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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 7/2/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-19 are being examined.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 exceeds 150 words in length and repeats phrases which can be implied (i.e. first sentence). 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).
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:
“first supply air device” in claims 1 and 10. The nonce term “device” is modified by the functional language of supply air without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function. Based on the applicants’ disclosure, the term has been interpreted as an opening in the vehicle exterior.
“second supply air device” in claims 1 and 10. The nonce term “device” is modified by the functional language of supply air without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function. Based on the applicants’ disclosure, the term has been interpreted as an opening in the vehicle exterior.
“exhaust air device” in claims 1 and 10. The nonce term “device” is modified by the functional language of exhaust air without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function. Based on the applicants’ disclosure, the term has been interpreted as an opening in the vehicle exterior.
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.
“Heat exchange device” in claims 1 and 10 do not invoke 112(f) since the claims define the structure of the device.
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, 7-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hotta (US5325912, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Hotta teaches a temperature control system for a motor vehicle (10), the temperature control system comprising (Figures 1, 30-38):
at least one first supply air device (opening at 36), arranged in a front region of the motor vehicle (left side of 10 in Figure 1 is the front region) to receive a first airflow from an external environment and facilitate flow of the first airflow via a first air circuit as supply air (via 41a,b) into a cabin (middle of 10 in Figure 1) of the motor vehicle and discharge of the first airflow into the external environment as exhaust air (via opening at 46) to thereby close the first air circuit (Figures 1, 30-38);
at least one exhaust air device (opening at 46) arranged in a rear region (right side of 10 in Figure 1 is the rear region) of the motor vehicle (Figures 1, 30-38);
a heat exchange device (16) arranged in the rear region to receive heat from the at least one exhaust air device, the heat exchange device including a heat pump and heat exchange lines (lines connected to 16) to facilitate return of the heat to the at least one first supply air device (Figure 1 illustrates 16 is connected via lines to heat exchangers 12, 14 in the front of the vehicle) (Figures 1, 30-38); and
a second supply air device (opening at 44), arranged in the rear region of the motor vehicle, to receive a second airflow from the external environment and facilitate flow of the second airflow via a second air circuit through the heat exchange device and discharge of the second airflow into the environment to thereby close the second air circuit (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 10. Hotta teaches a temperature control system for a motor vehicle (10), the temperature control system comprising (Figures 1, 30-38):
a first supply air device (opening at 36) to receive a first airflow from an external environment and facilitate flow of the first airflow in a first air circuit as supply air (via 41a,b) into a cabin (middle of 10 in Figure 1) of the motor vehicle and discharge of the first airflow into the external environment as exhaust air (via opening at 46) to thereby close the first air circuit (Figures 1, 30-38);
an exhaust air device (opening at 46) (Figures 1, 30-38);
a heat exchange device (16) to receive heat from the exhaust air device, the heat exchange device including a heat pump and heat exchange lines (lines connected to 16) to facilitate return of the heat to the first supply air device (Figure 1 illustrates 16 is connected via lines to heat exchangers 12, 14 in the front of the vehicle) (Figures 1, 30-38); and
a second supply air device (opening at 44), arranged in the rear region of the motor vehicle, to receive a second airflow from the external environment and facilitate flow of the second airflow via a second air circuit through the heat exchange device and discharge of the second airflow into the environment to thereby close the second air circuit (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 2. Hotta teaches the second airflow is discharged into the external environment in the rear region by the at least one exhaust air device (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 3. Hotta teaches the exhaust air device includes an outlet (opening at 46) for the first airflow and the second air flow, and the outlet is oriented to the rear region in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 7. Hotta teaches a flap system having a first flap (42) arranged between the cabin and the at least one exhaust air device (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 8. Hotta teaches the flap system further has a second flap (44) arranged between the second supply air device and the at least one exhaust air device (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 9. Hotta teaches the flap system permits selective use of the first air circuit and the second air circuit individually or in combination according to selected operating modes (Figures 1, 30-38 illustrate various operating modes and the flaps adjusted according to each mode of operation).
Re Claim 11. Hotta teaches the exhaust air device includes an outlet (opening at 46) for the first airflow and the second air flow, and the outlet is oriented to the rear region in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 12. Hotta teaches the second supply air device includes an inlet (opening at 44) for the second airflow (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 16. Hotta teaches a flap system having a first flap (42) and a second flap (44) (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 17. Hotta teaches the first flap (42) is arranged between the cabin and the exhaust air device (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 18. Hotta teaches the second flap (44) is arranged between the second supply air device and the exhaust air device (Figures 1, 30-38).
Re Claim 19. Hotta teaches the flap system permits selective use of the first air circuit and the second air circuit individually or in combination according to selected operating modes (Figures 1, 30-38 illustrate various operating modes and the flaps adjusted according to each mode of operation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (US5325912, as cited in the IDS) in view of Calsonic (JP2009/85060, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claims 4 & 13. Hotta teaches the second supply air device includes an inlet (opening at 44) for the second airflow (Figure 1) but fails to specifically teach the inlet is arranged on an underside of the motor vehicle.
However, Calsonic teaches it is known to form a second supply air inlet (opening at 41) on an underside of a motor vehicle (1) (Figures 3-5).
Therefore, in view of Calsonic's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the second supply air device of Hotta to the underside of the motor vehicle in order to increase the airflow into the second supply air device when operating the motor vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to relocate the second supply air device of Hotta to the underside of the motor vehicle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights