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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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, 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0325606) in view of Barron et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0197550).
Concerning claims 1 & 2, Kim discloses a light irradiation unit comprising:
A heat sink (141) having a plate-shaped heat sink body and a fin protruding from a first main surface of the heat sink body (Figure 4);
A substrate (122) laminated on a second main surface on a side opposite to the first main surface in the heat sink body (141) as shown in Figure 3; and
A light irradiation element (121) mounted on a first surface of the substrate (122), which is a surface on a side where the heat sink (141) is provided;
Wherein the light irradiation element (121) is configured to perform light irradiation in an extending direction of the fin as shown in Figures 3-7. See paragraphs 38-48.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 & 7, Kim discloses that the light irradiation element is configured to perform light irradiation toward a side opposite to a side where the heat sink (141) is located as most clearly shown in Figure 3, wherein the heat sink can be reasonably defined as the fins (141) on the right side of light (121) in which light (121) irradiates light to the left/a side opposite to the side where the heat sink (left fins) are located.
With respect to claims 4, 8 and 9, Kim also discloses a vehicle air-conditioning device (1000) comprising:
A fan (214) that pumps air (paragraph 58);
A duct in which the air pumped from the fan (214) circulates and to an inner surface of which the light irradiation unit (100) according to claims 1-3 is attached (Figure 11); and
An evaporator (410) provided on a downstream side of the duct in a flowing direction of the air (paragraphs 56-61).
Kim does not appear to disclose specifically that the substrate is an electronic substrate. Barron discloses a light irradiation unit that includes a heat sink (114), a substrate (107) laminated on a surface, and a light irradiation element (106) mounted on a first surface of the substrate (paragraphs 32 and 33). The reference continues to disclose that the substrate is an electronic printed circuit board substrate with said light irradiation element (106) mounted thereon in order to create a compact, cost efficient, controlling mechanism for the light irradiation element (paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an electronic printed circuit board substrate with said light irradiation element mounted thereon in Kim in order to create a compact, cost efficient, controlling mechanism for the light irradiation element as exemplified by Barron.
As such, claims 1-4 and 7-9 are not patentable over Kim in view of Barron.
With respect to claim 5, Kim also discloses that the light irradiation element (100) is configured to perform light irradiation in each of a direction facing a fan side (214) and a direction facing an evaporator side (410) as shown in Figures 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11.
Thus, claim 5 is not patentable over Kim in view of Barron as well.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0325606) in view of Barron et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0197550) as applied to claims 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Michinori (Japanese Document Identification No. JP 2005289243 A).
Kim modified by Barron is relied upon as set forth above. Kim does not appear to disclose a power element disposed on the electronic substrate to control driving of the fan, and a harness that supplies power to the power element and the light irradiation element. Michinori discloses a vehicle air conditioning device that includes a fan (1), a duct with an electronic substrate (3) having a heat sink (13) mounted on an inner surface of the duct (Figures 5 & 6), and an evaporator (4) provided on a downstream side of the duct. The reference continues to disclose a power element (14) disposed on the electronic substrate to control driving of the fan (1), and a harness that supplies power to the power element (paragraph 3), which supplies power to all of the components therein, which when modified with Kim includes the light irradiation element. Michinori utilizes the configuration in order to utilize a single electronic power supply component to provide all components of the vehicle air conditioner with power (paragraph 3). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a power element disposed on the electronic substrate of Kim to control driving of the fan, and a harness that supplies power to the power element and the light irradiation element in order to utilize a single electronic power supply component to provide all components of the vehicle air conditioner with power as exemplified by Michinori.
Thus, claims 6 and 10 are not patentable over Kim in view of Barron and Michinori.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799