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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the shaded drawings are not legible to distinguish the features of the invention. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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(s) 1-9 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, last line, recites “at least one coolant pipe”. It is unclear if this is the same pipe as the “integrated cooling pipes” from claim 1, line 3. For purposes of examination “at least one coolant pipe” will be considered - - at least one integrated cooling pipe of the integrated cooling pipes - - .
Claim 4 recites “the first heat exchanger”. It is unclear if this is referring to the “heat exchanger” from claim 2. For purposes of examination “the first heat exchanger” will be considered - - the heat exchanger - - .
Claim 6 recites “the pipes of the chiller”. It is unclear what “pipes” are being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for “pipes of the chiller”. For purposes of examination - - the pipes of the chiller - - will be considered - -
Claim 9 recites “wherein the air ducts are arranged in the A, B and/or C-pillars of the vehicle and/or in the vehicle roof”. It is unclear what “A, B and/or C-pillars of the vehicle” are referring to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for an “A, B and/or C-pillars of the vehicle” and a “vehicle roof”. For purposes of examination “wherein the air ducts are arranged in the A, B and/or C-pillars of the vehicle and/or in the vehicle roof” will be considered - - wherein the air ducts are arranged in an A, B and/or C-pillars of the vehicle and/or in a vehicle roof - - .
Claim(s) 2-9 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calderone (US 20190039440).
Per claim 1, Calderone teaches an HVAC box (528 and all elements within 528) for cooling components of a vehicle (100) with a coolant and/or refrigerant, the HVAC box comprising:
a box (528) with integrated coolant pipes (516),
a first mounting flange (see annotated figure below) for a coolant pump (“fluid pump”, para. 0050) (to clarify, the first mounting flange is used for supporting elements of the cooling system used by the coolant pump, thus the first mounting flange is considered to be for the coolant pump),
a second mounting flange (see annotated figure below) for a coolant valve (“a multi-way valve”, para. 0050) (to clarify, the second mounting flange is used for supporting elements of the cooling system used by the coolant valve, thus the second mounting flange is considered to be for the coolant valve), and
whereby the first and second mounting flanges (see annotated figure below) are connected with at least one integrated cooling pipe (left most pipe 516 as shown in figure 10) of the integrated cooling pipes (516) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly are connected either directly or indirectly).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, it is understood claim 1 includes the recitations “for a coolant pump” which is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (MPEP 2114, section II). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Per claim 2, Calderone meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Calderone teaches wherein a heat exchanger (522) is attached to the HVAC box (528 and all elements within 528).
Per claim 3, Calderone meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Calderone teaches wherein the coolant pipes are integrally formed in the HVAC box by blow molding and or injection molding (“Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be formed from a same, structurally continuous piece, such as being unitary, and/or be separately manufactured and/or connected, such as being an assembly and/or modules. Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be manufactured via any manufacturing processes, whether additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, and/or other any other types of manufacturing. For example, some manufacturing processes include three dimensional (3D) printing, laser cutting, computer numerical control routing, milling, pressing, stamping, vacuum forming, hydroforming, injection molding, lithography, and so forth”, para. 0081).
Per claim 5, Calderone meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Calderone teaches a refrigerant module (522) attached to the HVAC box, wherein a chiller (226) is attached to the HVAC box for exchanging heat between a refrigerant (“refrigerant”, para. 0041) and a coolant (“coolant”, para. 0028).
Per claim 6, Calderone meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Calderone teaches wherein pipes of the chiller (internal pipes inside 226) to which the coolant flows are integrally formed in the HVAC box (“Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be formed from a same, structurally continuous piece, such as being unitary, and/or be separately manufactured and/or connected, such as being an assembly and/or modules. Any and/or all elements, as disclosed herein, can be manufactured via any manufacturing processes, whether additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, and/or other any other types of manufacturing. For example, some manufacturing processes include three dimensional (3D) printing, laser cutting, computer numerical control routing, milling, pressing, stamping, vacuum forming, hydroforming, injection molding, lithography, and so forth”, para. 0081).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone (US 20190039440) in view of Scoccia et al. (US 6,422,301).
Per claim 4, Calderone meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Calderone teaches a second heat exchanger (506) relative to the first heat exchanger (522) but fails to explicitly teach a second heat exchanger tilted relative to the first heat exchanger so that the two heat exchangers are not arranged parallel to each other.
However, Scoccia teaches vehicular HVAC system wherein a second heat exchanger (14) is tilted relative to a heat exchanger (12) so that the two heat exchanger are not arranged parallel to each other (see figure 2) for efficient repair of the HVAC system (col. 2, lines 18-22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a second heat exchanger is tilted relative to a heat exchanger so that the two heat exchanger are not arranged parallel to each other, as taught by Scoccia in the invention of Calderone, in order to advantageously allow for efficient repair of the HVAC system (col. 2, lines 18-22).
Per claim 8, Calderone, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Calderone, as modified, teaches wherein the second heat exchanger (506) is adapted to transfer heat between the refrigerant (“refrigerant”, para. 0041) and air (air surrounding 506) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly are considered to be “adapted to transfer heat” with one another).
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone (US 20190039440) in view of Tanaka (US 20200047590).
Per claim 7 and 9, Calderone meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Calderone teaches wherein the heat exchanger (522) is adapted to transfer heat between the coolant (“coolant”, para. 0028) and air (air surrounding 522) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly are considered to be “adapted to transfer heat” with one another) but fails to explicitly teach the air is distributed by air ducts, which are attached to the heat exchanger (claim 7), wherein the air ducts are arranged in an A, B and/or C-pillars of the vehicle and/or in a vehicle roof (claim 9).
However, Tanaka teaches a vehicle HVAC system wherein air is distributed by air ducts (36), which are attached to a heat exchanger (34) (claim 7), wherein the air ducts (36) are arranged in an A-pillar of the vehicle (region surrounding 36) (claim 9) for improved comfort (para. 0015). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide air to be distributed by air ducts, which are attach to the heat exchanger (claim 7), wherein the air ducts are arranged in an A-pillar of the vehicle (claim 9), as taught by Tanaka in the invention of Calderone, in order to advantageously provide improved comfort inside the vehicle (para. 0015).
Per claim 10, Calderone, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Calderone, as modified, teaches the air ducts but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least a part of the air ducts is insulated.
However, the Examiner take OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to insulate air ducts to reduce thermal losses in HVAC systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have at least a part of the air ducts be insulated in order to advantageously reduce thermal losses in the HVAC system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gruber (US 20200108688) teaches a cooling system for a vehicle.
Kim et al. (KR20190059360) teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle.
Mazzocco et al. (US 20200307360) teaches an HVAC system for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights