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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “a first end” should read “a first upper end”
In line 4, “an opposite second end” should read “an opposite second upper end”
In line 5, “first end” should read “first upper end”
In line 9, “a first end” should read “a first lower end”
In line 10, “an opposite second end” should read “an opposite second lower end”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“an outlet flap coupling coupled with a drive mechanism” should read “[[an]] the outlet flap
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 4: “wherein the flap control assembly further comprises an outlet flap coupling coupled with a drive mechanism”
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.
With regards to the drive mechanism of claims 4-5, the corresponding structure described in [0060] of the 06/04/2024 specification is that of a motor.
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.
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) 1-3, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giyuntaa (JPH0920133A), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, in view of Khelifa (DE4304077C2), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Giyuntaa teaches
A cabin air control system (device 1) comprising:
an upper housing (upper end of air guide housing 2, as shown on annotated fig. 1 below) comprising:
a first end (annotated fig. 1);
an opposite second end (annotated fig. 1);
an air inlet passage with an inlet opening at the first end of the upper housing (upstream of air passage 7, fig. 1); and
a heater chamber in communication with the air inlet passage (air passage 7);
a lower housing (lower end of air guide housing 2, as shown on annotated fig. 1 below; While Giyuntaa teaches the air guide housing 2 as a single component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the housing 2 as two separate components (i.e., along the dashed line on annotated fig. 1 below), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961))) comprising:
a first end (annotated fig. 1);
an opposite second end (annotated fig. 1);
an outlet passage (air chamber 5) with an outlet opening (air passage 12) and an exhaust conduit (air passage 14) at the first end of the lower housing, the outlet passage selectively communicating with the outlet opening and the exhaust conduit (via flap 15),
wherein the upper housing and the lower housing together define an adsorption unit chamber in communication with the outlet passage (hollow chamber 9, communicating with air chamber 5);
a single adsorption unit disposed in the adsorption unit chamber (unit of sorption reaction vessel 3 and an activated carbon filter 4), the adsorption unit being configured to adsorb moisture and/or carbon dioxide and/or harmful gas (“As shown by the arrow 11, air passes through the sorption reaction vessel 3 and the activated carbon filter 4, and at that time, the air is dried in the sorption reaction vessel 3 to remove harmful substances and aromatic substances in the activated carbon filter 4”) [0014]; and
a heater disposed in the heater chamber (heating device 8), the heater being configured to heat air before being delivered to the adsorption unit, and the heated air being used to regenerate the adsorption unit (“In the driving state shown in FIG. 2, the air guided through the air passage 7 is heated in the heating device 8 to a temperature of about 120 ° C., for example. The air thus heated is used for desorption of the reaction vessel material in the sorption reaction vessel 3 and regeneration of the filter material in the filter 4”) [0014],
wherein the adsorption unit extends along an adsorption unit longitudinal axis (as shown on fig. 1), and has a hollow encircling-shaped cross-section in a plane perpendicular to the adsorption unit longitudinal axis (“A sorption reaction vessel 3 and an activated carbon filter 4 are shown in the air guide housing 2 of the apparatus 1 and both are formed as a hollow truncated cone and inserted into each other”) [0013], with an opening at a top side thereof (annotated fig. 1)
Giyuntaa does not teach
the heater abuts against the adsorption unit and at least partially covers the opening
Khelifa teaches
the heater abuts against the adsorption unit and at least partially covers the opening (fig 6 shows a heating device 29 and ring cage 19a similar to the arrangement of Giyuntaa; as shown on fig. 7, corners of heating device 29 abut ring cage 19a, and heating device 29 partially covers opening of inlet chamber 14a)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arrangement of heating device 29 and ring cage 19a of Khelifa to the system of Giyuntaa, in order to effectively reduce the footprint size of the system by providing the hater within hollow chamber 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Giyuntaa
Regarding claim 2, Giyuntaa, as modified, teaches the cabin air control system according to claim 1,
wherein the heater at least covers 80% of the opening
While Giyuntaa, as modified by Khelifa, does not explicitly teach wherein the heater at least covers 80% of the opening (as shown on fig. 7 of Khelifa, heating device 29 covers a majority of the opening of inlet chamber 14a, however does not explicitly disclose the heater at least covers 80% of the opening), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure sorption reaction vessel 3 of Giyuntaa as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0071] of Applicant’s 06/04/2024 specification; “As a non-limiting example, the heater 4 at least covers 80% of the opening 302. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, the heater 4 may cover any other suitable percentage of the opening 302, for example, 85%, 90%, etc., without departing the scope of the disclosure”). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 3, Giyuntaa, as modified, teaches the cabin air control system according to claim 1, further comprising
a flap control assembly (flap 15 and bearing 16) configured to switch between an adsorption mode (fig. 1) and a regeneration mode (fig. 2), the flap control assembly comprising an outlet flap configured to be rotated between a first outlet position corresponding to the adsorption mode and a second outlet position corresponding to the regeneration mode (flap 15),
wherein, in the first outlet position, the outlet opening is configured to be open and the exhaust conduit is configured to be closed by the outlet flap, so that adsorbed and/or purified air flows into a cabin via the outlet opening (“In the driving state shown in FIG. 1, air is sucked by the blower 6 as indicated by an arrow 10 and guided into the hollow chamber 9 through the air passage 7. Air passes through the heating device 8, but the heating device is not activated in this drive state. As shown by the arrow 11, air passes through the sorption reaction vessel 3 and the activated carbon filter 4, and at that time, the air is dried in the sorption reaction vessel 3 to remove harmful substances and aromatic substances in the activated carbon filter 4. The The air flow coming out of the activated carbon filter 4 is guided to the air passage 12 through the air chamber 5 and guided to the vehicle compartment in the direction of the arrow 13. When the air passage 12 is open, the other air passage 14 is closed by the flap 15 so that the entire air volume is led out through the air passage 12”) [0014], and
in the second outlet position, the outlet opening is configured to be closed by the outlet flap and the exhaust conduit is configured to be open, so that exhaust comprising gas and water after regeneration flows to an environment through the exhaust conduit (“In the driving state shown in FIG. 2, the air guided through the air passage 7 is heated in the heating device 8 to a temperature of about 120 ° C., for example. The air thus heated is used for desorption of the reaction vessel material in the sorption reaction vessel 3 and regeneration of the filter material in the filter 4. In this case, the air flow passes through the sorption reaction vessel 3 and the activated carbon filter 4 as shown by an arrow 11 and reaches the air chamber 5. In this driving state, the air passage 12 is closed by the flap 15 and at the same time the air passage 14 is opened, so that the air flow reaches the outside air through the outer wall 19 as indicated by an arrow 17”) [0014]
Regarding claim 6, Giyuntaa, as modified, teaches the cabin air control system according to claim 1,
wherein the adsorption unit comprises water vapor adsorption material (“As shown by the arrow 11, air passes through the sorption reaction vessel 3 and the activated carbon filter 4, and at that time, the air is dried in the sorption reaction vessel 3” [0014]; thus, adsorption unit comprises water vapor adsorption material)
Regarding claim 8, Giyuntaa, as modified, teaches the cabin air control system according to claim 1,
wherein the adsorption unit comprises harmful gas adsorption material (“As shown by the arrow 11, air passes through the sorption reaction vessel 3 and the activated carbon filter 4, and at that time, the air is dried in the sorption reaction vessel 3 to remove harmful substances and aromatic substances in the activated carbon filter 4”) [0014]
Regarding claim 9, Giyuntaa, as modified, teaches the cabin air control system according to claim 1,
wherein the heater comprises a mounting flange configured to engage with and seal against a mounting structure of the upper housing when the heater is installed in place in the upper housing (as shown on annotated fig. 5 of Khelifa below)
PNG
media_image2.png
208
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Khelifa
Regarding claim 10, Giyuntaa, as modified, does not teach the cabin air control system according to claim 1,
wherein the adsorption unit is U-shaped or a semi-circle in the cross-section perpendicular to the adsorption unit longitudinal axis
While Giyuntaa, as modified, does not teach wherein the adsorption unit is U-shaped or a semi-circle in the cross-section perpendicular to the adsorption unit longitudinal axis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure sorption reaction vessel 3 of Giyuntaa as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see [0071] of Applicant’s 06/04/2024 specification; “In addition, the adsorption unit 3 may be U-shaped or a semi-circle in the cross-section perpendicular to the adsorption unit longitudinal axis 301. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, the adsorption unit 3 may utilize any other suitable hollow encircling-shaped cross-section, without departing the scope of the disclosure”). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giyuntaa (JPH0920133A), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, in view of Khelifa (DE4304077C2), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, in further view of Matsumoto (US20190160418A1).
Regarding claim 4, Giyuntaa, as modified, teaches the cabin air control system according to claim 3,
wherein the flap control assembly further comprises an outlet flap coupling coupled with a drive mechanism
Matsumoto teaches
wherein the flap control assembly further comprises an outlet flap coupling coupled with a drive mechanism (“valve body 22 d (damper driven by an actuator)” [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flap 15 assembly of Giyuntaa with an actuator, as taught in Matsumoto, in order to automatically drive the flap 15 to cover either the air passage 12 or 14 depending on the operating state of the system.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giyuntaa (JPH0920133A), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, in view of Khelifa (DE4304077C2), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, and Matsumoto (US20190160418A1), in further view of Stege (DE3832988A1), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026.
Regarding claim 5, Giyuntaa, as modified, does not teach the cabin air control system according to claim 4,
wherein the outlet flap comprises a blocking pad at an end remote to the drive mechanism, in the first outlet position, the blocking pad is configured to block the exhaust conduit, and in the second outlet position, the blocking pad is configured to not block the exhaust conduit
Stege teaches
wherein the outlet flap comprises a blocking pad at an end remote to the drive mechanism (“To achieve a tight seal of these openings, the flaps 4 and 6 are provided on all sides with a foam covering 11 and 12 respectively” [0019]; as shown on fig. 1)
Giyuntaa teaches flap 15 to open and close air passage 12, however does not teach the flap comprising a blocking pad to block the air passages. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flap 15 of Giyuntaa with a foam covering, as taught in Stege, in order to effectively “achieve a tight seal” [0019 of Stege] in the closed position.
The combination teaches
in the first outlet position, the blocking pad is configured to block the exhaust conduit, and in the second outlet position, the blocking pad is configured to not block the exhaust conduit (flap 15 of Giyuntaa as taught regarding claim 3, wherein the flap 15 is modified by Stege to comprise a foam covering to block the air passage 14 in the first outlet position and not block air passage 14 in the second outlet position)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giyuntaa (JPH0920133A), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, in view of Khelifa (DE4304077C2), referring to the English translation dated 06/10/2026, in further view of Miyairi (US20230096396A1).
Regarding claim 7, Giyuntaa, as modified, does not teach the cabin air control system according to claim 1,
wherein the adsorption unit comprises carbon dioxide adsorption material
Miyairi teaches
wherein the adsorption unit comprises carbon dioxide adsorption material (“The adsorbent preferably has a function such that it is possible to adsorb components to be removed, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and harmful volatile components (for example, aldehydes, odor components, and the like) at −20 to 40° C., and release them at a high temperature of 60° C. or higher”) [0089]
While Giyuntaa teaches “As shown by the arrow 11, air passes through the sorption reaction vessel 3 and the activated carbon filter 4, and at that time, the air is dried in the sorption reaction vessel 3 to remove harmful substances and aromatic substances in the activated carbon filter 4” [0014], it does not explicitly teach the sorption reaction vessel 3 also comprising carbon dioxide adsorption material. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the adsorbent of Miyairi to the system of Giyuntaa, as modified, in order to effectively adsorb carbon dioxide in order to further improve air quality that is distributed to the passenger.
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Hoelter (US4744289A), which teaches a similar cabin air control system to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am 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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights