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
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: “a first air delivery device and a second air delivery device to deliver air to one or more passengers” in claim 14.
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.
Paragraph 35 of the specification states, “The first air delivery device and the second air delivery device may be selected from a port or air distribution device.” Due to this, the air delivery devices are seen as a port or air distribution device, such as air outlets 22, 22’ and 22”.
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 14,16,18,20 and 21 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.
Claim 14 has been amended to claim “an air directing unit comprising an air directing member… and the dual-flow climatization system according to Claim 1…wherein the air directing unit is supplied the air by the dual-flow climatization system.” Claim 1 claims “an air directing unit comprising a heat exchanger and a bypass channel”. It is unclear how many air directing units are required to meet the structure claimed in claim 14. It further seems that the end of claim 14 has the air directing unit supplied by air from itself as it is claimed as part of claim 1. The other claims depend from claim 14 so they are unclear due to their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,14,16 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent EP 1,510,376 B1 to Peter (hereinafter “Peter”) in view of Scheid.
Peter discloses a dual flow climatization system comprising an air mover (20) and an air directing unit with a heat exchanger (13) and a bypass channel (19), the air directing unit including a first portion and a second portion. The air mover provides a first airstream (17) to a first portion and a second airstream (18) to the second portion. The climatization system is located on a vehicle seat (abstract). It is not clear if the air entering the climatization system of Peter is derived from the vehicle cabin. Scheid’s climatization system located in a seat can derive intake from the vehicle cabin. Scheid states, “Fan 25 only circulating air (indicated in FIG. 1 by arrow 26) via one, for example Recirculating air inlet 28 arranged in the seat side surface 27 into an air duct 29 on the inlet side sucks. The climate box 14 can also be connected to the air shaft 29 Air hose 30 are supplied with fresh air, the air hose 30 in turn, preferably via a releasable coupling, to a fresh air supply shaft connected. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, it forms the lines 16 and 17 receiving shaft 18 also the fresh air supply shaft. It goes without saying however, that one or more separate fresh air supply shafts are also provided can be, which preferably also extend in the floor area in the vicinity of the seats 10. Preferably, the heat exchangers 15 can optionally have fresh air and recirculated air adjustable Proportions from 0 to 100% can be fed. The fresh air supply shaft 18 can also even equipped with a blower and thus designed as an overpressure channel that is suitable for a pure recirculation mode by means of an adjustable air flap, not shown can be closed.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the climatization system located in a vehicle seal of Peter by intaking air from the vehicle cabin to enable a pure recirculation mode of air cooling and to eliminate the need for an air connection between the vehicle seat and the exterior of the vehicle. Scheid’s fan 25 is shown upstream of heat exchanger and would deliver air to the heat exchanger.
In regard to claim 2, Scheid’s outlets 41 and 42 direct air in opposite directions. This is seen to meet the current claims. If the claims were clarified to state that the first and second portions are portions of the heat exchanger and bypass, such a feature is not clearly taught by Peter. As currently written however, the first and second portions can follow the heat exchanger and bypass.
In regard to claim 3, Peter’s air streams x and y are provided moving in the same direction.
In regard to claim 4, the heat exchanger 15 of Scheid is connected by flow line 16 and return line 17 to a temperature control system 19 which delivers water or a mixture of water and glycol though lines 16 and 17 to heat or cool the air passing through the seat contained air passages. Peter shows evaporator 13 to cool the air, with the evaporator connected to an air conditioning system.
In regard to claim 5, the bypass of Peter enables the circulation of air without changing the temperature, while the air passing through the heat exchanger 13 has its temperature changed.
In regard to claim 14, Peter shows the climatization system as claimed in claim 1, with the exception of the air inlet for vehicle cabin air, which is taught by Scheid which also teaches the climatized vehicle seat of original claim 14, specifically:
Scheid discloses a climatized vehicle seat (10) comprising a first air delivery device (50) and a second air delivery device (56) to deliver air to one or more passengers, an air directing member (40) angularly translated about a rotational axis (figures 2-5, show the member in different rotational positions) by an actuator (see the sixth paragraph after the listing of the figures, “The air flaps 35, 40 are activated, for example, by operating control elements 45 or 46 adjusted. This can be done, for example, using cable pulls or electrically controlled Actuator “, wherein the air directing member routes air to the first air delivery device, the second air delivery device, or both. This is described in Scheid: “Fig. 4 shows the case of sole heating of the footwell 44 of the passenger concerned. The air flaps 35, 40 block the inlets of the air feeds 36, 37 and 41 and give only the inlet of the air supply 42 free. The entire passing through the heat exchanger 15 Airflow therefore reaches the outflow 56 of the vehicle seat 10 in front of the relevant one Passenger.
In Fig. 5, the case is finally illustrated that only the rear seat 43 of the Vehicle seat 10 to be cooled or heated in front of the passenger concerned. The Air flap 35 blocks the inlets of air supply lines 36 and 37. Air flap 40 blocks the inlet of the air supply 42, but releases the inlet of the air supply 41.”
In regard to claim 16, both references show air flaps that are pivoted about a rotational axis. Arms between the actuator and the flap are considered well known in the art and thus obvious.
In regard to claim 18, the portions of Peter that have been cited above in regard to claim 6 are seen to render all combinations of bypass/cooled air obvious.
In regard to claim 20, Scheid states, “ A particularly compact, space-saving arrangement is obtained if the air conditioning units in the vehicle seats, preferably in the lower and / or rear part of the Vehicle seats are integrated.” This teaches the air directing unit being in a seat bottom or a seat back.
In regard to claim 21, the paragraph describing figure 1 of Scheid states the device can cool the user of the seat with a second outlet to cool a user sitting behind the seat with the cooling system. It is considered obvious that air will travel in opposite directions when directed to users on opposite sides of the seat. Air outlets direct to the seat cushion and backrest cushion of the seat are located on the opposite side than the outlets 41 and 42 leading to the outlets on the rear of the seat. This requires the air to travel in opposite directions.
In regard to claim 43, inlet 26 of Scheid is on the underside of the climatized vehicle seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-26-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claim 1, applicant states, the functional limitation “air movers provide…” is not met. The rejection of claim 1 is a 103 rejection which relies on the combination of Peter and Scheid. Scheid teaches a blower (air mover) drawing air into the air into the climatization system upstream of the heat exchanger. Peter shows a climatization system with an evaporator and means to split the air stream passing therethrough. There is not delineation between the first portion and the second portion in claim 1. Any airstream can be said to contain any number of portions. The claims does not state different destinations for the two portions or any physical separation between the two portions. Peter teaches splitting the airstream into separate flows 17 and 18. 17 is in a first portion and 18 is in a second portion of the air directing unit. This is what is claimed as there is currently no structure claimed to separate the portions. There is further no language precluding the mixing of the portions. The device of Peter would function the same if the upstream blower of Scheid were used in place of Peter’s downstream blower 20. Claim 1 does not clearly state that the first and second portions are first and second portions of the heat exchanger and bypass. In regard to claim 5, claim 1 claims that the air directing unit comprises a heat exchanger and a bypass channel. As the air directing unit can start at the beginning of the heat exchanger and/or the bypass, the temperature of air passing through the bypass will be maintained from the start of the bypass to the end of the bypass. The air passing through Peter’s bypass 19 can be seen as either the first or second stream and will maintain it’s temperature from the inlet of the bypass to the outlet, meeting the limitations of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,9 and 10 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 44-48 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While compact air conditioning systems using multiple blowers for vehicles are known (such as Lee et al (WO 2018/155839 A1), there is no motivation to make such a modification in a system with the other claim specifics in a system located in a vehicle seat which intakes vehicle cabin air. Lee’s fan 22 is used for outside air through inlet 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C DOERRLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571) 272-6928. 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.
/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights