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 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: "a heating device," in claim 1.
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.
The "heating device" is sufficiently described in the specification as a heater core (see paragraph 43, specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 8-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2017/0291468 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Jung discloses an air conditioning apparatus (see fig. 2 and abstract) comprising: a case (case 10, 110) having an air inlet (air inflow port 111); an evaporator (evaporator 101); a heating device (heater core 102) disposed downstream of the evaporator (see 102 downstream of 101, fig. 2); and a temperature control door (temperature adjusting doors 130, see fig. 2 and paragraph 38) installed between the evaporator and the heating device (doors 130 between 101 and 102, see fig. 2) and configured to adjust air flow downstream of the evaporator (by opening and/or closing doors 130, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 38, 95-96), wherein the case includes a defrosting vent (defrost vent 121) and a face vent (face vent 122), sequentially arranged in a front-to-rear direction of the case (see below annotated fig. 2), and a floor vent (floor vent 123) formed between the defrosting vent (121) and the face vent (122) on at least one of a left side wall or a right side wall of the case (floor vent 123 between defrost vent 121 and face vent 122, see below annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the case includes a floor door (door 124 of floor vent 123, see fig. 2) installed on the floor vent (see fig. 2); and the floor vent is disposed downstream of the evaporator and the heating device (see floor vent 123 downstream of evaporator 101 and heater core 102, fig. 2).
In regards to claim 3, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses that the floor door (door 124 of floor vent 123, see fig. 2) includes: a rotating shaft (shaft 151 of dampers, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48) passing through the floor vent (see figs. 2-4) and rotatably installed (see paragraphs 39, 94, and figs. 2-4, where door 124 is rotated); and a door body (plate 152 and 124, see figs. 2-4 and paragraph 48) rotating according to rotation of the rotating shaft (see figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 48-49), wherein the rotating shaft is disposed to extend in the front-to-rear direction (see the rotating shaft 151 extending into the page, fig. 2).
In regards to claim 8, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses that the heating device (heater core 102), downstream of the evaporator (102 downstream of evaporator 101), defines a heating flow path covered by the heating device (opening degree of doors 130 adjusted to create a heating flow path through the heater core, see paragraph 38) and a cooling flow path without the heating device (passageways 106a, 106b, bypassing heater core 102, see paragraph 38 and fig. 2).
In regards to claim 9, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 8 and further discloses that
when the temperature control door (130) opens an upstream portion of the heating device downstream of the evaporator, air introduced into the case flows along the heating flow path (see opened position of temperature adjusting doors 130 as shown by dotted lines in fig. 2, which allows introduced air to be heated by heater core 102, see paragraph 38); and
when the temperature control door (130) closes the upstream portion of the heating device downstream of the evaporator, air introduced into the case flows along the cooling flow path (see closed position of temperature adjusting doors 130, fig. 2, which allows cooling air to bypass heater core 102).
In regards to claim 10, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 8 and further discloses that the floor door is positioned upstream of the face vent in the heating flow path (floor door 124 of floor vent 123 is closer to the heater core 102 during heating flow path than the face vent 122, see fig. 7 and 7) and is positioned downstream of the face vent in the cooling flow path (floor door 124 of floor vent 123 within section 110b is downstream of the face vent 122 of section 110a, see figs. 2-3; Also see fig. 7).
In regards to claim 11, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses that the case includes: a defrosting door (defrosting door 124 at defrost vent 121, see fig. 2) configured to adjust an opening amount of the defrosting vent (see fig. 7 and paragraph 39, 95); and a vent door (face door 124 at face vent 122, see figs. 2-3 and 7) configured to adjust an opening amount of the face vent (see figs. 2, 7 and paragraph 39, 95-96).
In regards to claim 12, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that the temperature control door (130), the defrosting door (124), and the vent door (124) respectively include a drive shaft (see shaft through doors, figs. 2-7); and a shaft line of the rotating shaft intersects a shaft line of the drive shafts of the temperature control door, the defrosting door, and the vent door at a right angle (see below annotated fig. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that a floor duct is connected to the floor vent (see below annotated fig. 2); and a floor flow path is formed on the outside of the case (see below annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
605
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
473
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the air inlet (111) is formed on a lower surface of the case (see inflow port 111 adjacent lower surface of the case, fig. 3); and the evaporator (101) is disposed to be inclined with respect to the lower surface of the case (see inclined evaporator 101 with respect to the lower surface of the case at the inflow port 111, fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2017/0291468 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Kohigashi (US 2018/0065445 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses an actuator (actuator 155) installed on an external surface of the case (actuator 155 mounted on external surface of the port 111 of the casing, see paragraph 49 and figs. 4 and 8-10).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach a rotatable cam member connected to the actuator; and a lever rotatably installed on an external surface of the case and having one end connected to the floor door and another end connected to the cam member.
Kohigashi teaches a vehicle air conditioning device (see abstract and fig. 1) with plurality of dampers (dampers, see paragraph 28) including a foot damper (19), a rotating shaft (damper shaft 20) for the foot damper (see fig. 2), an actuator (damper opening and closing mechanism 21, see paragraph 39) installed on an external surface of the case (mechanism 21 on an external surface of case 15, see fig. 1 and paragraph 29); a rotatable cam member (rotatable driving plate 22, see paragraph 30 and figs. 2-4) connected to the actuator (see figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 30-31); and a lever (damper lever 26) rotatably installed on an external surface of the case (see figs. 1-2) and having one end connected to the floor door (damper lever 26 connected to damper 19 via shaft 20, see fig. 2) and another end connected to the cam member (lever 26 connected to the plate 22, see figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 30-31).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator assembly of the air conditioner of Jung by providing an actuator installed on an external surface of the case; a rotatable cam member connected to the actuator; and a lever rotatably installed on an external surface of the case and having one end connected to the floor door and another end connected to the cam member based on the teachings of Kohigashi in order to precisely control the flow and temperature of air being supplied to the cabin space through plurality of dampers/vents while achieving desirable temperature adjustment and switching of blowing modes (see paragraphs 2-3, Kohigashi).
In regards to claim 5, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 4 and Kohigashi further discloses that the cam member (pins 28, 29, fig. 2) is fixedly connected to an output shaft (shaft 23) of the actuator (shaft 23 of actuator 21 and link plate 22, see fig. 2 and paragraph 30) and rotates along with the output shaft (rotatably driving plate 22 about shaft 23, see paragraph 30); and the cam member has at least one cam groove (cam grooves, 24 and 25) having a trajectory (see profile of grooves 24, 25, fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Kohigashi as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Tsuihiji (US 6032723 A).
In regards to claim 6, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 5 and Kohigashi further discloses that the rotating shaft (damper shaft 20, see fig. 2) includes connection with lever (connected to lever 26) to transmit driving force to the rotating shaft from the lever (see figs. 2-4).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach a fixed link fixed to the shaft and extending from the shaft; and a connection link connected between the fixed link and the lever, such that the connection link transmits force to the fixed link and the shaft.
Tsuihiji teaches a rotating shaft (rotating shaft of foot damper door 22, see below annotated fig. 2) that includes: a fixed link (pivoting lever 32, see fig. 2) fixed to the rotating shaft and extending from the rotating shaft (see figs. 2-3); and a connection link (connecting link/lever 33, see figs. 2-3) having one end hingedly connected to the fixed link (see first connection, below annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-4) and another end hingedly connected to the lever (see pin connection 33a with member 37 and cam opening 36, see fig. 2), such that the connection link transmits, to the fixed link (to the link 32) and the rotating shaft (shaft at foot door 22), a driving force transmitted from the lever (see force transmission translated into opening and closing movement of door 22, figs. 2-7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotating shaft of the air conditioner of Jung as modified by providing a fixed link fixed to the rotating shaft and extending from the rotating shaft; and a connection link having one end hingedly connected to the fixed link and another end hingedly connected to the lever, such that the connection link transmits, to the fixed link and the rotating shaft, a driving force transmitted from the lever based on the teachings of Tsuihiji for the advantage of providing comfortable environment for the passengers by performing appropriate mixing of cooled and warm air while creating a greater degree of control of the dampers with additional linked mechanisms (see col. 3, lines 1-11, Tsuihiji).
PNG
media_image5.png
732
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Jung as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6 and Kohigashi further discloses that the lever includes: a lever body (body of lever 26);
a lever shaft (lever shaft 20) provided in the middle of the lever body (see shaft 20 passing through lever 26, fig. 2) and connected to the case (see fig. 1 and paragraph 29); and a moving pin (pin 28) provided at the other end of the lever body (see fig. 2) and inserted into the cam groove (pin 28 placed within groove 24, figs. 2-4) to be movable along the cam groove (see figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 33-34).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach a hinge portion provided at one end of the lever body and connected to the other end of the connection link.
Tsuihiji teaches a hinge portion (pivoting shaft 35, pins 34a, 34b and guide 37) provided at one end of the lever body (see pivots 34a, 34b, 35 at one end of plate 30 and lever 31, fig. 2) and connected to the other end of the connection link (guide 37 connected to connecting link/lever 33, see figs. 2-3) and a moving pin (pin 33a) provided at the other end of the lever body (see figs. 2-7) and inserted into the cam groove (slot 34c) to be moveable along the cam groove (see figs. 2-7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lever of floor door of the air conditioner of Jung as modified by providing a hinge portion provided at one end of the lever body and connected to the other end of the connection link and a moving pin provided at the other end of the lever body and inserted into the cam groove to be moveable along the cam groove based on the teachings of Tsuihiji in order to form a particular damper positioning profile with varying degree of openings of the floor damper by creating a degree of separation between the floor door and the cam with a connecting link to achieve variation in opening degree of the floor door (see figs. 2-7 for varying opening degrees of floor damper 22, Tsuihiji).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2017/0291468 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Tsuihiji (US 6032723 A).
In regards to claim 13, Jung teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that at least one of the temperature control door (130), the defrosting door (door 124 at vent 121), or the vent door (door 124 at vent 122) is slidably installed (doors 124, 130 rotate about the shaft and slide across the regions within section 110 and ducts for vents 121-123, see figs. 2 and 7).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach a rack and pinion mechanism for one of the dampers/doors.
Tsuihiji teaches at least one of the temperature control door (door 8), the defrosting door (door 17), or the vent door (door 14) includes a rack and pinion mechanism (rack and pinion mechanism 40 with pinion shaft 41, see figs. 2-7 and col. 5, lines 19-21; col. 7, lines 37-51).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature control door, the defrosting door, or the vent door of the air conditioner of Jung by providing a rack and pinion mechanism for one of the temperature control door, the defrosting door, and the vent door based on the teachings of Tsuihiji for the advantage of converting a rotational motion into a linear motion with minimal energy loss while utilizing minimum space for the damper door than a rotating door occupying internal space within the case, which is equivalent of the length of the door in all directions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
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 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.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights