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(b)
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 14 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 14 is indefinite because the limitation “the second user input device” lacks antecedent basis. Note that since claim 14 depends on claim 11, and claim 11 recites a limitation of a first user input elements and a second user input elements. If the term “the second user input device” is referring to the “second user input element” in claim 11, claim 14 could be potentially be objected for redundancy.
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.
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 are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2, 11, 13–16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kiyohara et al., JP 2009298336 A (“Kiyohara”) in view of Li et al., US 2019/0023099 A1 (“Li”) and Park et al., KR 20200067525 A (“Park”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kiyohara discloses that an air purification system (Kiyohara’s vehicle-mounted ion generator 6, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) for a vehicle cabin (Kiyohara’s passenger compartment 1a, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) of a vehicle (Kiyohara’s passenger car 1, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) comprising a first seat arrangement (Kiyohara’s fronts seats 2, 3, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) and a second seat arrangement (Kiyohara’s rear seats 4, 5, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5), the air purification system comprising:
a first ionisation device (Kiyohara’s front seat ion generating elements 31, 32, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) mountable in a first position (Kiyohara’s front seat ducts 13, 14, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) within the vehicle (1 of Kiyohara) to impact air quality in a first region (Kiyohara’s front seat) of the vehicle cabin associated with the first seat arrangement (2, 3 of Kiyohara);
a second ionisation device (Kiyohara’s rear seat ion generating elements 33, 34, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) mountable in a second position (Kiyohara’s rear seat ducts 15, 16, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) within the vehicle (1 of Kiyohara) to impact air quality in a second region (Kiyohara’s rear seat region) of the vehicle cabin associated with the second seat arrangement (4, 5 of Kiyohara);
a user input arrangement (Kiyohara’s switch for manually switching between the all-seat ion supply mode and front-seat concentrated blower mode, Kiyohara p. 9) configured to receive at least a first user command, the user input arrangement including a first user input element (switch position corresponding to all-seat supply mode, Kiyohara p. 9) operable by a user seated in a vehicle seat of the first seat arrangement (noted here this limitation does not recite a physical structure of the claimed air purification system, and it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a user in the car, regardless of its position is capable of operate the switch from back or front seats as long as the use is capable of stand up and lean backward or forward depends on the position) and a second user input element (switch position corresponding to front-seat concentrated blower mode, Kiyohara p. 9) operable by a user seated in a vehicle seat of the second seat arrangement (noted here this limitation does not recite a physical structure of the claimed air purification system, and it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a user in the car, regardless of its position is capable of operate the switch from back or front seats as long as the use is capable of stand up and lean backward or forward depends on the position); and
a control system (Kiyohara’s ion generator control unit 21, Kiyohara Fig. 9, p. 7) comprising one or more controllers (Kiyohara’s positive and negative control circuit 40, 41, Kiyohara p. 7), the control system configured to receive the first user command and generate a first control signal in response to the first user command to operate the air purification system in a first mode of operation in which both the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are activated together (Kiyohara’s switch for manually switching between the all-seat ion supply mode and front-seat concentrated blower mode, Kiyohara p. 9; the “all-seat ion supply mode” would be the claimed “first mode of operation”), wherein both the first and second user input elements are in communication with the control system (Kiyohara’s first and second user input elements, i.e., switch in different positions is in communication with Kiyohara’s ion generator control unit 21 to switch between different modes, Kiyohara Fig. 9, p. 7).
Kiyohara does not disclose the first ionization device being located behind an instrument panel forward of the first seat arrangement.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle cabin air purification systems, Li discloses ionizer 56 located behind an instrument panel 77 forward of the first row of vehicle seats, Li Figs. 2 and 4A, [0036], [0044]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kiyohara’s first ionization device to be located at a similar location as that shown by Li because such location provides filtered/clean air near a face an occupant.
Kiyohara does not disclose the second ionisation device being located in a region of the vehicle cabin between adjacent seats of the first seat arrangement.
In the analogous art of vehicle air cleaning systems, Park discloses a vehicle armrest type filter purifier 1 (Park Fig. 2, p. 2), which is located in a centre console between adjacent seats of the first row of vehicle seats because Park discloses its air purifier could be installed on a front seat inside a vehicle, Park Fig. 2, p. 1. Park discloses its armrest air purifier is efficient compared to conventional vehicle air purifiers because it comprises a two-way air flow structure and thus doubling the air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency, Park, Fig. 2, p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kiyohara to have the second ionization device located in a center console between adjacent seats of the first rows of vehicles seats as disclosed by Park for increase air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Kiyohara does not explicitly disclose that the air purification system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers collectively comprise:
at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving the first user command;
and at least one memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein; wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to generate the first control signal in response to the first user command to operate the air purification system in the first mode of operation in which both the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are activated together.
In the analogous art of vehicle cabin air purification systems, Li discloses an air quality control system 12 comprising a user interface 18 and a cabin air quality control module 20 comprising at least one electronic processor (Li discloses its term module refers to any processor device, Li [0025]) having an electrical input (Li’s instrument panel input device 88 of Li’s panel user interface 80, Li [0047]) for receiving the first user command;
and at least one memory device (Li discloses its module also comprising memory, Li [0025]) electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein (Li’s program or software would read on the claimed “instructions therein”, Li [0025]);
wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to generate a first control signal in response to the first user command to operate the air purification system in a first mode of operation (Li discloses that its embodiment may employ various integrated circuit components, such as memory elements, digital signal processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables, and carry out a variety of functions under the control of one or more microprocessors or other control devices, Li [0026]. Li’s control system is a comprehensive control system that determines a level of fine dust within passenger cabin and controls air quality in vehicle cabin based on environments, Li [0003] and [0004]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kiyohara to use Li’s control system to execute Kiyohara’s block diagram, which includes a command of all-seat ion supply mode for Li’s control system is specifically designed for controlling vehicle air purification system. With such modification, modified Kiyohara’s controllers would have both the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are activated together in all-seat ion supply mode.
Regarding claim 11:
Kiyohara discloses that a vehicle (Kiyohara’s passenger car 1, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) comprising:
a vehicle cabin (Kiyohara’s passenger compartment 1a, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5),
a first seat arrangement (Kiyohara’s front seats 2 and 3, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5);
a second seat arrangement (Kiyohara’s rear seats 4 and 5, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5); and
an air purification system comprising:
a first ionisation device (Kiyohara’s ion generation elements 31, 32, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) mountable in a first position (Kiyohara’s front seat ducts 13 and 14, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) within the vehicle (1 of Kiyohara) to impact air quality in a first region of the vehicle cabin associated with the first seat arrangement (intended use, and Kiyohara’s ion generation elements 31, 32 will impact air quality in a first region, Kiyohara’s front seat portion of its passenger compartment, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5),
a second ionisation device (Kiyohara’s ion generating elements 33 and 34, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) mountable in a second position (Kiyohara’s dusts 15, 16, Kiyohara Fig. 3, p. 5) within the vehicle (1 of Kiyohara) to impact air quality in a second region of the vehicle cabin associated with the second seat arrangement (intended use, and Kiyohara’s ion generation elements 33, 34 will impact air quality in a second region, Kiyohara’s rear seat portion of its passenger compartment, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5), and
a user input arrangement (Kiyohara discloses as a switch, Kiyohara p. 9) configured to receive at least a first user command (Kiyohara discloses as all-seat supply mode, Kiyohara p. 9), the user input arrangement including a first user input element (switch position corresponding to all-seat supply mode, Kiyohara p. 9) operable by a user seated in a vehicle seat of the first seat arrangement (noted here this limitation does not recite a physical structure of the claimed air purification system, and it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a user in the car, regardless of its position is capable of operate the switch from back or front seats as long as the use is capable of stand up and lean backward or forward depends on the position) and a second user input element (switch position corresponding to front-seat concentrated blower mode, Kiyohara p. 9) operable by a user seated in a vehicle seat of the second seat arrangement (noted here this limitation does not recite a physical structure of the claimed air purification system, and it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a user in the car, regardless of its position is capable of operate the switch from back or front seats as long as the use is capable of stand up and lean backward or forward depends on the position); and
a control system (Kiyohara’s control unit 21, Fig. 9, p. 8) comprising one or more controllers (Kiyohara’s control circuits 40, 41, Kiyohara p. 7), the control system configured to receive the first user command and generate a first control signal in response to the first user command to operate the air purification system in a first mode of operation in which both the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are activated together (Kiyohara’s switch for manually switching between the all-seat ion supply mode and front-seat concentrated blower mode, Kiyohara p. 9; the “all-seat ion supply mode” would be the claimed “first mode of operation”), wherein both the first and second user input elements are in communication with the control system (Kiyohara’s first and second user input elements, i.e., switch in different positions is in communication with Kiyohara’s ion generator control unit 21 to switch between different modes, Kiyohara Fig. 9, p. 7).
Kiyohara does not disclose the first ionization device being located behind an instrument panel forward of the first seat arrangement.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle cabin air purification systems, Li discloses ionizer 56 located behind an instrument panel 77 forward of the first row of vehicle seats, Li Figs. 2 and 4A, [0036], [0044]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kiyohara’s first ionization device to be located at a similar location as that shown by Li because such location provides filtered/clean air near a face an occupant.
Kiyohara does not disclose the second ionisation device being located in a region of the vehicle cabin between adjacent seats of the first seat arrangement.
In the analogous art of vehicle air cleaning systems, Park discloses a vehicle armrest type filter purifier 1 (Park Fig. 2, p. 2), which is located in a centre console between adjacent seats of the first row of vehicle seats because Park discloses its air purifier could be installed on a front seat inside a vehicle, Park Fig. 2, p. 1. Park discloses its armrest air purifier is efficient compared to conventional vehicle air purifiers because it comprises a two-way air flow structure and thus doubling the air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency, Park, Fig. 2, p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kiyohara to have the second ionization device located in a center console between adjacent seats of the first rows of vehicles seats as disclosed by Park for increase air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Kiyohara does not disclose that the vehicle as claimed in claim 12, wherein the second ionisation device is located in a centre console between adjacent seats of the first seat arrangment.
In the analogous art of vehicle air cleaning systems, Park discloses a vehicle armrest type filter purifier 1 (Park Fig. 2, p. 2), which is located in a centre console between adjacent seats of the first row of vehicle seats because Park discloses its air purifier could be installed on a front seat inside a vehicle, Park Fig. 2, p. 1. Park discloses its armrest air purifier is efficient compared to conventional vehicle air purifiers because it comprises a two-way air flow structure and thus doubling the air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency, Park, Fig. 2, p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kiyohara to have the second ionization device located in a center console between adjacent seats of the first rows of vehicles seats as disclosed by Park for increase air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Kiyohara discloses that the vehicle as claimed in claim 11,wherein the first user input device is operable by a user seated in one of the seats of a first row (Kiyohara’s user input device is a switch, which read on the claimed “first user input device” and it is provided on the dashboard of the passenger car, Kiyohara p, 9, which would be oeparable in one of the seats of the first row since it located on the dashboard), wherein the first and user input elements are configured to receive the first user command to operate the air purification system in the first mode of operation in which both the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are operated together (Kiyohara’s all-seat ion supply mode, Kiyohara p. 9).
Kiyohara does not explicitly disclose a second user input device operable by a user seated in one of the seats of the second row, and wherein the second user input elements are configured to receive a first user command to operate the air purification system in the first mode of operation in which both the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are operated together.
In the analogous art of vehicle air purification systems, Park discloses a vehicle armrest type filter purifier 1 (Park Fig. 2, p. 2), which is located in a centre console between adjacent seats of the first row of vehicle seats because Park discloses its air purifier could be installed on a front seat inside a vehicle, Park Fig. 2, p. 1. Additionally, Park discloses a controller 60 (Park Fig. 3, p. 4) that are configured to control the overall operation of the air purifier. Park also discloses its controller 60 includes mode setting button, Park p. 4. Park discloses its controller 60 allows controlling the air purifier based on the amount of harmful gas or fine dust contained in the indoor air of vehicle and switch between different modes, Park p. 4. Additionally, Park discloses its armrest air purifier is efficient compared to conventional vehicle air purifiers because it comprises a two-way air flow structure and thus doubling the air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency, Park, Fig. 2, p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Park’s armrest air purifier as well the controller in Kiyohara for an improved and efficient cleaning of vehicle indoor air. With such modification, modified Kiyohara would have a second user input elements (Park’s controller 60) configured to received the first user command of all-seat ion supply mode in which both the first and second ionisation device are operated together.
Regarding claim 15:
Kiyohara discloses that a method of controlling an air purification system (Kiyohara’s vehicle-mounted ion generator 6, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) for a vehicle cabin (1a of Kiyohara, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) of a vehicle (1 of Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) comprising a first seat arrangement (Kiyohara’s front seats 2, 3, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) and a second seat arrangement (Kiyohara’s rear seats 4, 5, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5),
a first ionisation device (Kiyohara’s ion generating elements 31, 32, Kiyohara Fig. 4, p. 5) mountable in a first position (Kiyohara’s ducts 13, 14, Kiyohara Fig. 3, p. 5) within the vehicle (1 of Kiyohara) to impact air quality in a first region of the vehicle cabin associated with the first seat arrangement (Kiyohara discloses ion generating elements 31, 32 has an effect of sterilization, Kiyohara p. 2) and
a second ionisation device (Kiyohara’s ion generating elements 33, 34, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) mountable in a second position (Kiyohara’s rear seat ducts 15, 16, Kiyohara Fig. 3, p. 5) within the vehicle (1 of Kiyohara) to impact air quality in a second region of the vehicle cabin associated with the second seat arrangement (Kiyohara discloses ion generating elements 31, 32 has an effect of sterilization, Kiyohara p. 2),
the method comprising receiving, at a controller (Kiyohara’s ion generator control unit 21, Kiyohara Fig. 9, p. 8) and from a user input arrangement (via Kiyohara’s switch, Kiyohara p. 9), a first user command which is operable to control the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device in a first mode of operation in which they are both activated together (Kiyohara’s all-seat ion supply mode, Kiyohara p. 8), wherein the user input arrangement including a first user input element (switch position corresponding to all-seat supply mode, Kiyohara p. 9) operable by a user seated in a vehicle seat of the first seat arrangement (it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a user in the car, regardless of its position is capable of operate the switch from back or front seats as long as the use is capable of stand up and lean backward or forward depends on the position) and a second user input element (switch position corresponding to front-seat concentrated blower mode, Kiyohara p. 9) operable by a user seated in a vehicle seat of the second seat arrangement (it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that a user in the car, regardless of its position is capable of operate the switch from back or front seats as long as the use is capable of stand up and lean backward or forward depends on the position), both the first and second user input elements are in communication with the control system (Kiyohara’s first and second user input elements, i.e., switch in different positions is in communication with Kiyohara’s ion generator control unit 21 to switch between different modes, Kiyohara Fig. 9, p. 7).
Kiyohara does not disclose the first ionization device being located behind an instrument panel forward of the first seat arrangement.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle cabin air purification systems, Li discloses ionizer 56 located behind an instrument panel 77 forward of the first row of vehicle seats, Li Figs. 2 and 4A, [0036], [0044]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kiyohara’s first ionization device to be located at a similar location as that shown by Li because such location provides filtered/clean air near a face an occupant.
Kiyohara does not disclose the second ionisation device being located in a region of the vehicle cabin between adjacent seats of the first seat arrangement.
In the analogous art of vehicle air cleaning systems, Park discloses a vehicle armrest type filter purifier 1 (Park Fig. 2, p. 2), which is located in a centre console between adjacent seats of the first row of vehicle seats because Park discloses its air purifier could be installed on a front seat inside a vehicle, Park Fig. 2, p. 1. Park discloses its armrest air purifier is efficient compared to conventional vehicle air purifiers because it comprises a two-way air flow structure and thus doubling the air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency, Park, Fig. 2, p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kiyohara to have the second ionization device located in a center console between adjacent seats of the first rows of vehicles seats as disclosed by Park for increase air purification efficiency and circulation efficiency.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Kiyohara discloses that the vehicle as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first seat arrangement (front seat 2, 3 of Kiyohara) is a first row of vehicle seats (implicit, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5) and the second seat arrangement (4, t of Kiyohara) is a second row of vehicle seats behind the first row of vehicle seats (implicit, Kiyohara Fig. 1, p. 5).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Kiyohara discloses that the vehicle as claimed in claim 13, wherein the second ionisation device is located behind an air vent located in the centre console (Park discloses an ionizer 90 located behind its exhaust grill 12 in the centre console, Park Figs. 2 and 4, p. 4, and modified Kiyohara would have a similar design as disclosed by Park, because Park’s air purifier design is adopted in Kiyohara for the benefits disclosed above).
Claims 3–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kiyohara in view of Li and Park, and in further view of Bauer et al., US 2018/0345762 A1 (“Bauer”).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Kiyohara does not disclose that the air purification system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an air filtration system having a first filter and a second filter, the air filtration system being operable in at least one of a recirculation mode in which air drawn into the vehicle cabin is recirculated through the second filter at least once and a fresh air mode in which air drawn into the vehicle cabin passes through the second filter only once, and a sensor system which generates a sensor output at least in response to at least one of a concentration level of particulates within the vehicle cabin and a concentration of particulates within the external environment, the controller being configured to operate the air filtration system automatically in either the recirculation mode or the fresh air mode in response to the sensor output and the first user command.
In the analogous art of vehicle cabin air purification systems, Bauer discloses an air filtration system (Bauer’s first filter element 400, second filter element 300 and cabin filter element 500, Bauer Figs. 2–3, [0044] and [0053]) having a first filter (400 of Bauer) and a second filter (500 of Bauer), the air filtration system being operable in at least one of a recirculation mode (Bauer discloses recirculation, Bauer [0048]) in which air drawn into the vehicle cabin is recirculated through the second filter at least once (Bauer discloses in recirculation mode, where air through the third filter element 500, Bauer [0016]) and a fresh air mode (Bauer discloses a fresh air mode in [0016]) in which air drawn into the vehicle cabin passes through the second filter only once (Bauer discloses ambient air flows into fresh air housing through the first filter 400 and third filter 500, where the Bauer’s filter 500, which is mapped to the second filter, is passed through only once, Bauer [0016]), and a sensor system (Bauer’s sensor 610, 612, 614, 615, 615, 620 or 630, Bauer [0038]) which generates a sensor output at least in response to at least one of a concentration level of particulates within the vehicle cabin (Bauer [0012]) and a concentration of particulates within the external environment (Bauer [0006]), the controller (Bauer’s control unit 600, Bauer [0038]) being configured to operate the air filtration system automatically in either the recirculation mode or the fresh air mode in response to the sensor output and the first user command (Bauer [0038]). Bauer discloses its system allows for tailoring of the cabin air based on varying environmental factors from which the vehicle may be drawing the air as supplied, Bauer [0003]. It would therefore have been obvious include Bauer’s air filtration system and necessarily controller components in Kiyohara for a tailored air filtration system sensitive to energy consumption.
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Kiyohara as modified does not disclose that the air purification system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the user input arrangement is configured to receive a second user command, the controller being configured to receive the second user command and generate a second control signal in response to the second user command to operate the air purification system in a second mode of operation in which the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are operated together with the air filtration system.
However, Bauer discloses a user input interface 640 operative connected to a control unit 600 for receiving input from a user regarding individual preferences or custom mode overrides or selections as well as adjusting into various modes based on sensed cabin and environmental conditions, Bauer [0049]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kiyohara’s system to receive user input the same way as disclosed by Bauer to allow users to adjust to various modes based on sensed cabin and environmental conditions. With such modification, modified Kiyohara would receive a second user command and allowing its controller to receive such command and generate a control signal in response to such command to operate the air purification system while Kiyohara’s first and second ionization device to operate together with the air filtration system when the user feel the need to maximize filtration capacity in high pollution area.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Kiyohara discloses that the air purification system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the filtration system includes a main filter for filtering particles having a size of up to 2.5 µm (Bauer’s filter element 300 is a fine particulate filter, such as a HEPA filter, Bauer [0057], and HEPA filter by definition captures particles that are 0.3 microns in size or larger).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Kiyohara does not disclose that the air purification system as claimed in claim 4, comprising at least one carbon dioxide management device located in at least one of the first and second positions.
However, Bauer discloses an air quality sensor detects carbon dioxide, and such sensor could be connected to various seats within various seats within the vehicle, and based on the output of the sensor, Bauer would activate fresh air circulation or recirculation corresponds to carbon dioxide increase, Bauer [0070]. Bauer discloses such operation is necessary because passenger consumes oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide and oxygen need to be replenished, Bauer [0002]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Bauer’s carbon dioxide management system in Kiyohara for the purpose of replenish oxygen. And Bauer’s carbon dioxide management system would be installed in the first and/or second positions in Kiyohara because Bauer discloses its sensor is connected to various seats in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Kiyohara does not disclose that the air purification system as claim in claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to generate a second signal in response to the second user command to operate the air purification system in a second mode of operation in which the first ionisation device and the second ionisation device are operated together with the air filtration system and the at least one carbon dioxide management device.
However, Bauer discloses a user input interface 640 operative connected to a control unit 600 for receiving input from a user regarding individual preferences or custom mode overrides or selections as well as adjusting into various modes based on sensed cabin and environmental conditions, Bauer [0049]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kiyohara’s system to receive user input the same way as disclosed by Bauer to allow users to adjust to various modes based on sensed cabin and environmental conditions. With such modification, modified Kiyohara would receive a second user command and allowing its controller to receive such command and generate a control signal in response to such command to operate the air purification system while Kiyohara’s first and second ionization device to operate together with the air filtration system and the carbon dioxide management device when the user feel the need to maximize filtration capacity in high pollution area.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Kiyohara does not explicitly disclose that the air purification system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the user input arrangement includes at least first and second controls for receiving respective ones of the first and second user commands to operate the air purification system in the first and the second mode of operation, respectively.
However, Bauer discloses a user input interface 640 operative connected to a control unit 600 for receiving input from a user regarding individual preferences or custom mode overrides or selections as well as adjusting into various modes based on sensed cabin and environmental conditions, Bauer [0049]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kiyohara’s user input arrangement to include at least first and second controls for receiving respectively one of the first and second user commands and operation in respectively mode because Bauer discloses its control unit could receive input from a user based on individual preference or custom mode.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Kiyohara does not explicitly disclose that the air purification system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the user input arrangement is configured to receive a third user command, the controller being configured to receive the third user command and generate a third control signal in response to the third user command to operate the air purification system in a third mode of operation in which the at least one carbon dioxide management device is operated on its own.
However, Bauer discloses a user input interface 640 operative connected to a control unit 600 for receiving input from a user regarding individual preferences or custom mode overrides or selections as well as adjusting into various modes based on sensed cabin and environmental conditions, Bauer [0049]. Additionally, Bauer discloses all of its filters could be bypassed to allow unfiltered air to enter cabin when exterior ambient air is substantially free of particles or other containments, and such mode could be done via a user via user input interface 640, Bauer [0053]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kiyohara’s user input arrangement to receive a third user command, the controller being configured to receive the third user command and generate a third control sginal in response to a third user command to operate the air purification system in a third mode of operation in which carbon dioxide management system is operated on its own when air is substantially free of particles and the only user need is oxygen replenish.
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Kiyohara discloses that the air purification system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the user input arrangement includes a third control for receiving the third user command to operate the air purification system in the third mode of operation because modified Kiyohara’s user input arrangement is connected to controller for custom modes, Bauer [0049], and the control responsible to operate the air purification system in the third mode of operation would be the claimed “third control”.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner withdraws the current objection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(b) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection. However, new grounds of rejections are made. See details above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant amends its independent claims to include limitations originally belong to dependent claims. The applicant argues that neither Li or Park contemplates that the user inputs arragngement including a first user input element operable by a user seated in one of the the vehicle seats of the fist seat arrangement and a second user input element operable by a user seated in one of the vehicle seats of the second seat arrangement where both the first and second user input elements are in communication with the control system, Applicant Rem. dated Jul. 27, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicant Rem.”), p. 9.
It is pointed out here that the “operable” limitation does not get patentable weight except for the method claim 15. And a person of ordinary arts understands that within a small space of vehicle cabin, a person inside the cabin, regardless of where the person sits, the person is capable of operate the claimed first and second user input element. Additionally, the limitation of “first and second user input element” is mapped to Kiyohara’s switch position corresponds to its two different modes, and both are connected to Kiyohara’s control system to perform function properly.
Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persasive.
-
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights