DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 3/19/2026 has been considered with notes and is included in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air conditioning unit of claim 1 must be shown and/or labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Please add reference sign (60) to Fig. 1 since the limitation is specifically referenced in the specification in relation to other limitations (see paragraph [0043] of original specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: lines 1-2, “according to an embodiment of the present invention”, lines 5-6, “member may a duct groove”, line 9, “remaining the upper part”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 4, “at one end thereof” should be changed to --at the one end thereof--.
In claim 7, line 5, “the first area and second area” should be changed to --the first area and the second area--.
In claim 7, the term “second area” is mentioned before the term “first area”. Any numerical listing should be in order when presenting.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-10 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 7 recites the limitation "in front of a vehicle" in line 2. The phrase is unclear since it implies the second area is outside of the vehicle in front of it. Additionally, there is no clear reference as to the front (or behind) locations in reference to the other limitations. For examining purposes, the phrase will be read as in a front portion of a vehicle in a vehicle driving direction.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a step distance”. The term is unclear since it has not been clearly defined by the specification. For examination purposes, the term will be read as a distance in a height direction and a distance in a length direction.
Claims 8-10 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derleth et al. (US 6234569) in view of Kim et al. (KR 102084046, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Derleth et al. discloses a cockpit module (Fig. 3) comprising: a crash pad lower member (14) connected to an air conditioning unit (20); a crash pad upper member (60) coupled to the crash pad lower member; and a first air conditioning duct (54) formed integrally with the crash pad lower member (14), wherein the crash pad lower member comprises: a recessed duct groove (col. 5, lines 1-8, (16)) and the crash pad upper member comprises a first duct cover positioned on a top of the duct groove (col. 5, lines 1-8), the recessed duct groove and first duct cover defining the first air conditioning duct (col. 5, lines 1-8, (54)), wherein the crash pad upper member (60) includes a recessed tray ((114), (116)) and is coupled to the crash pad lower member (Fig. 3).
Derleth et al. does not explicitly disclose the crash pad lower member comprises the first duct cover positioned on a top of the duct groove, wherein the recessed tray is positioned above the first duct cover and the first air conditioning duct.
Kim et al., like Derleth et al., teaches a cockpit module, and further teaches a lower structure (10) comprising a recessed duct groove (310) and a first duct cover (portions (321) and (322) of (320)) positioned on a top of the duct groove defining the air conditioning duct ((301), (302)), and the upper structure comprises a recessed tray (see annotated Fig. 1 below, shows a recessed tray approximately above the position of the duct cover) that is positioned above the first duct cover (portions (321) and (322) of (320)) and the air conditioning duct ((301), (302)).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Kim et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cockpit module of Derleth et al. to include a duct cover to complete seal the duct within one component as taught by Kim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid having to open up the air conditioning duct if having to disassembly the lower and upper portions of the module.
Regarding claim 2, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 1, and teaches (references to Kim et al.) wherein a coupling portion is formed at a predetermined interval along a perimeter of the duct groove (duct groove has a coupling portion along the edge in the center portion of (10)), and a position of the first duct cover is fixed by the coupling portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
682
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Kim et al.
Regarding claim 3, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 2, and teaches (references to Kim et al.) wherein the first air conditioning duct comprises an air outlet formed at one end thereof (end where opening to (301) and (302) are positioned), and the first duct cover is fixed by the air outlet at one end thereof (end where opening to (301) and (302) are positioned).
Regarding claim 4, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 3, and teaches wherein a second duct cover (Kim et al.: portions (323) and (324) of (320)) is coupled to the crash pad lower member and covers a lower portion of the crash pad lower member, and wherein the second duct cover and crash pad lower member define a second air conditioning duct (Derleth et al.: (62)).
Regarding claim 5, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 4, and teaches (references to Kim et al. unless otherwise noted) wherein the first air conditioning duct (Derleth et al.: (54)) is a vent duct (combined with the first duct cover directs the first air conditioning duct to vent (see (201), (301), (302)); and the second air conditioning duct (Derleth et al.: (62)) comprises a defrost duct and a side hose (combined with the second duct cover directs the second air conditioning duct to defrost and side hose (see (100), (110), (120)).
Regarding claim 7, Derleth et al. discloses a cockpit module (Fig. 3) comprising: a crash pad lower member (14) comprising a second area configured to be placed in front of a vehicle (a second portion of (16)), a first area positioned behind the second area (a first portion of (16) that is behind, i.e. towards the rear of the vehicle), and a connecting portion (68) connecting the first area and second area (Fig. 6); a first duct cover coupled to the lower crash pad lower member (col. 5, lines 1-8, through a crash pad upper member); a second duct cover coupled to the crash pad lower member (col. 5, lines 9-19, through a crash pad upper member), wherein the first area and the second area are offset from one another by a step distance (with respect to the 112b rejection above, as best understood, there is a difference in the space the first area and the second area takes, wherein the second area requires a space that includes an area higher than the first area requires, therefore, there is a “step distance” between the two area), and wherein the second area is positioned above the first area (wherein the second area requires a space that includes an area higher than the first area requires, that includes outlets that end at (64) and (65)) and the second duct cover, second area and connecting portion define a second air conditioning duct (62), and wherein the first area comprises a recessed duct groove (col. 5, lines 1-8, (16)), the first duct cover is positioned above the duct groove in the first area (col. 5, lines 1-8), and the duct groove and the first duct cover define a first air conditioning duct (col. 5, lines 1-8, (54)).
Derleth et al. does not explicitly disclose the second duct cover is positioned under the second area of the crash pad lower member.
Kim et al., like Derleth et al., teaches a cockpit module, and further teaches a lower structure (10) comprising a second duct cover (Kim et al.: portions (323) and (324) of (320)) positioned under a second area of the crash pad member above it ((1), Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cockpit module of Derleth et al. to include a duct cover to completely seal the duct within one component as taught by Kim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid having to open up the air conditioning duct if having to disassembly the lower and upper portions of the module.
Regarding claim 8, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 7, and teaches (references to Derleth et al.) wherein the first area accommodates a crash pad upper member (60) on a top thereof (Fig. 2), the crash pad upper member comprising a recessed tray ((114), (116)) positioned in the location above the first area and the second area (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. does not explicitly teach the recessed tray having a depth corresponding to the step distance between the first area and the second area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the depth of the recessed tray of the cockpit module of Derleth et al. modified by Kim et al. to include the space below it, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to occupy and use up as much space as possible in the cockpit module for functional means to provide additional enhancements to entice potential buyers.
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derleth et al. (US 6234569) in view of Kim et al. (KR 102084046, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 5 and claim 8 above respectively, and further in view of Welschholz et al. (US 2008/0174136).
Regarding claim 6, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 5. However, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the tray comprises a sidewall that is perpendicular to a bottom surface of the tray.
Welschholz et al., like Derleth et al., teaches a cockpit module, and further teaches a tray (2) wherein the tray comprises a side wall (8) that is perpendicular to a bottom surface (Figs. 2, 6a, 7a-7d) of the tray (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cockpit module of Derleth et al. modified by Kim et al., with a tray having a perpendicular side wall as taught by Welschholz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide more support and securement of items placed within the space of the tray, providing a holder deep within the tray to be able to hold and position an item, like a mobile phone.
Regarding claim 9, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 8. However, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the tray comprises a sidewall that is perpendicular to a bottom surface of the tray.
Welschholz et al., like Derleth et al., teaches a cockpit module, and further teaches a tray (2) wherein the tray comprises a side wall (8) that is perpendicular to a bottom surface (Figs. 2, 6a, 7a-7d) of the tray (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cockpit module of Derleth et al. modified by Kim et al., with a tray having a perpendicular side wall as taught by Welschholz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide more support and securement of items placed within the space of the tray, providing a holder deep within the tray to be able to hold and position an item, like a mobile phone.
Regarding claim 10, Derleth et al. as modified by Kim et al. and Welschholz et al. teaches the cockpit module of claim 9, and teaches (references to Kim et al. unless otherwise noted) wherein the first air conditioning duct (Derleth et al.: (54)) is a vent duct (combined with the first duct cover directs the first air conditioning duct to vent (see (201), (301), (302)); and the second air conditioning duct (Derleth et al.: (62)) comprises a defrost duct and a side hose (combined with the second duct cover directs the second air conditioning duct to defrost and side hose (see (100), (110), (120)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Güngör et al. (DE 102004025245) teaches an integrally formed air duct in crossbar. Lindberg et al. (US 6073987), Heck (US 5709601), Yoshinaka (US 6203092), Ito et al. (US 6877787), Lee (US 2022/0111816), and Shikata et al. (US 6705672) teach modular panel assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights