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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/28/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,122,215 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Regarding claim 1, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses A device for protecting an air conditioning system of a vehicle for controlling the state of interior air in the vehicle, the device comprising: a pressure estimator configured to estimate a refrigerant discharge pressure of a compressor for the air conditioning system based on predetermined vehicle information and air conditioning system information, and configured to determine the estimated refrigerant discharge pressure as an estimation discharge pressure of the compressor; a pressure switch configured to selectively transmit a cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor; and an operation controller configured to determine whether to allow the compressor to be driven and to selectively drive the compressor based on the estimation discharge pressure determined by the pressure estimator, whether the pressure switch has transmitted a cutting-off request signal, and the accumulated number of times of transmitting the cutting-off request signal of the pressure switch, when it is required to drive the compressor (see claim 1 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 2, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the pressure switch is configured to selectively operate depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor and is configured to transmit the cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor when the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor is not within a predetermined allowable pressure range of the pressure switch (see claim 1 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 4, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller: determines a driving-allowance standby time based on the accumulated number of times of transmitting the cutting-off request signal of the pressure switch when a first condition that the estimation discharge pressure is included in the predetermined allowable pressure range of the compressor and a second condition that the pressure switch does not transmit a cutting-off request signal are both satisfied; and allows the compressor to be driven and drives the compressor when an actual non-operation maintenance time of the compressor exceeds the driving-allowance standby time (see claims 1-2 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 5, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller does not allow the compressor to be driven and keeps the compressor in a non-operation state when the actual non-operation maintenance time of the compressor is the driving-allowance standby time or less (see claims 1-3 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 6, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller does not allow the compressor to be driven and keeps the compressor in a non-operation state when even any one of the first condition and the second condition is not satisfied (see claims 1-2 and 4 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 7, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller keeps the compressor in an operation state when the first condition and the second condition are both satisfied with the compressor in operation (see claims 1-2 and 5 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 8, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller cuts off the compressor when even any one of the first condition and the second condition is not satisfied with the compressor in operation (see claims 1-2 and 6 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 9, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller determines the driving-allowance standby time based on the accumulated number of times of transmitting the cutting-off request signal of the pressure switch after an engine is started and based on the temperature of the air outside the vehicle (see claims 1-2 and 7 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 11, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the device further comprising an estimation map corrector configured to correct a discharge pressure estimation map of the pressure estimator based on a difference between an operation pressure of the pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor when the difference is a predetermined reference error or more, wherein the pressure estimator has the discharge pressure estimation map configured to determine the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor, using the predetermined vehicle information and air conditioning system information as input variables (see claims 1 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 12, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation pressure of the pressure switch is determined based on transmission signal information and operation pressure range information of the pressure switch; and the operation pressure range information of the pressure switch is determined as any one of a high-pressure range and a low-pressure range based on the real-time vehicle information and the real-time air conditioning system information (see claims 1 and 8-9 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 13, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the estimation map corrector determines the operation pressure range information of the pressure switch based on vehicle information and air conditioning system information determined to be the same as input variables of the discharge pressure estimation map; and the transmission signal of the pressure switch is any one of a cutting-off request signal or a cutting-off cancel request signal (see claims 1 and 8-10 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 14, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses a device for protecting an air conditioning system of a vehicle, the device comprising: a pressure estimator provided with a discharge pressure estimation map configured to estimate a refrigerant discharge pressure of a compressor for the air conditioning system, and configured to estimate the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor using the discharge pressure estimation map and to determine the estimated refrigerant discharge pressure as an estimation discharge pressure of the compressor; a pressure switch configured to selectively transmit a cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor; an operation controller configured to determine whether to allow the compressor to be driven based on the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor and whether the pressure switch has transmitted a cutting-off request signal; and an estimation map corrector configured to selectively correct the discharge pressure estimation map based on a difference between an operation pressure of the pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor (see claims 1 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 15, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the pressure switch is configured to selectively operate, depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor, and is configured to transmit the cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor when the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor is not within a predetermined allowable pressure range of the pressure switch (see claims 1 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 16, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller is configured to determine whether to allow the compressor to be driven and to selectively drive the compressor based on the estimation discharge pressure determined by the pressure estimator, whether the pressure switch has transmitted the cutting-off request signal, and the accumulated number of times of transmitting the cutting-off request signal of the pressure switch, when it is required to drive the compressor (see claims 1 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 17, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller: determines a driving-allowance standby time based on the accumulated number of times of transmitting the cutting-off request signal of the pressure switch when a first condition that the estimation discharge pressure is within the predetermined allowable pressure range of the compressor and when a second condition that the pressure switch does not transmit the cutting-off request signal are both satisfied; and allows the compressor to be driven and drives the compressor when an actual non-operation maintenance time of the compressor exceeds the driving-allowance standby time (see claims 1-2 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 18, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation controller does not allow the compressor to be driven and keeps the compressor in a non-operation state when the actual non-operation maintenance time of the compressor is the driving-allowance standby time or less (see claims 1-3 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 19, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the estimation map corrector is configured to correct the discharge pressure estimation map of the pressure estimator based on a difference between an operation pressure of the pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor when the difference is a predetermined reference error or more; and the discharge pressure estimation map is configured to determine the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor, using the predetermined vehicle information and air conditioning system information as input variables (see claims 1 and 8 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Regarding claim 20, US 12,122,215 B2 discloses the operation pressure of the pressure switch is determined based on transmission signal information and operation pressure range information of the pressure switch; the estimation map corrector determines the operation pressure range information of the pressure switch based on vehicle information and air conditioning system information determined to be the same as input variables of the discharge pressure estimation map; and the transmission signal of the pressure switch is any one of the cutting-off request signal or a cutting-off cancel request signal (see claims 1 and 8-9 of US 12,122,215 B2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are allowed over prior art. Also, claim 10 is allowed over double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Chen fails to disclose the claimed control feature “the operation controller is configured to determine whether to allow the compressor to be driven and to selectively drive the compressor based on the estimation discharge pressure determined by the pressure estimator, whether the pressure switch has transmitted the cutting-off request signal, and the accumulated number of times of transmitting the cutting-off request signal of the pressure switch, when it is required to drive the compressor” of the device as required in claim 1; and the claimed limitation “an estimation map corrector configured to selectively correct the discharge pressure estimation map based on a difference between an operation pressure of the pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor” of the device as required in claim 14. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the device of Chen in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-20 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on the Remarks filed on 06/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the last two paragraph of page 8 to paragraph 1 of page 9 under the Claim Rejection - Non-Statutory Double Patenting section that “claim 1 of the instant application non-obviously recites ‘a pressure switch configured to selectively transmit a cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor.’ In contrast, claim 1 of the '215 patent recites ‘a dual pressure switch configured to selectively operate, depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor, and configured to transmit a cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor when the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor is not included in a predetermined allowable pressure range of the dual pressure switch’”. However, Office respectfully disagrees. The examined claim 1 recites a limitation “a pressure switch”. The reference claim 1 of the 215 patent recites a limitation “a dual pressure switch”. With respect to structure of the limitation, there is no difference between “a pressure switch” and “a dual pressure switch” in the obviousness of claim scope. In addition, with respect to function of the pressure switch, the examined claim 1 recites “a pressure switch configured to selectively transmit a cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor” while the reference claim 1 recites “a dual pressure switch configured to selectively operate, depending on the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor, and configured to transmit a cutting-off request signal for cutting off driving of the compressor when the refrigerant discharge pressure of the compressor is not included in a predetermined allowable pressure range of the dual pressure switch”. There is also no functional difference for the pressure switch between in the examined claim 1 and the reference claim 1 in obviousness of claim scope. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the last two paragraph of page 8 to paragraph 1 of page 9 under the Claim Rejection - Non-Statutory Double Patenting section that “claim 14 of the instant application non-obviously recites ‘an estimation map corrector configured to selectively correct the discharge pressure estimation map based on a difference between an operation pressure of the pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor." In contrast, claim 8 of the '215 patent recites "an estimation map corrector configured to correct a discharge pressure estimation map of the pressure estimator based on a difference between an operation pressure of the dual pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor when the difference is a predetermined reference error or more" and recites that "the pressure estimator has the discharge pressure estimation map configured to determine the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor, using the predetermined vehicle information and air conditioning system information as input variables’”. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. The examined claim 14 recites a limitation “a pressure switch”. The reference claim 8 of the 215 patent recites a limitation “a dual pressure switch”. With respect to structure of the limitation, there is no difference between “a pressure switch” and “a dual pressure switch” in obviousness of claim scope. In addition, with respect to function of the pressure switch, the examined claim 14 recites “an estimation map corrector configured to selectively correct the discharge pressure estimation map based on a difference between an operation pressure of the pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor” while the reference claim 8 recites “an estimation map corrector configured to correct a discharge pressure estimation map of the pressure estimator based on a difference between an operation pressure of the dual pressure switch and the estimation discharge pressure of the compressor”. There is also no functional difference for the pressure switch between in the examined claim 1 and the reference claim 1 in obviousness of claim scope. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With regard to the statement that “resolution of double patenting rejection is held in abeyance, until the claims in the instant application are determined to otherwise be in condition for allowance”. Under current USPTO policy, non‑statutory obviousness‑type double patenting rejections cannot be held in abeyance; they must be addressed before allowance. The USPTO’s MPEP § 804.02 and 37 CFR 1.111(b) state that only objections or requirements “as to form” not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
A double patenting rejection is not “as to form” — it is a substantive examination issue — so it must be resolved either by:
Filing a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321, or
Showing the claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims.
The USPTO has explicitly said that an application must not be allowed unless the required terminal disclaimer is filed and/or the double patenting rejection is withdrawn of record by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights