DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 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 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), 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):
(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) 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: “backflow prevention means” in Claim 3 and “driving part” in Claim 8.
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.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation “backflow prevention means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). To further advance prosecution the Examiner interpret the limitation “backflow prevention means” as any structure preventing air backflow.
Regarding Claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitation “driving part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). To further advance prosecution the Examiner interpret the limitation “driving” as a feedback circuit.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 4-11: Claims 4-11 is also rejected for being dependent on rejected claims
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, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (KR20180029128, wherein translation is used for mapping) and further in view of Min (US 2019/0001788)
Regarding Claim 1: Wan discloses a rear air conditioner (system in Figs. 3 and 5) for a vehicle ([0001]), which is connected to a front air conditioner to supply conditioned air to a rear seat side in the vehicle ([0001]), comprising: a case (see annotated figure ‘128) of which one side is connected to the front air conditioner, and which includes a plurality of discharge ports (see annotated figure ‘128) formed at the other side to discharge air into the interior of the vehicle (see annotated figure ‘128); and a heater (102; Fig. 3) which is provided in the case to heat the air passing through the heater (102; Fig. 3).
Wan is silent regarding the heater being an electric heater wherein the electric heater includes a plurality of operating regions, and the plurality of operating regions operate according to air conditioning modes.
However, Min teaches an air conditioner (system of Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Tittle) having an electrical heater (200; Fig. 2) which is provided in a case (case of Fig. 1) to heat air passing through the electric heater (air through 200; Fig. 1), wherein the electric heater includes a plurality of operating regions (105, 106; Fig. 2), and the plurality of operating regions operate according to air conditioning modes (modes corresponding to different temperatures in the different regions 105 and 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wan to have the heater being an electric heater wherein the electric heater includes a plurality of operating regions, and the plurality of operating regions operate according to air conditioning modes. Doing so would enable to independently provide two heating regions, as recognized by Min (see [0029]).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13: Wan in view of Min teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Wan further discloses, and Wan further discloses wherein a blower (105; Fig. 3) which blows air to the plurality of discharge ports is provided in the case (see Fig. 3), and the blower is arranged upstream of the electric heater in the air flow direction (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15: Wan discloses a rear air conditioner (system in Figs. 3 and 5) for a vehicle ([0001]), which is connected to a front air conditioner to supply conditioned air to a rear seat side in the vehicle ([0001]), comprising: a case (see annotated figure ‘128) of which one side is connected to the front air conditioner (see annotated figure ‘128), and which includes a plurality of discharge ports (see annotated figure ‘128) formed at the other side to discharge air into the interior of the vehicle (see annotated figure ‘128); an heater (102; Fig. 3) which is provided in the case to heat the air passing through the electric heater (102; Fig. 3), but is silent regarding the heater being an electric heater which is provided in the case to heat the air passing through the electric heater; and a control unit which controls a heating region of the electric heater differently according to air conditioning modes.
However, Min teaches an air conditioner (system of Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Tittle) having an electrical heater (200; Fig. 2) which is provided in a case (case of Fig. 1) to heat air passing through the electric heater (air through 200; Fig. 1), and a control unit (230; Fig. 3) which controls a heating region of the electric heater differently ([0024]) according to air conditioning modes (modes corresponding to different temperatures in the different regions 105 and 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wan to have the heater being an electric heater which is provided in the case to heat the air passing through the electric heater; and a control unit which controls a heating region of the electric heater differently according to air conditioning modes. Doing so would enable to independently provide two heating regions, as recognized by Min (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 16: Wan and Min teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and Wan further discloses wherein the plurality of discharge ports respectively have discharge ducts (see annotated figure ‘128), and the lengths of the discharge ducts are formed to be different from each other (see annotated figure ‘128).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (KR20180029128, wherein translation is used for mapping), in view of Min (US 2019/0001788), and further in view of Yamamura (JPS61188213, wherein translation is used for mapping).
Regarding Claim 14: Wan in view of Min teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further teaches wherein the electric heater is arranged in front of the plurality of discharge ports (see Fig. 3 of Wan), but is silent regarding the electric heater partially operates to heat only the air discharged to a specific discharge port among the plurality of discharge ports depending on the air conditioning mode.
However, Yamamura teaches a rear air conditioner (system Fig. 2) for a vehicle (Fig. 1) having a heater (58a, b, and c; Fig. 2), the heater partially operates to heat only air discharged to a specific discharge port among the plurality of discharge ports (see how each part of the heater 58a, b, and c corresponds to different set of ports; Fig. 2) depending on an air conditioning mode (mode corresponding to different air exhaust through the ports).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wan to have the electric heater partially operates to heat only the air discharged to a specific discharge port among the plurality of discharge ports depending on the air conditioning mode. Doing so would enable to independently provide heated air to a plurality of ports.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (KR20180029128, wherein translation is used for mapping), in view of Min (US 2019/0001788), and further in view of Ryu (US 2018/0361819).
Regarding Claim 3: Wan in view of Min teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, wherein the discharge ports include a first discharge port (see annotated figure ‘128) and a second discharge port (see annotated figure ‘128) which is formed below the first discharge port, but is silent regarding wherein a backflow prevention means is provided to suppress that the air flowing toward the second discharge port downstream of the electric heater in an air flow direction flows back to the first discharge port side.
However, Ryu teaches an air conditioner (tittle) for a vehicle (tittle), having a backflow prevention means (125; Fig. 3) is provided to suppress that air flowing (see arrow; Fig. 8) toward a discharge port (119a,b; Fig. 3) downstream of a heater (240; Fig. 8) in an air flow direction flows back to the discharge port side (see Fig. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wan to have a backflow prevention means is provided to suppress that the air flowing toward the second discharge port downstream of the electric heater in an air flow direction flows back to the first discharge port side. Doing so would enable to prevent backflow, as recognized by Ryu (see [0054]).
Regarding Claim 4: Wan in view of Min and Ryu teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, as stated above, and Wan further discloses wherein a partition wall (see annotated figure ‘128) is formed to extend in a direction parallel (see annotated figure ‘128, see arrows) to the air flow direction at the rear end of the electric heater (see annotated figure ‘128).
Regarding Claim 5: Wan in view of Min and Ryu teaches all the limitations of Claim 4, as stated above, and further teaches wherein a mode door (see annotated figure ‘128) is provided inside the case to adjust the amount of air flowing to the first discharge port and the amount of air flowing to the second discharge port (see annotated figure ‘128), and wherein the partition wall is arranged between the electric heater and the mode door (see annotated figure ‘128).
Regarding Claim 6: Wan in view of Min and Ryu teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, as stated above, and further teaches wherein the partition wall is arranged above a middle portion of the electric heater in the vertical direction (see annotated figure ‘128).
Regarding Claim 7: Wan in view of Min and Ryu teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, as stated above, and further teaches wherein at a position where the end of the mode door faces the partition wall (see annotated figure ‘128), the air passing through the electric heater is guided to the first discharge port and the second discharge port by the partition wall (see annotated figure ‘128).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (KR20180029128, wherein translation is used for mapping), in view of Min (US 2019/0001788), Ryu (US 2018/0361819), and further in view of Mullett (US 2020/0189351).
Regarding Claim 9: Wan in view of Min and Ryu teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, as stated above, and further teaches wherein the case includes a mode door (see annotated figure ‘128) which adjusts the amount of air flowing to the first discharge port and the amount of air flowing to the second discharge port (see annotated figure ‘128 ), but is silent regarding wherein a door seal is provided along the perimeter of the mode door to suppress the flow of air flowing from the bottom to the top.
However, Mullett teaches an air conditioner (tittle) for a vehicle (tittle) having a door (door supporting 90; Fi8g. 4B) with a door seal (98, 102; Fig. 4B) provided along a perimeter (inner and/or outer perimeter of the door) of the mode door to suppress the flow of air flowing (see Fig. 4B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wan to have a door seal is provided along the perimeter of the mode door to suppress the flow of air flowing from the bottom to the top. Doing so would enable to seal the system.
Regarding Claim 10: Wan in view of Min, Ryu, and Mullett teaches all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Mullett further teaches a case seal (102; Fig. 4B which is provided on the side of the case to fill a gap between the case and the mode door (see Fig. 4B), wherein the case seal is partially formed only in the air passage directed to the side of the first discharge port (see Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 11: Wan in view of Min, Ryu, and Mullett teaches all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Mullett further teaches a tail seal (98; Fig. 4B) which is provided on a rotational shaft (94; Fig. 4B) of the mode door to fill a gap between the rotational shaft and the case (see Fig. 4B).
Allowable subject matter
Regarding Claims 8, 12, and 17-20: Claims 8, 12, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above objections and rejections, if present, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach, “the discharge ports include a first discharge port and a second discharge port,wherein the electric heater includes a plurality of heating parts, and wherein in the air conditioning mode where air is simultaneously discharged to the first discharge port and the second discharge port, only the heating parts of the electric heater corresponding to a region near the second discharge port is operated.” (for Claim 2)“wherein a control unit is provided to, in the air conditioning mode where air is simultaneously discharged to the first discharge port and the second discharge port, feedback a drive voltage value to a driving part of the mode door so that the mode door is closed more toward the first discharge port than in other air conditioning modes” (for Claim 8) ; “control is performed so that only some heating parts located at the bottom of the electric heater are operated, and wherein the number of the operated heating parts is more than the number of non-operated heating parts.” (for Claim 12); and “the control unit controls to generate heat only in some region of the electric heater when air is simultaneously discharged to the plurality of discharge ports” (for Claim 17).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited. For example, see Kim (2019/0092125) that teaches an air conditioning system with a main port and a non-partitioned heater.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. 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.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights