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
With regards to claim 2, it is noted that the use of “such that” in line 2 is interpreted as being akin to “so that.” Claim 2 recites “wherein the noise source and the functional component are arranged such that the protection region includes a position of a holding member carried by an occupant in the cabin.” Examiner notes that “such that” as used in claim language is usually tied to functional limitations or steps occurring in sequence, i.e. one step/operation happens, which in turn (i.e. “such that”) causes a following step/operation to happen.
In this case of claim 2, the use of “such that” doesn’t appear to be used in the same context as what’s being claimed is 1) the arrangement (position) of a noise source and a functional component, relative to a protection region that has a holding member. This interpretation is consistent with at least what Figure 6 of the Applicant’s Drawings show. There is a noise source (204), a functional component (16, 18), protection region (G1, G2), and a holding member (51/52).
This is how claim 2 will be construed.
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: “functional component” in claims 1-2 & 4-5.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a heater core identified as element number 18 as at least illustrated in Figure 3, and at least described in paragraph ¶0068 of the 10/18/2023 Specifications; and/or an evaporator 16 as described in para. 0034.
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.
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: “holding member” in claims 2-4 & 7.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is an article holder identified as element number 8 as at least illustrated in Figure 2, and at least described in paragraph ¶0022 of the 10/18/2023 Specifications. The holding member could also be a cup holder 44, and/or an article holder 51/52.
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 § 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)(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 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al (US 7,527,091), hereinafter referred to as Ito.
Regarding claim 1, Ito (US 7,527,091) shows an air-conditioning unit installed in a vehicle, comprising:
an air-conditioning case (12, Fig. 1);
a blower (12a, Fig. 1) to send air from the air-conditioning case into a cabin of the vehicle (Fig. 1 – air blown out of element 24 is blown into the passenger compartment, or the cabin);
a blower motor (12b, Fig. 1) to drive the blower (Fig. 1); and
a functional component (15/16, Fig. 1) to realize a part of an air-conditioning function in the air-conditioning case (Fig. 1 – elements 15/16 are cooling/heat exchangers), wherein
the functional component is disposed between a noise source of the blower motor that generates electromagnetic noise (Fig. 1 - as the Applicant states that it is known that a motor generates electromagnetic noise at the time of operation, as does the blower motor of Ito) and a protection region that is at least a part of the cabin (Col. 6, Lines 22-29 – air blown out of element 24 goes to a protection region, of which comprises of elements such as the windshield, the passenger, and the passengers feet located within, of which the protection region is at least part of the cabin), and
the functional component includes a substance that shields the electromagnetic noise (Fig. 5A-B – elements 31-44 of the heat exchanger 16 are made out of aluminum, of which the Applicant states a conductive metal such as aluminum meets this limitation as per para. 0034 or 0047 of the as-filed specification).
Regarding claim 5, Ito shows wherein the functional component is a heat exchanger (15/16, Fig. 1) in which heat is exchanged between air in the air-conditioning case and another medium (Col. 6, Lines 34-54 – the heat exchanger 16 exchanges heat with the air in the air-conditioning case and another medium, which is a refrigerant).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 7,527,091), hereinafter referred to as Ito, in view of Terai et al (JP2019061365), hereinafter referred to as Terai (US 2022/0185059 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 2, Ito shows wherein the noise source (12b) and the functional component (15/16) are arranged (Fig. 1) relative to the protection region and the cabin (Col. 6, Lines 22-29 – air blown out of element 24 goes to a protection region, of which comprises of elements such as the windshield, the passenger, and the passengers feet located within, of which the protection region is at least part of the cabin).
However, Ito lacks showing such that the protection region includes a position of a holding member provided to hold an object carried by an occupant in the cabin.
Terai (JP2019061365), a vehicle air conditioning system, is in the same field of endeavor as Ito which is a vehicle air conditioning system.
Terai teaches the protection region (Fig. 1) includes a position of a holding member (6, Fig. 1) provided to hold an object carried by an occupant in the cabin (Fig. 1 – element 6 is a drink holder, to hold a drink carried by an occupant in the cabin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection region of Ito to incorporate the teachings of the protection region of Terai, which would provide an air conditioner that can cool the cabin and its objects with greater efficiency and energy savings (¶0020).
Regarding claim 3, Ito shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the position of the noise source and the vehicle.
However, Ito lacks showing wherein a position of the noise source in a width direction of the vehicle is between a driver seat and a front passenger seat, and a position of the holding member in the width direction of the vehicle is between the driver seat and the front passenger seat.
Terai teaches a position of the noise source (31, Fig. 3) in a width direction of the vehicle (Fig. 3) is between a driver seat (91, Fig. 1) and a front passenger seat (92, Fig. 1), and a position of the holding member (6, Fig. 1) in the width direction of the vehicle is between the driver seat and the front passenger seat (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the noise source of Ito to incorporate the teachings of the noise source of Terai, which would provide a proximity air conditioner closer to the passengers for vehicles which is capable of efficiently performing air-conditioning to realize energy savings (¶0012).
Regarding claim 4, Ito shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including wherein an outer shape of the functional component (15, Fig. 1) is a plate shape (Fig. 1 – element 15 has two opposing plate surfaces and a side surface connecting between the two plate surfaces, or a plate shape), one plate surface of the functional component faces the noise source (Fig. 1 – the noise source of the blower motor 12b), and the other plate surface of the functional component faces the cabin.
However, Ito lacks showing the other plate surface of the functional component faces the cabin holding member.
Terai teaches the other plate surface of the functional component (30, Fig. 3) faces the cabin holding member (6, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection region and the other plate surface of Ito to incorporate the teachings of the protection region and other plate surface of Terai, which would provide an air conditioner that can cool the cabin and its objects with greater efficiency and energy savings (¶0020).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 7,527,091), hereinafter referred to as Ito, in view of Yonezu et al (JP2019028527), hereinafter referred to as Yonezu (US 2021/0362559 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 6, Ito shows wherein the heat exchanger (15/16, Fig. 1) is a heating heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1, Col. 5, Lines 4-9) to heat air in the air-conditioning case, and further comprising: a cooling heat exchanger (15, Fig. 1, Col. 6, Lines 4-9) to cool air in the air-conditioning case (Fig. 1),
However, Ito lacks showing wherein the blower is located downstream of the cooling heat exchanger and upstream of the heating heat exchanger in an air flow in the air-conditioning case.
Youezu (JP2019028527), an air conditioning unit for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Ito which is an air conditioning unit for a vehicle.
Youezu teaches wherein the blower (20, Fig. 1) is located downstream of the cooling heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1) and upstream of the heating heat exchanger (18, Fig. 1) in an air flow in the air-conditioning case (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blower of Ito to incorporate the teachings of the blower of Youezu, which would provide an air conditioning unit for a vehicle that is configured to cool a blower motor by air without regard to ram air pressure (¶0020).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 7,527,091), hereinafter referred to as Ito, in view of Terai et al (JP2019061365), hereinafter referred to as Terai (US 2022/0185059 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ito (US 7,527,091) shows an air-conditioning unit installed in a vehicle, comprising:
an air-conditioning case (12, Fig. 1);
a blower (12a, Fig. 1) to send air from the air-conditioning case into a cabin of the vehicle (Fig. 1 – air blown out of element 24 is blown into the passenger compartment, or the cabin);
a blower motor (12b, Fig. 1) to drive the blower (Fig. 1); and a heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1) in which heat is exchanged between air in the air-conditioning case and another medium (Col. 6, Lines 34-54 – the heat exchanger 16 exchanges heat with the air in the air-conditioning case and another medium, which is a refrigerant),
wherein the heat exchanger is disposed between a noise source of the blower motor that generates electromagnetic noise (Fig. 1 - as the Applicant states that it is known that a motor generates electromagnetic noise at the time of operation, as does the blower motor 12b of Ito) and the cabin (Fig. 1 – air blown out of element 24 is blown into the passenger compartment, or the cabin),
and the heat exchanger includes a substance that shields the electromagnetic noise (Fig. 5A-B – elements 31-44 of the heat exchanger 16 are made out of aluminum, of which the Applicant states a conductive metal such as aluminum meets this limitation).
However, Ito lacks showing a holding member provided to hold an object carried by an occupant in the cabin.
Terai (JP2019061365), a vehicle air conditioning system, is in the same field of endeavor as Ito which is a vehicle air conditioning system.
Terai teaches the protection region (Fig. 1) includes a holding member (6, Fig. 1) provided to hold an object carried by an occupant in the cabin (Fig. 1 – element 6 is a drink holder, to hold a drink carried by an occupant in the cabin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection region of Ito to incorporate the teachings of the protection region of Terai, which would provide an air conditioner that can cool the cabin and its objects with greater efficiency and energy savings (¶0020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762