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 guide part guiding the air flow direction 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. Applicant discloses paragraph 53 that a guide part is a baffle.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the air discharge port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether applicant refers to “a plurality of air discharge ports” cited in claim 1.
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 1,2, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byon et al. (KR 20140023729A). Regarding claim 1, Byon et al. discloses (figures 1, 3-4,6 and 11) an air conditioner for a vehicle comprising an air conditioning case (10) in which an air passage (P1, P2) and a plurality of air discharge ports ( 116) are formed; a cooling heat exchanger (101) and a heating heat exchanger (102) sequentially arranged in the air passage of the air conditioning case in an air flow direction; and a door (130) adjusting the opening degree of the air discharge ports (116); wherein the door (130) is formed in a sliding type and includes a shaft (140), a gear part (141), and a plate part (150) which engages with the gear part to open and close the air discharge ports (116), and wherein a guide part ( baffle160) guiding the air flow direction is provided on the shaft.
Regarding claim 2, Byon further discloses that the guide part (160) is positioned between the plate part (150) and the shaft (140) or arranged on the opposite side of the plate part (150) depending on the position of the shaft to guide the airflow (see figure 8)
Regarding claim 3, Byon further discloses (figure 11) that the shaft (140) is placed on one side of the air discharge port. (inner side of the discharge port).
Regarding claim 4, Byon further discloses (figure 4) that the guide part (160) includes a baffle which protrudes on the shaft (140) in a radial direction.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (EP 2559572A1) in view of Kim Jin (KR 20190114532A). Han discloses (figure 3) an air conditioner for a vehicle comprising an air conditioning case (10) in which an air passage (P1, P2) and a plurality of air discharge ports ( 116) are formed; a cooling heat exchanger (101) and a heating heat exchanger (102) sequentially arranged in the air passage of the air conditioning case in an air flow direction; and a door (130) adjusting the opening degree of the air discharge ports (116); wherein the door (130) is formed in a sliding type and includes a shaft (140), a gear part (141), and a plate part (150) which engages with the gear part to open and close the air discharge ports (116). Regarding claims 1 and 4, Han et al. does not disclose a guide part guiding the air flow direction is provided on the shaft (claim 1) and the guide part includes a baffle which protrudes on the shaft in a radial direction.. Kim discloses (figure 4) an air conditioner that has a shaft (111) includes a guide part (111a or baffle 111a) provided on the shaft (111) in a radial direction, which is capable of guiding the air flowing direction when the air flows by, for a purpose of forming recesses between the baffles so that the weight of the shaft is reduced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kim’s teaching in Han’s device for a purpose of reducing the shaft weight.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Han in view of Kim, as the guide part formed on the shaft, would result in the position of the guide part (111a) being between the plate part (150).
Regarding claim 3, Han further discloses (figure 13) that the shaft (140) is placed on one side of the air discharge port. (inner side of the discharge port).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Han in view of Kim, as the guiding part (111) integrally formed on the shaft, would enable the baffles (111) rotates integrally with the shaft as the door (130) moves.
Regarding claim 6, Han discloses that the door (130) includes a vent door which adjusts the opening degrees of a face vent. Furthermore, the combination of Han in view of Kim, as the guiding part or baffle (111) is formed on the shaft (140) of the vent door (130), would result in the baffle is formed on the shaft of the vent door.
Regarding claim 7, Han discloses (figures 3 and 12) that the face vent (13) is partitioned into a center vent (13a) and a side vent (13b) in the vehicle width direction. Furthermore, the combination device of Han in view of Kim, that has the baffles formed along the entire length of the shaft in the vehicle with direction, would result in baffle includes a center vent baffle formed at a position corresponding to the center vent and a side vent baffle formed at a position corresponding to the side vent. (Since the baffles 111 run the entire length of the rod, the baffles that is located near the center vent, is considered to be center vent baffles and the baffles that is located near the side vent is considered to be side vent baffles.
Regarding claims 12, Kim discloses (figure 7) that the shaft includes a plurality of recessed sliming parts (111f), and wherein the baffles (111) protrudes parallel to the recessed direction (radial direction) of the slimming parts for a purpose of reducing the weight of the shaft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kim’s teaching in Han’s device for a purpose of reducing the weight of the shaft.
Regarding claim 14, the combination device of Han in view of Kim would disclose (figure 4 of Kim) that the protrusion length of the baffles (111a) is formed to be smaller than the radius of the gear part (113) of the shaft.
Regarding claims 15,16 and 17, Han discloses (figures 13-17) several cooling modes of the air conditioner such that vent mode or floor mode, where the shaft (140) is in the way of the air flow path as air exits ports 112, 113 or 114. Therefore, the shaft (140) partially suppresses the airflow. (the shaft partially blocks part of the air flow) Since the combination device of Han in view of Kim, has the baffles located on the entire length of the shaft, the baffles are inherently positioned to suppress the airflow as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record either taken singularly or in combination fail to disclose the invention as claimed. In particular, reference to Han and Kim are the closest prior art but fail to disclose that the center vent baffle and the side vent baffle are positioned at different locations in the circumferential direction of the shaft (claims 8-9); and the center vent baffle and the side vent baffle are formed only on a portion of an end of the shaft in an axial direction (claim 10) and wherein in a floor mode where air is discharged to the floor vent or in a defrost mode air is discharged to the defrost vent, the center vent baffle and the side vent baffle are positioned parallel to the air flow direction (cl 18)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Ito et al. (US 2001/0008148A1) discloses an air passage switching device.
Sekiya et al. (WO 2004108449A1) discloses a slide door device.
Tokunaga et al. (US 20050287943A1) discloses an air passage switching device.
Wang et al. (WO 2008013375A1) discloses an assembling structure.
Khellin Keanmo (CN 109572355A) discloses an embedded shaft of rotating shaft assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights