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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura et al. (US 2017/0282812) in view of Brinas (US 2016/0361979).
Yoshimura et al. discloses a work vehicle comprising a body provided with a panel (1) configured to be equipped with an air conditioner, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0063]. The panel (1) has at least one first opening (14) and a second opening (16) through each of which air supplied from the air conditioner flows out toward the one or more occupants, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0063]. The second opening (16) is provided with one of a duct extending from the second opening (16) to the air conditioner, as is inherent with an air conditioner.
In reference to claim 2, the panel (1) extends from a right portion to a left portion of the body, as shown in Figure 1. The first opening (14) comprises a right first opening (14) provided in a right portion of the panel (1) and a left first opening (14) provided in a left portion of the panel (1), as shown in Figure 1. The second opening (14) is provided in a portion of the panel (1) between the right and left first openings (14), as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 3, the second opening (16) is larger than the at least one first opening (14) in left-right width, as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 4, the panel comprises a storage compartment (10a) provided in a portion thereof above the second opening (16) and between the right and left first openings (14), as shown in Figures 1, 7, and 8.
In reference to claim 5, the panel (1) is provided in a front portion of an interior of the operator cabin, as is industry standard for a dashboard.
However, Yoshimura et al. does not disclose a cover blocking the second opening.
Brinas teaches providing airflow outlets (14) in the openings of a panel. The outlets cover the openings to selectively open and cover/block the flow of air, as shown in Figures 1 and 7-9 and disclosed in [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide airflow outlets that selectively open and cover/block the second opening of Yoshimura et al., as taught by Brinas, with a reasonable expectation for success to better control airflow to improve passenger comfort.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yoshimura et al. (US 2017/0282812) and Brinas (US 2016/0361979), in view of Brinas (US 2016/0361979) .
Yoshimura et al., as modified, the air conditioner supports both cooling and heating, as is industry standard. The cooling air is supplied from the air condition flows out toward the occupants through at least one first opening (14). The claim does not specify cooling air is supplied only through the first opening so supplying cooling air through the first and second openings meets the limitation. The second opening (16) is provided with the duct.
Brinas teaches the air conditioner is part of an HVAC system that provide heat and cooling, as needed, as disclosed in paragraph [0026]. The claim does not specify heating air is supplied only through the second opening so supplying heating air through the all openings meets the limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an air conditioner that is part of an HVAC providing both heat and cooling to the vehicle of Yoshimura et al., as modified, as taught by Brinas, with a reasonable expectation for success to improve passenger comfort in all weather conditions so the vehicle can be sold to all markets around the world.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yoshimura et al. (US 2017/0282812) and Brinas (US 2016/0361979).
Yoshimura et al., as modified, does not explicitly state the air conditioner supports cooling only.
Official notice is being taken that vehicle are commonly sold in tropical markets without a heater function to simplify manufacturing and reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary heating equipment, see attached internet search about cars sold in the tropics.
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 air conditioner of Yoshimura et al., as modified, with only cooling function, as is taught by vehicles sold in tropical markets, with a reasonable expectation for success to simplify manufacturing and reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary heating equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights