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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 3/4/2025. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
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 the abstract speaks to the merits of the invention. 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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida (JP2023103647A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishida teaches a vehicle heat pump system which heat-exchanges a first heat exchange medium discharged from a compressor with a second heat exchange medium [fig 1], the vehicle heat pump system comprising:
a first air conditioning module [21] disposed in a front seat region of a vehicle and including a first evaporator [33a] and a first inner heat exchanger [34a; 0006]; and
a second air conditioning module [23] disposed in a rear seat region of the vehicle and including a second evaporator [33b] and a second inner heat exchanger [34b; 0006],
wherein the first heat exchange medium passing through the second inner heat exchanger flows into the second evaporator [0006 where the components are fluidly connected].
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2023103647A) in view of Kondo et al. (US2012/0011869).
Regarding Claim 2, Ishida teaches the invention of claim 1 above and teaches wherein a branch portion [61] is disposed between the compressor [52] and the first air conditioning module [21; 0006; fig 1]. Ishida does not teach where the branch portion is a branch valve which guides the first heat exchange medium discharged from the compressor to flow or not flow toward the second inner heat exchanger according to an air conditioning mode.
However, Kondo teaches a vehicle air conditioning system [fig 1] having where a branch portion is a branch valve [10] which guides a first heat exchange medium discharged from the compressor to flow or not flow toward a heat exchanger [8] according to an air conditioning mode [0068; 0069] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a system that has flexibility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ishida to have where the branch portion is a branch valve which guides the first heat exchange medium discharged from the compressor to flow or not flow toward the second inner heat exchanger according to an air conditioning mode in view of the teachings of Kondo where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that has flexibility.
Regarding Claim 3, Ishida, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Ishida teaches a medium line [62, 63, 66] which connects the compressor [52], the first air conditioning module [21], the second air conditioning module [23; 0006; see fig 1] and Kondo teaches where the branch valve and forms a movement path of the first heat exchange medium [0068; 0069].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 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. Claims 5-11 and 13-17 are held as being objected to based upon dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights