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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the Invention of Group I, readable on claims 1 through 12, in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: the inventions have elements in common and form a common inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is not a national stage application and therefore shared elements and common inventive concepts are irrelevant to the appropriateness of a restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13 through 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Claims 8 through 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the non-elected second and third species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 as supplemented via the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See paragraphs [0026] and [0027] of the specification which state that Figure 1 and Figure 2 show a “conventional” (i.e., “known”) air conditioner. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the inventive apparatus (i.e., in the first sentence of the abstract). 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).
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: “coupling portion” in claim 12.
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 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 7, 11, and 12 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.
Base claim 1 recites that the cooling heat exchanger and the heating heat exchanger “are provided sequentially on the air flow path of the air conditioning case in an airflow direction”. However, the limitation “in an airflow direction” is variable and not fixed. Therefore, applicant’s attempt to specify the location of the cooling heat exchanger and the heating heat exchanger sequentially relative to the variable airflow direction renders indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim indeterminate, and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. Claim 12 also recites the limitations “in the airflow direction” in the last line of the claim and is similarly further rendered indefinite thereby.
With regard to claim 3 as written, it is not entirely clear which element or elements are intended to be encompassed by the limitation “a structure” as recited in line 3 of the claim, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by any claims depending therefrom.
Any claim not specifically cited is rejected at least as being dependent 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 are 1 through 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochiai et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,618,371 B2).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses an conditioner apparatus 2 for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: an air conditioning case or casing 20 in which an air flow path (i.e., see flow arrows in Figure 4 at least) is formed; a cooling heat exchanger or evaporator 23; and a heating heat exchanger or heater core 26, wherein the cooling heat exchanger or evaporator 23 and the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 are provided sequentially on the air flow path of the air conditioning case or casing 20 in an airflow direction (i.e., see at least Figure 4), wherein a defrost vent 12a, a face vent 12b, and a floor or foot vent 12c are formed on the air conditioning case 20, wherein a hot air duct 16c configured to allow heated air at a downstream side of the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 to flow to an outlet of the floor or foot vent 12c is provided on the air conditioning case or casing 20 (i.e., all as shown at least in Figure 4; see also column 11, lines 40-62).
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 1, wherein an internal flow path of the air conditioning case or casing 20 is formed in a vertical direction with respect to the ground so that the air flow path (i.e., see flow arrows in Figure 4 at least) is directed from a downward direction, which is a direction of gravity, to an upward direction.
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 2, wherein the cooling heat exchanger or evaporator 23 and the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 on the internal flow path include a structure that is sequentially disposed from the downward direction, which is the direction of gravity, to the upward direction in correspondence to the air flow path (i.e., see flow arrows in Figure 4 at least) from the downward direction, which is the direction of gravity, to the upward direction.
With regard to claim 4 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 3, wherein the outlet of the floor or foot vent 12c is formed on a side surface of the air conditioning case or casing 20 (i.e., on a side surface facing the driver as shown in at least Figure 4 as broadly interpreted as required), and wherein the hot air duct 16c is formed on the side surface of the air conditioning case or casing 20 to connect the downstream side of the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 to the outlet of the floor or foot vent 12c (i.e., at least as shown in Figure 4).
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 4, further including a hot air guide baffle (i.e., at least very broadly readable on switching door 31c) in the air conditioning case or casing 20 configured to guide the heated air passing through the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 to a cooling air flow path side between the heating heat exchanger or heater 26 and the defrost vent 12a.
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 5, wherein the hot air guide baffle (i.e., at least very broadly readable on switching door 31c) blocks the heated air at the downstream side of the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 from being directly discharged to the defrost vent 12a and guides the heated air to the floor or foot vent 12c (i.e., at least as shown in Figure 4).
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 5, wherein the hot air guide baffle (i.e., at least very broadly readable on switching door 31c) is formed to extend to overlap a portion of the hot air duct 16 (i.e., at the entrance to the hot air duct 16 as shown in Figure 4 at least as broadly readable as required).
With regard to claim 11 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 3, wherein a floor or foot door 31c configured to adjust an opening degree of the floor or foot vent 12c (i.e., at least indirectly) is provided, and wherein the hot air duct 16c connects the downstream side of the heating heat exchanger or heater core 26 to an upstream side of the floor or foot door 31c (i.e., at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims and as shown in Figure 4).
With regard to claim 12 of the instant application, Ochiai et al. discloses the air conditioner apparatus 2 of claim 3, wherein the hot air duct 16c is coupled to protrude laterally from a side surface of the air conditioning case or casing 20 (i.e., as shown in Figure 4 at least, with the term “laterally” being interpreted broadly as required to refer to a direction away from the center of the case or casing 20), and an inclined surface (i.e., see lower slope of the wall of the hot air duct 16c as shown in at least Figure 4) is formed on a coupling portion (i.e., where the hot air duct 16c adjoins the portion of the case or casing 20 adjacent to fan or blower 24 between the hot air duct 16c and the air conditioning case or casing 20 in the airflow direction (i.e., see the air flow arrows as shown in at least Figure 4).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Conclusion
The prior and/or related 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