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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement( page 1 : DE102016115441, DE102011007351,US2018037093 ).
37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. Claims 15-34 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “and/or” in claim 15 , 20,29,30,31, and 32 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as “or”. Thus any claim recitation following “or” is considered optional and not required by the claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 33 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of these claims refers to the vehicle status parameter. When claim 15 is interpreted as “or”, the vehicle status parameter is optional and not required. Thus, it is unclear if these claims further would limit the claim set or not when interpreted as “or” . Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-20,26-32 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.
Regarding claims 18,20,29,30,,31,32 the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For purposes of examination, limitations after the phrase are not considered as part of the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitations “the status”, “ the operation” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19, 27-28 are rejected as being dependent upon 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.
Claims 15, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Stahl et al. ( US 2018319256)
Stahl et al teaches an air conditioning system for a vehicle (1)comprising an air conditioning unit (2) that is configured to condition interior supply air; at least one air filter( 23,31, paragrsphs 0045, 0049) assigned to the air conditioning unit; a blower device(21) configured to generate an air flow that is conducted to the air conditioning unit; at least one air supply duct (connected to the blower device; at least one electrostatic filter(31, 0054) arranged in the air supply duct upstream of the blower device; a control device(24, par 0044) that is connected to the electrostatic filter ; wherein the control device is configured to control the operation of the electrostatic filter as a function of at least one detected air conditioning parameter and/or at least one vehicle status parameter( par 0057, 0064).
In regards to claim 16 Stahl et al teach circulating air duct.( par 0043,25)
In regards to claim 17 Stahl et al. teach parallel filters in respective ducts (par 0049, “ …be arranged… mutually parallel…”)
In regards to claim 18 Stahl et al teach control device toa activate the electrostatic filter depending on air conditioning mode( par 0064)
In regards to claim 19 Stahl et al. teach control device activates the electrostatic filters simultaneously ( Par 0064, par 0065)
In regards to claim 20 and 29-32, Stahl et al. teach control device adjusts based on humidity ( par 0060) or temperature (Par 0044)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24,33-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 26-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art of record teach nor suggest the claimed features of wherein the control unit controls the electrostatic filter operation based on the vehicle parameter the hood is open or clloed.as in claim 21 or the process of operating a vehicle air condition stem the electrostatic filter operation is deactivated when the hood is open and activating the electrostatic filter when the hood is closed as in claim 26.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on PTO-892 is considered of interest disclosing similar vehicle air conditioning systems incuding control systems and electrostatic filters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-1166. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
DUANE SMITH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/DUANE SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights