, condensate (drain) is drawn and forced to drain,”, pg. 3, third paragraph of translation), said compressed air device (15) being configured to act on the condensate and to push the condensate in a direction toward the environment of the condensate collection trough (the environment in which the condensate is being discharged to); and
wherein said ejector nozzle is configured to receive compressed air from said compressed air reservoir and push the condensate through said outlet opening (13) toward the environment but fails to explicitly teach the compressed air reservoir being of the vehicle.
However, Pearson teaches an air conditioning system for a vehicle (770) including a condensate drainage system including a compressed air reservoir (“onboard air compressor”) of the vehicle (770) for removing debris form the drainage system (para. 0030). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a compressed air reservoir be of a vehicle, as taught by Pearson in the invention of Nishino, in order to advantageously remove debris from a drainage system (para. 0030).
Further, it is understood claim 11 includes the recitation “for a vehicle” which is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (MPEP 2114, section II). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Per claim 12, Nishino meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Nishino teaches wherein said compressed air device comprises an ejector nozzle (“ejector nozzle 15”, pg. 3, third paragraph of translation).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (JP2006010295) in view of Pearson (US 20090165868) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Yi (KR101947330).
Per claim 13, Nishino meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Nishino a compressed air supply line (14) and the flow of compressed air from said ejector nozzle (i.e. “air is ejected from the ejector nozzle”, pg. 3, third paragraph of translation) but fails to explicitly teach a solenoid valve in the compressed air supply line for said ejector nozzle, wherein the flow of compressor air from said ejector nozzle is controlled by said solenoid valve.
However, Yi teaches a cooling system using a solenoid valve (369) in a compressed air supply line (368), wherein a flow of compressed air from an ejector nozzle (366) is controlled by said solenoid valve (369) (“The air inlet 366a is configured to be connected to the compressed air tank 367 through a connection hose 368 and a second solenoid valve 369 is configured on the connection hose 368. At this time, the second solenoid valve 369 is configured to be opened / closed so as to be controlled under the control of the controller 400”, pg. 7, second to last paragraph of translation) for controlling the flow of compressed air (pg. 7, second to last paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a solenoid valve in a compressed air supply line and have a flow of compressed air from an ejector nozzle be controlled by said solenoid valve, as taught by Yi in the invention of Nishino, in order to advantageously control the flow of compressed air (pg. 7, second to last paragraph of translation), thereby optimizing the use of the compressed air and reducing compressed air losses.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (JP2006010295) in view of Pearson (US 20090165868) and Yi (KR101947330) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Herren et al. (US 8,840,729).
Per claim 14, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishino, as modified, teaches the solenoid valve but fails to explicitly teach wherein the solenoid valve is actuated in a time-controlled manner.
However, Herren teaches a drainage system for an air conditioner wherein compressed air is provided in a time-controlled manner (“a pre-selected temporal interval has elapsed”, col. 6, line 21) for clearing drain tubes (col. 1, lines 59-63). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide compressed air in a time-controlled manner, as taught by Herren in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously clear drain tubes (col. 1, lines 59-63), thereby preventing clogging in the system..
When the Herren time controlled manner of providing compressed air is combined with the solenoid valve of Nishino, as modified, the result is the solenoid valve being actuated in a time-controlled manner, as claimed.
Per claim 15, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishino, as modified, teaches said solenoid valve (369 of Yi) but fails to explicitly teach a fill level switch arranged in said condensate collection trough, and wherein said solenoid valve is actuated by said fill level switch.
However, Herren teaches a drain system wherein a fill level switch (50) arranged in a condensate collection trough (110), and compressed air is provided in response to said fill level switch (col. 4, lines 15-25) for indicating a clogging of a drain pipe is clear (col. 4, lines 25-30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a fill level switch in a condensate collection trough, and provide compressed air in response to said fill level switch, as taught by Herren in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously indicate a clogging of a drain pipe is clear (col. 4, lines 25-30).
When the Herren fill level switch in the condensate collection being used to initiate the delivery of compressed air is combined with the solenoid valve controlling the delivery of the compressed air of Nishino, as modified, the result is wherein said solenoid valve is actuated by said fill level switch, as claimed.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (JP2006010295) in view of Pearson (US 20090165868) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Herren et al. (US 8,840,729).
Per claim 16, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Nishino, as modified, teaches said outlet opening (20) formed in a base region of the condensate collection trough (12) but fails to explicitly teach wherein said outlet opening is configured to maintain a water column above said outlet opening for a pressure-tightness of the air-conditioning system.
However, Herren teach an air condition system wherein an outlet opening (122E) is configured to maintain a water column (water column stored in drain pan 110) above the outlet opening (122E) for a pressure-tightness of the air-conditioning system (to clarify, when valve 20 is closed the water column in drain pan 120 will be maintained above the outlet opening and there will be a “pressure-tightness” due to the water pressure of the condensate applied to the valve) for clearing clogs in a drainage system (Abstract of Herren). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an outlet opening configured to maintain a water column above the outlet opening for a pressure tightness of the air condition system, as taught by Herren in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously clear clogs in a drainage system (Abstract of Herren).
Per claim 17, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Nishino, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein said outlet opening is provided at an end of a drainage line that is connected to communicate with said condensate collection trough and in which a water column is maintained for pressure-tightness of the air-conditioning system.
However, Herren teaches an air conditioning system including an outlet opening (122E) is provided at an end of a drainage line (120) that is connected to communicate with a condensate collection trough (110) and in which a water column (volume of 110) is maintained for pressure-tightness of the air conditioning system (to clarify, when valve 20 is closed the water column in drain pan 120 will be maintained and there will be a “pressure-tightness” due to the water pressure of the condensate applied to the valve) for clearing clogs in a drainage system (Abstract of Herren). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an outlet opening an end of a drainage line that is connected to communicate with a condensate collection trough and in which a water column is maintained for pressure-tightness of the air-conditioning system, as taught by Herren in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously clear clogs in a drainage system (Abstract of Herren).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (JP2006010295) in view of Pearson (US 20090165868) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Salazar et al. (US 2019/0359026).
Per claim 18, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Nishino, as modified, teaches said supply air fan 1) and said evaporator (3) but fails to explicitly teach wherein said supply air fan is arranged downstream of said evaporator in a direction of flow of the air stream.
However, Salazar teaches a supply air fan (16) arranged downstream of an evaporator (14) in a direction of flow of an air stream (see figure 1) for increased efficiency (para. 0021). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a supply air fan is arranged downstream of an evaporator in a direction of flow of ab air stream, as taught by Salazar in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously increase efficiency (para. 0021).
Per claim 19, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Nishino, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a vehicle a vehicle comprising an air-conditioning system.
However, Salazar teaches a vehicle comprising an air-conditioning system (“an HVAC system for a vehicle”, para. 0005) for efficiently providing cooling to the vehicle (para. 0021). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vehicle comprising an air conditioning system, as taught by Salazar in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously efficiently provide cooling to a vehicle (para. 0021).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (JP2006010295) in view of Pearson (US 20090165868) and Salazar et al. (US 2019/0359026) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Uebelhoer et al. (US 5,429,101).
Per claim 21, Nishino, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 19. Further, Nishino, as modified, teaches said compressed air device (15) and said compresses air reservoir (i.e. the source of the compresses air) but fails to explicitly teach a throttle connected between the compressed air device and the compressed air reservoir.
However, Uebelhoer teaches a vehicular compressed air delivery system including a throttle (10) between a compressed air device (11) and a compressed air reservoir (8) for regulating a flow of compressed air to an ejector nozzle (col. 2, lines 43-44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a throttle between a compressed air device and a compressed air reservoir, as taught by Uebelhoer in the invention of Nishino, as modified, in order to advantageously regulate a flow of compressed air to an ejector nozzle (col. 2, lines 43-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights