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 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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitations "the evaporator" and “the heater core” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. These limitations have not been introduced in this claim or in parent claim 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, these limitations are being interpreted as “an evaporator” and “a heater core”, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,892,319 issued to Jacobs (hereinafter “Jacobs”) in view of US 8,921,739 issued to Petrenko et al (hereinafter “Petrenko”).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobs teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Fig 1) comprising: an HVAC case (Fig 4 outlined at front by housing 36 and connecting to outlets in passenger compartment) defining a face outlet (Fig 2 air outlets 72) and a combined foot and side window outlet (Fig 4 outlet to plenum chamber 70 which leads to air outlets 110 at side windows and air outlets 78 at floor, shown in Fig 3), the HVAC case including a mode door movable to control airflow through both the face outlet and the combined foot and side window outlet (Figs 5-7, damper 100; Fig 5 shows damper 100 positioned such that air is blow out of face outlet and Fig 7 shows damper 100 positioned to direct air only to plenum 70 towards outlets 110 and 78).
But Jacobs does not teach a transparent metallic layer configured to be mounted to a windshield; and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield.
However, Petrenko teaches a system for deicing or defrosting a windshield (Abstract) which comprises a transparent metallic layer (Fig 3A windshield heater 37, made of transparent metal film; col 10 line 46-49) configured to be mounted to a windshield (windshield illustrated in Fig 3C with windshield heater element labeled 390) and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield (Fig 3A controller-timer 303 controls voltage from battery 32 applied to transparent metallic layer 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs by including a transparent metallic layer configured to be mounted to a windshield and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield, as taught by Petrenko. Such a system could be used in place of or in addition to the windshield defrost outlet of Jacobs in order to quickly and efficiently defrost or de-ice the windshield (Petrenko col 1 line 42-46 and col 6 line 1-3, shorter deicing time required).
Regarding claim 2, Petrenko further teaches that the transparent metallic layer is mounted to glass of the windshield (Fig 3C shows windshield with transparent metallic layer 390 mounted to outer glass layer 394 of the windshield).
Regarding claim 3, Petrenko further teaches that the control module is a pulse- electro thermal deicing (PETD) control module (col 7 line 35-41, controller-timer 303 controls pulse durations of voltage to the electric thermal deicing elements).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobs teaches that the mode door is adjacent to the face outlet and the combined foot and side window outlet (Figs 5-7).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobs teaches that the combined foot and side window outlet is in fluid communication with a side window opening by way of a first conduit (Fig 3 plenum chamber 70 leads from an opening into the chamber to side window opening 110), and in fluid communication with a foot opening by way of a second conduit (Fig 3 duct 76 further leads to foot opening 78).
Regarding claim 7, Jacobs teaches that the side window opening is configured to direct airflow towards a side window of the vehicle and the windshield of the vehicle (Fig 3 side window opening 110 directs air towards side window and windshield).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobs teaches that the combined foot and side window outlet is at a rear of the HVAC case (Fig 4, outlet to plenum 70 is located at the rear side of the HVAC case, where rear is interpreted as towards the rear of the vehicle, in this case towards the passenger compartment).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobs teaches that the combined foot and side window outlet is at a side of the HVAC case (Figs 3 and 4, plenum 70 extends from the sides of the HVAC case, i.e. towards the driver side and the passenger side, with the outlet from the HVAC case to plenum 70 located on the sides of the HVAC case).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobs teaches that the HVAC case further defines an overhead outlet configured to cooperate with a head liner of the vehicle to deliver comfort airflow to a cabin of the vehicle (Fig 3 outlet 86 at base of windshield, also shown in Fig 4, directs air toward an overhead area and cooperates with perforated shield 106 to deliver air to vehicle cabin through perforations 108).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs and Petrenko and in further view of DE 102019105602 by Klos (hereinafter “Klos”).
Regarding claim 5, Jacobs, as modified by Petrenko, teaches the HVAC system of claim 14 (see details in claim 14 rejection above). But Jacobs/Petrenko does not teach that the HVAC case is devoid of a windshield defrost outlet.
However, Klos teaches a vehicle HVAC system which comprises a transparent windshield heater used for defrosting the windshield (paragraph [0018]) and, because the windshield heater defrosts the windshield, the system does not include a windshield defrost opening, and thus the HVAC case does not have a windshield defrost outlet (Fig 2 shows the instrument panel having no defrost outlet; paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko, by making the HVAC case devoid of a windshield defrost outlet. Since the modification with Petrenko results in a system which has a windshield heater to defrost the windshield, in the form of the transparent metallic layer, the windshield defrost outlet may be omitted, as taught by Klos. Klos teaches that omitting the windshield defrost outlets is advantageous because the HVAC case may be made smaller so that space is made available for other functions or components, space above the instrument panel may be freed for other purposes, and noise from the defrost airflow is eliminated (Klos paragraph [0008]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs and Petrenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US 2,984,415 issued to Wilfert (hereinafter “Wilfert”).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobs, as modified by Petrenko, teaches the HVAC system of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jacobs teaches a rear opening for supplying air to the rear of the vehicle (Fig 2 air outlet 80). The rear opening taught by Jacobs is connected to the combined foot and side window outlet via an air duct extending from the foot outlet (Fig 3 air duct 84). Jacobs does not teach an additional outlet in the HVAC case connected to the rear opening.
However, Wilfert teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle with a similar combined foot and side window outlet in an HVAC case (Fig 5, housing 15 includes an outlet to conduit section 14 leading to ducts 7’ and 7’’ which connect to air apertures 8’/8’’ at side windows and air discharge apertures 12’/12’’ at foot region, also shown in Fig 2). Wilfert teaches that the HVAC case further defines an additional rear outlet (Fig 4 HVAC case 15 outlets to line 21 which leads to air discharge aperture 23 at rear, also see location of aperture 23 in Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko such that the HVAC case also includes a rear outlet leading to at least one rear opening, in order to provide additional ventilation to the rear of the passenger compartment, particularly in the center rear area. The additional rear opening(s) would provide additional airflow, which could be separately controllable, for greater comfort to passengers in the rear of the passenger compartment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs and Petrenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of GB 2329706 by Saida et al (hereinafter “Saida”).
Regarding claim 12, Jacobs, as modified by Petrenko, teaches the HVAC system of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jacobs teaches that the HVAC case further includes an evaporator (Fig 4 evaporator coil 26) and a heater core (Fig 4 heating coil 40). But Jacobs/Petrenko does not teach a first air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core, and a second air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core.
However, Saida teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Abstract) comprising an HVAC case (Fig 6 air conditioning unit 2) which includes an evaporator (Fig 6 evaporator 8), a heater core (Fig 6 heater core 9), a first air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core (Fig 6 first air mixing door 16), and a second air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core (Fig 6 second air mixing door 17). Saida teaches that the air mixing doors are used to adjust the temperature of the air blown towards the passenger compartment (page 10 line 19-23) and that having a first and second air mix door allows for independent control of the temperature of air blown towards each of the left and right sides of the passenger compartment (page 19 line 4-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko by including a first air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core with an associated bypass passage on the left side of the HVAC case and a second air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core with an associated bypass passage on the right side of the HVAC case. The air mix doors would be advantageous for adjusting the temperature of the air by controlling the ratio between the amount of air passing through the heater and the amount passing through the bypass passageway, and the first and second air mix doors would allow for independent control of the air temperature for the left and right sides of the passenger cabin.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs and Petrenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US 2002/0050349 by Sano et al (hereinafter “Sano”).
Regarding claim 13, Jacobs, as modified by Petrenko, teaches the HVAC system of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jacobs teaches that the HVAC case further includes an evaporator (Fig 4 evaporator coil 26) and a heater core (Fig 4 heating coil 40). But Jacobs/Petrenko does not teach that the evaporator and the heater core are vertically aligned.
However, Sano teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Abstract) comprising an HVAC case (Fig 3 casing 12) which includes an evaporator (Fig 3 evaporator 15) and a heater core (Fig 3 heater core 13). Sano teaches that the evaporator and heater core are vertically aligned (Fig 3; paragraph [0029]), in order to reduce the overall space requirements of the HVAC case and associated ductwork.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko by vertically aligning the evaporator and heater core, as taught by Sano. This would provide a compact HVAC case which can be incorporated under the instrument panel, thus allowing more space for other functions in the engine space.
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Petrenko and in further view of US 7,856,841 issued to Kim et al (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 14, Jacobs teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Fig 1) comprising:
an HVAC case (Fig 4 outlined at front by housing 36 and connecting to outlets in passenger compartment) defining a face outlet (Fig 2 air outlets 72) and a combined foot and side window outlet that is adjacent to the face outlet (Fig 4 outlet to plenum chamber 70 which leads to air outlets 110 at side windows and air outlets 78 at floor, shown in Fig 3);
a mode door opposite to the face outlet and the combined foot and side window outlet, the mode door movable to control airflow through both the face outlet and the combined foot and side window outlet (Figs 5-7, damper 100; Fig 5 shows damper 100 positioned such that air is blow out of face outlet and Fig 7 shows damper 100 positioned to direct air to plenum 70 towards outlets 110 and 78);
and an evaporator and a heater core within the HVAC case (Fig 4, evaporator 26 and heater coil 40).
But Jacobs does not teach a transparent metallic layer mounted to a windshield or a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield or at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core.
However, Petrenko teaches a system for deicing or defrosting a windshield (Abstract) which comprises a transparent metallic layer (Fig 3A windshield heater 37, made of transparent metal film; col 10 line 46-49) mounted to a windshield (windshield illustrated in Fig 3C with windshield heater element labeled 390) and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield (Fig 3A controller-timer 303 controls voltage from battery 32 applied to transparent metallic layer 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs by including a transparent metallic layer configured to be mounted to a windshield and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield, as taught by Petrenko. Such a system could be used in place of or in addition to the windshield defrost outlet of Jacobs in order to quickly and efficiently defrost or de-ice the windshield (Petrenko col 1 line 42-46 and col 6 line 1-3, shorter deicing time required).
But Jacobs/Petrenko does not teach at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core.
However, Kim teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Abstract) comprising an HVAC case (Fig 2 air conditioning case 100) which includes an evaporator (Fig 2 evaporator 106) and a heater core (Fig 2 heater core 105) and at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core (Fig 2 temperature door D1) to adjust the output air temperature (col 2 line 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko by including at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core, in order to adjust the output air temperature of the system by adjusting the ratio of air that flows through the heater core relative to the air that bypasses the heater core, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Petrenko further teaches that the control module is a pulse- electro thermal deicing (PETD) control module (col 7 line 35-41, controller-timer 303 controls pulse durations of voltage to the electric thermal deicing elements).
Regarding claim 17, Jacobs teaches that the combined foot and side window outlet is in fluid communication with a side window opening by way of a first conduit (Fig 3 plenum chamber 70 leads from an opening into the chamber to side window opening 110), and in fluid communication with a foot opening by way of a second conduit (Fig 3 duct 76 further leads to foot opening 78).
Claims 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs and Petrenko and Kim and in further view of Klos.
Regarding claim 16, Jacobs, as modified by Petrenko and Kim, teaches the HVAC system of claim 14 (see details in claim 14 rejection above). But Jacobs/Petrenko/Kim does not teach that the HVAC case is devoid of a windshield defrost outlet.
However, Klos teaches a vehicle HVAC system which comprises a transparent windshield heater used for defrosting the windshield (paragraph [0018]) and, because the windshield heater defrosts the windshield, the system does not include a windshield defrost opening, and thus the HVAC case does not have a windshield defrost outlet (Fig 2 shows the instrument panel having no defrost outlet; paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko/Kim, by making the HVAC case devoid of a windshield defrost outlet. Since the modification with Petrenko results in a system which has a windshield heater to defrost the windshield, in the form of the transparent metallic layer, the windshield defrost outlet may be omitted, as taught by Klos. Klos teaches that omitting the windshield defrost outlets is advantageous because the HVAC case may be made smaller so that space is made available for other functions or components, space above the instrument panel may be freed for other purposes, and noise from the defrost airflow is eliminated (Klos paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Jacobs teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Fig 1) comprising:
an HVAC case (Fig 4 outlined at front by housing 36 and connecting to outlets in passenger compartment) defining a face outlet (Fig 2 air outlets 72) and a combined foot and side window outlet that is adjacent to the face outlet (Fig 4 outlet to plenum chamber 70 which leads to air outlets 110 at side windows and air outlets 78 at floor, shown in Fig 3);
a mode door opposite to the face outlet and the combined foot and side window outlet, the mode door movable to control airflow through both the face outlet and the combined foot and side window outlet (Figs 5-7, damper 100; Fig 5 shows damper 100 positioned such that air is blow out of face outlet and Fig 7 shows damper 100 positioned to direct air to plenum 70 towards outlets 110 and 78);
an evaporator and a heater core within the HVAC case (Fig 4, evaporator 26 and heater coil 40); and
wherein: the combined foot and side window outlet is in fluid communication with a side window opening by way of a first conduit (Fig 3 plenum chamber 70 leads from an opening into the chamber to side window opening 110), and in fluid communication with a foot opening by way of a second conduit (Fig 3 duct 76 further leads to foot opening 78).
But Jacobs does not teach a transparent metallic layer mounted to a windshield or a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield or that the HVAC case is devoid of a windshield defrost outlet or at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core.
However, Petrenko teaches a system for deicing or defrosting a windshield (Abstract) which comprises a transparent metallic layer (Fig 3A windshield heater 37, made of transparent metal film; col 10 line 46-49) mounted to a windshield (windshield illustrated in Fig 3C with windshield heater element labeled 390) and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield (Fig 3A controller-timer 303 controls voltage from battery 32 applied to transparent metallic layer 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs by including a transparent metallic layer configured to be mounted to a windshield and a control module configured to apply voltage from a power supply to the transparent metallic layer to heat the windshield, as taught by Petrenko. Such a system could be used in place of or in addition to the windshield defrost outlet of Jacobs in order to quickly and efficiently defrost or de-ice the windshield (Petrenko col 1 line 42-46 and col 6 line 1-3, shorter deicing time required).
Jacobs/Petrenko does not teach that the HVAC case is devoid of a windshield defrost outlet or at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core.
However, Klos teaches a vehicle HVAC system which comprises a transparent windshield heater used for defrosting the windshield (paragraph [0018]) and, because the windshield heater defrosts the windshield, the system does not include a windshield defrost opening, and thus the HVAC case does not have a windshield defrost outlet (Fig 2 shows the instrument panel having no defrost outlet; paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko, by making the HVAC case devoid of a windshield defrost outlet. Since the modification with Petrenko results in a system which has a windshield heater to defrost the windshield, in the form of the transparent metallic layer, the windshield defrost outlet may be omitted, as taught by Klos. Klos teaches that omitting the windshield defrost outlets is advantageous because the HVAC case may be made smaller so that space is made available for other functions or components, space above the instrument panel may be freed for other purposes, and noise from the defrost airflow is eliminated (Klos paragraph [0008]).
But Jacobs/Petrenko/Klos does not teach at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core.
However, Kim teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle (Abstract) comprising an HVAC case (Fig 2 air conditioning case 100) which includes an evaporator (Fig 2 evaporator 106) and a heater core (Fig 2 heater core 105) and at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core (Fig 2 temperature door D1) to adjust the output temperature air (col 2 line 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Jacobs/Petrenko/Klos by including at least one air mix door between the evaporator and the heater core, in order to adjust the output air temperature of the system by adjusting the ratio of air that flows through the heater core relative to the air that bypasses the heater core, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Jacobs teaches that the combined foot and side window outlet is at a rear of the HVAC case (Fig 4, outlet to plenum 70 is located at the rear side of the HVAC case, where rear is interpreted as towards the rear of the vehicle, in this case towards the passenger compartment).
Regarding claim 20, Jacobs teaches that the combined foot and side window outlet is at a side of the HVAC case (Figs 3 and 4, plenum 70 extends from the sides of the HVAC case, i.e. towards the driver side and the passenger side, with the outlet from the HVAC case to plenum 70 located on the sides of the HVAC case).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0373681 by Saad et al teaches a transparent metallic windshield heater.
DE 4124641 teaches an HVAC system having an HVAC case having a face outlet (3) and a combined foot and side window outlet (duct 7/8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights