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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji (US-10625569-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches an HVAC system (FIG. 1, conditioning unit 10) for a vehicle (abstract, the system is for a car), comprising: an air inlet housing (FIG. 1, the housing of inlet 21, from which the housing for fan 12 hangs) that supports a fan housing (FIG. 1, the housing of fan 12), and a fan (FIG. 12, fan 12) that is rotatably mounted within the fan housing (FIG. 1), wherein air from the air inlet housing flows directly to a suction of the fan (FIG. 1), and when the fan is rotating about its rotational axis air is expelled out of the fan substantially radially away from the rotational axis (FIG. 1, air is expelled radially from the fan 12); a scroll (FIG. 1, the portion of the housing between the fan 12 and evaporator 13) that receives the expelled air from the fan when the fan rotates within the fan housing (FIG. 1), wherein the scroll transitions from the fan housing to a pathway (FIG. 1, the portion of the air way immediately to the left of the evaporator 13) that leads to an air conditioning housing (FIG. 1, conditioner housing 11), the air conditioning housing includes an evaporator (FIG. 1, evaporator 13) of a heat pump or refrigeration system (the HVAC system of the conditioner unit 10) associated with a vehicle (abstract, the system is for a car), the scroll extends around the fan (FIG. 1, the housing to the right of the fan 12 partially overlaps and surround the fan 12) to direct air expelled from the fan to an exit of the scroll (FIG. 1, the point at which the housing 11 straightens out) that transitions to an inlet into the pathway (FIG. 1); wherein the pathway includes the inlet and transitions to an outlet (FIG. 1, the point at which the air way reaches the evaporator 13) that is proximate to an evaporator within an air conditioning housing (FIG. 1), wherein a cross-sectional area of the pathway increases as the pathway extends from the inlet to the outlet (FIG. 1, the cross sectional area of the housing increases as one goes from the fan 12 to the evaporator 13).
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.
Claim(s) 2-13, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gannon (US-20120252340-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii teaches that the evaporator has a height (FIG. 1, the evaporator 13 has a height), wherein the cross-sectional area of the pathway along its length increases along its length (FIG. 1, the cross sectional area of the housing increases as one goes from the fan 12 to the evaporator 13) with a top of the pathway being planar (FIG. 1, the top of the housing between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13 extends in a planar manner) and aligned at a first acute angle with respect to an axis that is perpendicular to a plane that extends through the exit of the scroll (FIG. 1, the top of the housing forms an acute angle with a horizontal axis that extends through the plane formed by the cross section of the air way), and a bottom of the pathway being planar (FIG. 1, the bottom of the housing between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13 extends in a planar manner) and aligned at a second acute angle with respect to the axis (FIG. 1, the bottom of the housing forms an acute angle with a horizontal axis), wherein the first acute angle is larger than the second acute angle (FIG. 1, the upper angle is larger than the lower angle).
Fujii fails to teach that a first percentage of air that flows though the evaporator is configured to flow through a plurality of air conditioning housing outlets that flow to a first row of the vehicle, and a remaining percentage of air that flows through the evaporator is configured to flow through a rear outlet of the air conditioning housing and toward a rear row of a vehicle, wherein the air that flows past a first percentage of a height of the evaporator that is measured downwardly along the evaporator for a distance that is the first percentage of the total height is directed to the first row of the vehicle, and the remaining distance to a bottom of the evaporator is the remaining percentage of the total height.
However, Gannon teaches that a first percentage of air that flows though the evaporator is configured to flow through a plurality of air conditioning housing outlets that flow to a first row of the vehicle (FIG. 1, a percentage of the air flows to front face outlet 50 and front foot outlet 52), and a remaining percentage of air that flows through the evaporator is configured to flow through a rear outlet of the air conditioning housing and toward a rear row of a vehicle (FIG. 1, a percentage of the air flows to rear face outlet 54 and rear foot outlet 56), wherein the air that flows past a first percentage of a height of the evaporator that is measured downwardly along the evaporator for a distance that is the first percentage of the total height is directed to the first row of the vehicle, and the remaining distance to a bottom of the evaporator is the remaining percentage of the total height (FIG. 2, upper air goes to the first row, and lower air goes to the rear row).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Fujii by sending some air to a rear row of outlets, as taught by Gannon, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fujii with these aforementioned teachings of Gannon with the motivation of allowing the system to be used for a multi-row vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fujii and Gannon teaches that a height of the pathway outlet is substantially the same as the height of the evaporator (Fujii, FIG. 1, the outlet is at the same height as the evaporator 13), wherein a difference in height of the pathway outlet and the pathway inlet is equal to the tangent of the first acute angle plus the second acute angled multiplied by a distance between the pathway inlet and the pathway outlet (according to the rules of trigonometry, this is true of the dimensions found in Fujii FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that the first acute angle is within a range of 10 to 20 degrees, and the second acute angle is within the range of about 3 to 15 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the first acute angle within a range of 10 to 20 degrees, and the second acute angle within the range of about 3 to 15 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the angles described above with respect to claim 2 are acute), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that these size of these angles is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first acute angle within a range of 10 to 20 degrees, and the second acute angle within the range of about 3 to 15 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that the first acute angle is within a range of about 12-15 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the first acute angle within a range of 12 to 15 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the angles described above with respect to claim 2 are acute), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that these size of these angles is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first acute angle within a range of 12 to 15 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that the second acute angle is within a range of about 4-7 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the second acute angle within a range of 4 to 7 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the angles described above with respect to claim 2 are acute), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that these size of these angles is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the second acute angle within a range of 4 to 7 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that the cross-sectional area of the pathway outlet is larger than the pathway inlet by about 1.75 to 3.5 times the cross-sectional area of the pathway inlet.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the cross-sectional area of the pathway outlet larger than the pathway inlet by about 1.75 to 3.5 times the cross-sectional area of the pathway inlet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the cross-sectional areas of the portions of the air way of FIG. 1 of Fujii), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the cross-sectional area of the pathway outlet larger than the pathway inlet by about 1.75 to 3.5 times the cross-sectional area of the pathway inlet, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fujii and Gannon teaches that a width of the pathway (Fujii, FIG. 1, the horizontal width of the passage between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13) is a dimension that is perpendicular to a length of the pathway (Fujii, FIG. 1, the vertical length of the passage between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13) that extends between the inlet and the outlet and also perpendicular to the rotational axis of the fan (Fujii, FIG. 1, the horizontal width of the passage between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13 is perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the fan 12), wherein the width of the pathway is about constant along an overwhelming majority of the length of the pathway (FIG. 1, the width between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13 is static).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fujii and Gannon teaches that a width of the pathway (Fujii, FIG. 1, the horizontal width of the passage between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13) is a dimension that is perpendicular to a length of the pathway (Fujii, FIG. 1, the vertical length of the passage between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13) that extends between the inlet and the outlet and also perpendicular to the rotational axis of the fan (Fujii, FIG. 1, the horizontal width of the passage between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13 is perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the fan 12), wherein the width of the pathway increases along an overwhelming majority of the length of the pathway (FIG. 1, the width between the fan 12 and the evaporator 13 increases if one increases the length of the passage).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fujii and Gannon teaches that a plane extends through the passageway (FIG. 1, a plane perpendicular with the middle partition that runs into the evaporator 13), wherein the first percentage of the air that flows into the evaporator and ultimately flows to the first row of the vehicle flows along the passageway above the plane (FIG. 1, a percentage of the air flows to front face outlet 50 and front foot outlet 52) and most of the remaining percentage of air that flows through the evaporator and flows through the rear outlet flows below the plane FIG. 1, a percentage of the air flows to rear face outlet 54 and rear foot outlet 56).
The combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the outlet divided by a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the inlet is within the range of 1.75 to 2.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the outlet divided by a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the inlet within the range of 1.75 to 2.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the dimensions of the portions of the air way of FIG. 1 of Fujii), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the outlet divided by a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the inlet within the range of 1.75 to 2.5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that a distance from the plane to the bottom of the pathway at the outlet divided by a distance from the plane to the bottom of the pathway at the inlet is within the range of 1.5 to 2.25.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the outlet divided by a distance from the plane to the bottom of the pathway at the inlet within the range of 1.5 to 2.25, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the dimensions of the portions of the air way of FIG. 1 of Fujii), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a distance from the plane to the bottom of the pathway at the outlet divided by a distance from the plane to the top of the pathway at the inlet within the range of 1.5 to 2.25, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fujii and Gannon teaches that the plane extends from the pathway inlet at a vertical location that is below a midpoint of a height of the fan, approximately proportional to a ratio of airflow splits between the front and rear (Fujii, FIG. 1, the plane is coplanar with the middle partition that determines the ratio of air output, the bottom surface of which is beneath the midpoint of the fan 12).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Fujii and Gannon teaches that the top of the pathway includes a rapidly increasing height portion (Fujii, FIG. 1, the right end of the top inclined portion, which continues to increase in height at the rapid pace the rest of it does) that is downstream of the planar portion, wherein an entire length rapidly increasing portion is closely proximate to the outlet of the pathway, and wherein the bottom of the pathway includes a rapidly decreasing height portion (Fujii, FIG. 1, the right end of the bottom inclined portion, which continues to decrease in height at the rapid pace the rest of it does) that is downstream of the planar portion, wherein an entire length of the rapidly decreasing height portion is closely proximate to the outlet of the pathway (Fujii. FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that a height of the fan is within a range of about 40-50% of a diameter of the fan.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a height of the fan within a range of about 40-50% of a diameter of the fan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the dimensions of the fan 12 of FIG. 1 of Teramoto), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines the volumetric flow rate of the assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a height of the fan within a range of about 40-50% of a diameter of the fan, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fujii and Gannon fails to teach that the height of the fan is within a range of about 45% to about 49% of the diameter of the fan.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a height of the fan within a range of about 45-49% of a diameter of the fan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the dimensions of the fan 12 of FIG. 1 of Teramoto), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines the volumetric flow rate of the assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a height of the fan within a range of about 45-49% of a diameter of the fan, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teramoto (US-20210372411-A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fujii fails to teach that the fan comprises an upper ring and a plurality of fan blades that are arranged about a circumference of the fan, wherein each of the plurality of fan blades are fixed to the upper ring, such that the upper ring mechanically supports each fan blade, wherein a height of the upper ring is between about 10% and 20% of a total height of the fan.
However, Teramoto teaches that the fan comprises an upper ring (FIG. 3, side plate 50) and a plurality of fan blades that are arranged about a circumference of the fan (FIG. 3, blade portions 31), wherein each of the plurality of fan blades are fixed to the upper ring (FIG. 3), such that the upper ring mechanically supports each fan blade (FIG. 3).
Teramoto fails to teach that a height of the upper ring is between about 10% and 20% of a total height of the fan.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a height of the upper ring between about 10% and 20% of a total height of the fan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the dimensions of the portions of the air way of FIG. 1 of Teramoto), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a height of the upper ring between about 10% and 20% of a total height of the fan, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Fujii and Teramoto fails to teach that the height of the upper ring is about 12.5% of the total height of the fan.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make a height of the upper ring 12.5% of a total height of the fan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the dimensions of the portions of the air way of FIG. 1 of Teramoto), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio is a result effective variable because it determines what percentage of conditioned air is delivered to each outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a height of the upper ring 12.5% of a total height of the fan, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Fujii and Teramoto teaches that each fan blade is arranged upon the upper ring such that there is a consistent spacing between adjacent fan blades around an entire circumference of the fan (Teramoto, FIG. 3, the blades of the fan are equally spaced).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
