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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US Pat No. 5,572,877), hereinafter referred to as Ikeda.
Re claim 1, Ikeda teaches a control method for an electric vehicle air conditioning system, the control method comprising:
(a) determining whether a current air conditioning mode is set to a cooling mode or a heating mode (see e.g. C4-lns 30-40, “The air conditioner can selectively operate among four modes, i.e., a cooling mode, a dry cooling mode, a heating mode and a dry heating mode can be selected. The cooling mode and the heating mode are automatically determined by control unit 36 based on the set temperature, detected values of inside air, outside air, solar radiation and the like, and the dry cooling mode and the dry heating mode are determined based on the operational condition of dry switch 29”);
(b) determining whether a request for entering an internal heat exchanger dry mode is received when the current air conditioning mode is set to the heating mode (see e.g. C4-lns 30-40, “The air conditioner can selectively operate among four modes, i.e., a cooling mode, a dry cooling mode, a heating mode and a dry heating mode can be selected. The cooling mode and the heating mode are automatically determined by control unit 36 based on the set temperature, detected values of inside air, outside air, solar radiation and the like, and the dry cooling mode and the dry heating mode are determined based on the operational condition of dry switch 29”);
(c) entering the internal heat exchanger dry mode and performing a drying operation of an internal heat exchanger for a predetermined time when the request for entering the internal heat exchanger dry mode is received (e.g. C6-lns 50-65, “As described above, in the air conditioner for vehicles, when dry-cooling mode or dry-heating mode is selected as an operation mode, temperature-conditioned air is discharged to the windshield by fixing the discharge port selection to defroster discharge port 21 for the predetermined time "ts"”); and
(d) operating a set normal heating mode when the internal heat exchanger dry mode is finished (e.g. claim 1, “first discharge port return means for opening a non-defroster discharge port determined in accordance with an operation mode of said air conditioner and the like after said predetermined time has elapsed”).
The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” .Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of internal heat exchanger dry mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 2, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 1. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” .Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of internal heat exchanger dry mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 3, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 1. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” .Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of internal heat exchanger dry mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 4, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 3. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” .Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of internal heat exchanger dry mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 5, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 1. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of battery reset is performedis never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 6, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 1. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of internal heat exchanger dry mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 7, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 1. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of cooling mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 8, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 7. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of cooling mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Re claim 9, Ikeda teaches the control method of claim 7. The applicant is reminded that in a method claim the steps following and/or dependent from a conditional limitation (i.e. comparison step limitation) do not have to be performed in the method, if the condition precedent recited in each step is not met. An examiner does not have to provide evidence for the required method steps that are not require to be performed. According to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed 04/28/2016 for application case 12/184,020: “It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (Fed.Cir.2007). In the instant case, if Ikeda where to be operated in the cooling/heating mode and the condition of cooling mode is never met then all the steps dependent therefrom are not required by the claimed invention under BRI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 02/07/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763