Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/625,288

MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
NOUKETCHA, LIONEL W
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hanon Systems
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
455 granted / 566 resolved
+10.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
597
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 566 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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(s) 1-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 calls for the limitation “in which” in line 3, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear which previously recited limitation the term is referring to. Applicant is encouraged to recite “a housing for guiding the air flow, said housing comprising at least one defrost outlet, at least one ventilation outlet, and at least one footwell outlet A similar issue is found in line 10 of claim 1, with the recitation “which is”. Applicant is encouraged to recite “a cold air path bypassing the heat exchanger and a warm air path running through the heat exchanger lead downstream into a mixing space, wherein the mixing space is connected to the at least one defrost outlet, the at least one ventilation outlet, or a dashboard outlet, and the at least one footwell outlet;” Claim 5 calls for the limitation “the open region” in lines 3-4, which limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 9 and 10 each call for the limitation “the open regions”, which limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim(s) 2-10 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base 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 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. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araki (EP 1445133 A2). Regarding claim 1: Araki discloses a motor vehicle air conditioning system (Fig. 1) comprising a fan (“air blower” discussed in para [0017]) to generate an air flow; a housing #2 for guiding the air flow, the housing comprising at least one defrost outlet #13, at least one ventilation outlet #14, and at least one footwell outlet #15; an evaporator #3 arranged in the housing and through which the air flow can flow ([0017]), and a heat exchanger #4 arranged in the housing and through which the air flow can flow downstream of the evaporator ([0017]), wherein, starting from a cold air space located downstream of the evaporator and upstream of the heat exchanger, a cold air path bypassing the heat exchanger and a warm air path running through the heat exchanger lead downstream into a mixing space ([0004] & Fig. 6: cool air bypass the heat exchanger; and warm air passes through the heat exchanger; and are mixed by baffle #11), wherein the mixing space is connect-ed to the at least one defrost outlet, the at least one ventilation outlet, or a dashboard outlet, and the at least one footwell outlet ([0004]); an internal air guiding device #11 with a plurality of warm air ducts #21 (Fig. 6) at the end of the warm air path and at the entrance to the mixing space (Fig. 1), each of the warm air ducts being designed to guide warm air in a direction of the at least one defrost outlet, the at least one ventilation outlet, or the at least one footwell outlet (Fig. 1 & 6; [0004]), wherein the warm air ducts are each designed to be open on one side along a predominant part of a course of the warm air ducts in a longitudinal direction of the warm air ducts (best seen in Fig. 6). Regarding claim 2: Araki further discloses wherein the warm air ducts #21 are arranged separately from one another (Fig. 6), such that several of the warm air ducts do not originate from a common connection (see Fig. 6: #21 are separate and distinct from one another; and do not originate from a common connection). Regarding claim 3: Araki further discloses wherein the warm air ducts are arranged parallel to one another (Fig. 6). Regarding claim 4: Araki further discloses wherein a cross section of at least one open one of the warm air ducts is U-shaped (see Fig. 6). Regarding claim 5: Araki further discloses wherein at least one of the warm air ducts, which is designed to guide warm air to the at least one defrost outlet, has an end region in which the at least one of the warm air duct is closed by a wall (see wall of #21 opposite the open end), whereby an open region of the at least one of the warm air duct ends (Fig. 6), the wall being adjacent to an outlet opening of the at least one of the warm air duct for guiding warm air to the at least one defrost outlet (see Fig. 1& 6; [0004]). Regarding claim 6: Araki further discloses wherein at least one of the warm air ducts, which is designed to guide warm air to the at least one ventilation outlet, has an end region continually enlarging up to an end face with the end face being completely or partially closed (see upper end region of #21; Fig. 6). Regarding claim 7: Araki further discloses wherein the end face is provided with an air outlet opening (see Fig. 1 & 6: the upper end of #21 is an air outlet opening to the regions #13 & #14). Regarding claim 8: Araki further discloses wherein at least one of the warm air ducts, which is designed to guide warm air to the at least one footwell outlet #15, has an end region continually enlarging up to an end face with the end face being completely or partially closed (see lower end region of #21; Fig. 6). 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (EP 1445133 A2) in view of Hisato (JP 2009227026 A). Regarding claim 9: Araki discloses all the limitations, except for wherein a baffle for introducing warm air into a respective one of the warm air ducts is formed on each of the open regions of the warm air ducts. In the same field of endeavor, Hisato teaches wherein a baffle #24b for introducing warm air into a respective one of the warm air ducts #24a is formed on each of the open regions of the warm air ducts (see Fig. 1-2 & 6; [0061). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Araki with a baffle for introducing warm air into a respective one of the warm air ducts formed on each of the open regions of the warm air ducts; in a similar manner as taught by Hisato. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have guided the warm airflow in a predetermined direction as suggested by Hisato ([0019]); thereby, improving the air transport efficiency. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (EP 1445133 A2) in view of Jeong (US 20200406703 A1). Regarding claim 10: Araki discloses all the limitations, except for wherein a common baffle is arranged for introducing warm air into the warm air ducts over an entire width of the air guiding device and the open regions of the warm air ducts. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong teaches wherein a common baffle #130 is arranged for introducing warm air into the warm air ducts #110 over an entire width of the air guiding device #100 and the open regions of the warm air ducts ([0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Araki with a common baffle arranged for introducing warm air into the warm air ducts over an entire width of the air guiding device and the open regions of the warm air ducts; in a similar manner as taught by Jeong. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have guided the warm airflow in a predetermined direction; thereby, improving the air transport efficiency. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Furuzumi (US 20140087646 A1), Vincent (US 20030042011 A1), and Vincent (US 20020157811 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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. /LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600199
HEAT PUMP SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590737
REFRIGERATION CYCLE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588167
AIR CONDITIONER USING WATER VAPOR REFRIGERANT FOR MODULAR DATA CENTER AND DATA CENTER COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571582
HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE HAVING AN AMBIENT LIGHT DETECTION UNIT AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566012
SYSTEM AND METHOD TO AVOID MIXED AIR CONDENSATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 566 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month