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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the limitation “a material having a PTC property”. While the meaning of the acronym “PTC” is provided in the specification as “positive temperature coefficient”, it is suggested that the full name should be provided in the claim for better clarity.
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:
“a cooling member” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 4, 6, 9, and 10, and also claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 11 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the cooling member forming a flow path between the honeycomb structure and the cooling member”. The limitation appears to require that the cooling member forms a flow path between the honeycomb structure and itself. The cooling member is understood to be an element through which refrigerant flows (see paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s specification), so it is not clear how the flow path through the cooling member is formed between the cooling member and another element. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is being interpreted as “the cooling member forming a flow path adjacent to the honeycomb structure through the cooling member”.
Claim 1 recites “a flow path” in line 8, “a flow path” in line 11 and “the flow path” in line 12. It is not clear whether all of these are referencing the same flow path or if, for example the second recitation of “a flow path” in line 11 is referencing a different flow path than that in line 8. For the purposes of this Office Action, “a flow path” in line 8 is being interpreted as “an air flow path” and “flow path” in lines 11 and 12 is being interpreted as “refrigerant flow path”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a control unit for controlling the air conditioning device and the heat pump cycle in response to an operation mode”. It is not clear what is meant by “in response to an operation mode”. As best understood from Applicant’s specification, the control unit controls the air conditioning device and the heat pump to operate in one of a number of operation modes (as described on pages 42-47) in response to, for example, a fogging detection (paragraph [0121]) and/or switch operations selected by the driver (paragraph [0115]). For the purposes of this Office Action, controlling “in response to an operation mode” is being interpreted as controlling the air conditioning device and the heat pump cycle “to operate in an operation mode”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the operation mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been introduced in this claim or in parent claims 6, 5, 3, or 1. It is also noted that the claim recites an “operation mode” which is comprised of more than one mode. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the operation mode” is being interpreted as “an at least one operation mode”. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the control unit” is being interpreted as “a control unit”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the dehumidifying layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been introduced in this claim or in parent claim 1.
For the purposes of this Office Action and based on the structure of the claims, the claim is being interpreted as depending from claim 2 rather than claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the control unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been introduced in this claim or in parent claims 5, 3, or 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the control unit” is being interpreted as “a control unit”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the control unit executes the regeneration and regeneration mode”. It is not clear if this is a typographical error and is meant to reference the “dehumidification and regeneration mode” introduced in parent claim 6, or if this is meant to refer to a different operational mode, such as the one shown in Fig 4F where both branched paths are in a regeneration mode. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is being interpreted as “dehumidification and regeneration mode”.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 11 are also rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102023000058 by Currle et al (hereinafter “Currle”).
Regarding claim 1, Currle teaches a vehicle air conditioning system (Fig 1; paragraph [0001]), comprising:
an air conditioning duct for allowing air from a vehicle interior to flow therethrough (Fig 1 air duct shown for flow of recirculated air 3); and
an air conditioning device disposed within the air conditioning duct, wherein the air conditioning device comprises:
a honeycomb structure (resistance element 11 shown in Fig 3) having an outer peripheral wall (Fig 3 outermost wall at or near the outer periphery of element 11) and partition walls disposed on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall (Fig 3 ribs 23), the partition walls defining a plurality of cells, each of the cells extending from a first end face to a second end face to form an air flow path (Figs 1-3 air flows through cells of honeycomb structure 11; paragraph [0025]), at least the partition walls being made of a material having a PTC property (paragraph [0025] resistance element 11 designed as a PTC element); and
a cooling member disposed over the outer peripheral wall of the honeycomb structure (Fig 1 evaporator 12 disposed over, i.e., at least partially covering, a portion of the outer peripheral wall of honeycomb structure 11 at the downstream end) the cooling member forming a refrigerant flow path adjacent to the honeycomb structure through the cooling member, the refrigerant flow path allowing a refrigerant to flow therethrough (Fig 1, paragraph [0038], refrigerant flows through circuit which includes evaporator 12).
Regarding claim 2, Currle discloses that the air conditioning device further comprises a dehumidifying layer formed on each surface of the partition walls (Fig 3 absorbent/desiccant 22).
Regarding claim 3, Currle discloses that the flow path for allowing the refrigerant to flow is connected to a heat pump cycle (Fig 1 heat pump cycle including evaporator 12, compressor 17, expansion valve 18, and heating device 15; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Currle discloses that the air conditioning duct has two or more branched paths (Figs 1 and 2 show two branching paths of air duct, shown at top and bottom halves, for two separate air flows 5 and 6 through the two sorption areas 20 and 21),
wherein the air conditioning device is disposed in each of the two or more branched paths (Figs 1 and 2, air conditioning device 11/12 disposed in each of the branched paths),
wherein each of the two or more branched paths comprises:
an inflow path for allowing the air to flow into the vehicle interior on a downstream side of the air conditioning device (Figs 1 and 2, each path has an inflow path into vehicle interior 7; Fig 1 shows air guide elements 13/14 positioned to allow inflow from top branched path into vehicle interior 7 where Fig 2 shows 13/14 positioned to allow inflow from bottom path into vehicle interior 7); and
an outflow path for allowing the air to flow out to a vehicle exterior (Figs 1 and 2, air guide elements create outflow paths for moist exhaust air 6 from each branched path to flow out to a vehicle exterior 8), and
each of the two or more branched paths comprises a switching valve capable of switching the flow of the air between the inflow path and the outflow path (Figs 1 and 2, air guide valves 13/14; where top branch comprises valve 13 and bottom branch comprises valve 14), and
wherein the heat pump cycle comprises a condenser for performing heat exchange between heat of the refrigerant and the air in the air conditioning duct connected to the vehicle interior on the downstream side of the air conditioning device (Fig 1 heating device 15).
Regarding claim 6, Currle discloses that an at least one operation mode of the air conditioning device comprises:
a dehumidification mode wherein the air is dehumidified by controlling the switching valves in all of the branched paths to allow the air to flow into the inflow path to circulate the air through the air conditioning device (Figs 1 and 2, the air conditioning device includes a mode where both switching valves 13/14 are controlled and air flows into the inflow path); and
a dehumidification and regeneration mode wherein the air is dehumidified by controlling the switching valve in a part of the branched paths to allow the air to flow into the inflow path to circulate the air through the air conditioning device, and the humidified layer is regenerated by controlling the switching valve in the remaining branched paths to allow the air to flow out to the outflow path to circulate the air through the air conditioning device while heating the air conditioning device (this mode is represented in either of Fig 1 or Fig 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currle in view of US 2020/0384826 by Sasaki et al (hereinafter “Sasaki”).
Regarding claim 4, Currle teaches the vehicle air conditioning device according to claim 3 (see details in claim 3 rejection above). But Currle does not explicitly teach that the air conditioning device further comprises a control unit for controlling the air conditioning device and the heat pump cycle to operate in an operation mode.
However, Sasaki teaches a control unit for controlling a vehicle air conditioning device according to the amount of dehumidification required (Fig 2 air conditioning drive unit 12 controls air conditioning device 13 in response to detection of temperature and humidity in the vehicle cabin; paragraph [0029], see also Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle air conditioning device of Currle to include a control unit for controlling the air conditioning device and the heat pump cycle to operate in an operation mode, in order to automatically control the air conditioning device and the heat pump cycle according to the environmental conditions in the vehicle interior.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currle, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2021/0041141 by Miyairi et al (hereinafter “Miyairi”).
Regarding claim 8, Currle teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 1, including the partition walls being made from a material having a PTC property (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Currle is silent as to the composition of the material.
However, Miyairi teaches a similar honeycomb structure for use in a vehicle air conditioning system (Abstract, Fig 1 heater element 100), the honeycomb structure having an outer peripheral wall (Fig 1 outer peripheral side wall 112) and partition walls disposed on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall (Fig 1 partition walls 113), the partition walls defining a plurality of cells (Fig 1 partition walls 113 define cells 115), each of the cells extending from a first end face to a second end face to form a flow path (Fig 1, paragraph [0063], cells extend from first end face 114 to second end face 116 to form a flow path), at least the partition walls being made of a material having a PTC property (paragraph [0071]). Miyairi further teaches that the material making up at least the partition walls and having a PTC property comprises barium titanate as a main component (paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Miyairi before them at the time the application was filed, that the material having the PTC property would comprise barium titanate as the main component. Currle teaches the claimed invention, including the PTC property of the material. Miyairi teaches a material having a PTC property that comprises barium titanate as a main component. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known (as evidenced by Miyairi) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currle, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of WO 2013108117 by Pahwa et al (hereinafter “Pahwa”).
Regarding claim 9, Currle teaches the vehicle air conditioning system of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Currle does not teach that the dehumidifying layer further comprises an adsorbent having a function of adsorbing at least one selected from carbon dioxide and volatile components, and/or a catalyst.
However, Pahwa, in solving a similar problem of removing contaminants in addition to humidity from an airflow, teaches a honeycomb structure for filtering an air flow (Abstract) in which the honeycomb structure is coated with a dehumidifying layer for absorbing moisture from the air flow (page 7 line 35- page 8 line 7, honeycomb matrix with a deposition or loading of desiccant material on the matrix substrate), wherein the dehumidifying layer comprises an adsorbent having a function of adsorbing at least volatile components (page 10 line 26-35, dehumidifying layer also comprises adsorbent which adsorbs at least VOCs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle air conditioning system of Currle such that the dehumidifying layer further comprises an adsorbent having a function of adsorbing at least volatile components, as taught by Pahwa, in order to remove airborne contaminants from the air flowing into the vehicle interior in addition to removing excess humidity, thus providing better environmental conditions in the vehicle interior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests a vehicle air conditioning device with all of the limitations of this claim, particularly the outflow path internal heat exchanger. Therefore, this limitation combined with all of the other limitations of the claim distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests a vehicle air conditioning device with all of the limitations of the claim as interpreted (see interpretation set forth in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above), particularly the limitation “wherein a control unit executes the dehumidification and regeneration mode when the fogging of the glass is detected, and the control unit executes the dehumidification mode when the fogging of the glass is not detected.” Currle teaches the vehicle air conditioning device of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection above). Sasaki teaches a vehicle air conditioning system comprising a detection portion capable of detecting fogging of glass in the vehicle interior, and control unit that controls a vehicle air conditioning device based on the fogging detection (Fig 2 and paragraph [0029], fogging detection unit 6b detects fogging of windshield glass and operates air conditioning device, such as a defroster). But the combination of Currle and Sasaki would not make obvious the limitation that the “control unit executes the dehumidification and regeneration mode when the fogging of the glass is detected, and the control unit executes the dehumidification mode when the fogging of the glass is not detected.”
Claim 11 would be allowable at least because it depends from and includes all of the limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0227672 by Hayase et al discloses a vehicle air conditioning system including a honeycomb structure made of a material having a PTC property, a heat pump, and a control unit, wherein the honeycomb structure includes an adsorbent layer for adsorbing VOCs and/or CO2 and/or a catalyst.
US 6,124,570 by Ebner et al disclose a vehicle heating or air conditioning system in which PTC elements with a honeycomb profile are combined with a heat exchanger into a single unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights