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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed on 2025/01/17. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2024-068576 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “control unit" in at least claim 1.
Corresponds to “the controller” in paragraph 0081 of the specification.
Corresponds to “is generally an ECU (Engine (electronic) Control Unit), although not particularly limited thereto. The ECU is a CPU for executing various calculation processes, a ROM for storing programs and data required for its control, a RAM for temporarily storing results of calculations performed by the CPU, and input/output ports for inputting and outputting signals to and from the outside” in paragraph 0098 of the specification.
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.
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) 1-4, 6-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al. (US-20230096396-A1) and Matsumoto et al. (JP-4674009-B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyairi teaches a vehicle air conditioning system [1000], comprising:
an air conditioning duct [400] through which air can flow [0137 “the air from the inflow piping 400 is flowed”];
at least one humidity controlling device [100] comprising:
a honeycomb structure [10] having an outer peripheral wall [11] and partition walls [14] provided on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall [fig. 2 showing provided on the inner side of (11)], the partition walls [14] defining a plurality of cells [13], each of the cells [13] extending from a first end face [12a] to a second end face [12b] of the honeycomb structure [100] to form a flow path [O] for the air [0093 “central axis O extending in the flow path direction”]; and
a moisture absorbing layer [20] provided on a surface of each of the partition walls [0087 “20 is provided on the surface of the partition walls”], the humidity controlling device [100] being provided in the air conditioning duct [fig. 4]; and
a control unit [900] configured to control a flow velocity of the air flowing through the cells [13] of the humidity controlling device [0137 “900 is capable of executing the regeneration mode such that the flow velocity of the air flowing through the plurality of cells”],
wherein the control unit [900] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”].
Miyairi does not explicitly the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s in a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device.
However, Matsumoto teaches the air flowing in the humidity controlling device [100 corresponding to 100 of Miyairi] to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s [0037 “about 0.5 to 10 m / s, preferably 1 to 3 m / s”] in a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [0037 “effect of dehumidifying the moisture in the air”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miyairi to have the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s in a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device in view of the teachings of Matsumoto 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. secures a vehicle air conditioning system where the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s in a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device which improves the dehumidifying ability [Matsumoto; 0007].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 1 and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.24 to 1.30 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device with a range of “about 0.5 to 10 m/s”].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 1 and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.25 to 1.20 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device with a range of “about 0.5 to 10 m/s”].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 1 and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.26 to 1.10 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device with a range of “about 0.5 to 10 m/s”].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 1 and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.06 to 0.30 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B is preferably 0.03 m/s or more, and more preferably 0.05 m/s or more. Although there is no particular upper limit to the flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] in a regeneration process of the humidity controlling device [0150 “in the second regeneration step”].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.08 to 0.20 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B is preferably 0.03 m/s or more, and more preferably 0.05 m/s or more. Although there is no particular upper limit to the flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] in a regeneration process of the humidity controlling device [0150 “in the second regeneration step”].
Regarding Claims 8, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 6 and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises performing the regeneration process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 4 minutes [0150 “The second regeneration step is preferably performed for 0.1 to 10 minutes”].
Regarding Claim 9, Miyairi teaches a method [0002 “a control method for a vehicle compartment purification system”] for using a humidity controlling device [100], the humidity controlling device [100] comprising:
a honeycomb structure [10] having an outer peripheral wall [11] and partition walls [14] provided on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall [fig. 2 showing provided on the inner side of (11)], the partition walls [14] defining a plurality of cells [13], each of the cells [13] extending from a first end face [12a] to a second end face [12b] of the honeycomb structure [100] to form a flow path [O] for air [0093 “central axis O extending in the flow path direction”]; and
a moisture absorbing layer [20] formed on a surface of each of the partition walls [0087 “20 is provided on the surface of the partition walls”], the humidity controlling device [100] being provided in the air conditioning duct [fig. 4],
wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises controlling a flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”].
Miyairi does not explicitly the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s during a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device.
However, Matsumoto teaches the air flowing in the humidity controlling device [100 corresponding to 100 of Miyairi] to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s [0037 “about 0.5 to 10 m / s, preferably 1 to 3 m / s”] during a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [0037 “effect of dehumidifying the moisture in the air”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miyairi to have the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s during a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device in view of the teachings of Matsumoto 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. secures a vehicle air conditioning system where the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.23 to 1.40 m/s in a moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device which improves the dehumidifying ability [Matsumoto; 0007].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using the humidity controlling device according to claim 9 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.24 to 1.30 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] during the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device with a range of “about 0.5 to 10 m/s”].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using the humidity controlling device according to claim 9 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.25 to 1.20 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] during the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device with a range of “about 0.5 to 10 m/s”].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using the humidity controlling device according to claim 9 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.26 to 1.10 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] during the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device with a range of “about 0.5 to 10 m/s”].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using a humidity controlling device according to claim 9 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.06 to 0.30 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B is preferably 0.03 m/s or more, and more preferably 0.05 m/s or more. Although there is no particular upper limit to the flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] during a regeneration process of the humidity controlling device [0150 “in the second regeneration step”].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using the humidity controlling device according to claim 14 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises controlling the flow velocity of the air flowing in the humidity controlling device to 0.08 to 0.20 m/s [0150 “flow velocity B is preferably 0.03 m/s or more, and more preferably 0.05 m/s or more. Although there is no particular upper limit to the flow velocity B, it is preferably 2 m/s or less, and more preferably 1 m/s or less”] during a regeneration process of the humidity controlling device [0150 “in the second regeneration step”].
Regarding Claims 16, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using the humidity controlling device according to claim 14 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises performing the regeneration process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 4 minutes [0150 “The second regeneration step is preferably performed for 0.1 to 10 minutes”].
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al. and as applied to claim(s) 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (JP3704778B2).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Miyairi teaches the vehicle air conditioning system according to claim 1 and Miyairi teaches wherein the control unit [900] comprises performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device].
Modified Miyairi does not explicitly teach performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 6 minutes.
However, Fukuda teaches performing the moisture absorption process [0042 “dehumidifying process” corresponding to the moisture absorption process of Matsumoto] of the humidity controlling device [1 corresponding to 100 of Miyairi] for 0.16 to 6 minutes [0042 “dehumidification process of about 3 minutes to 5 minutes”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Miyairi teaching with Fukuda by combining performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 6 minutes 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. secures a vehicle air conditioning system where performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 6 minutes which improves the functionality of the dehumidifier [Fukuda; 0029].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Miyairi teaches the method for using the humidity controlling device according to claim 9 and Miyairi teaches wherein the method [0002 “method”] comprises performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device [Matsumoto; 0037 teaches in the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device].
Modified Miyairi does not explicitly teach performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 6 minutes.
However, Fukuda teaches performing the moisture absorption process [0042 “dehumidifying process” corresponding to the moisture absorption process of Matsumoto] of the humidity controlling device [1 corresponding to 100 of Miyairi] for 0.16 to 6 minutes [0042 “dehumidification process of about 3 minutes to 5 minutes”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Miyairi teaching with Fukuda by combining performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 6 minutes 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. secures a vehicle air conditioning system where performing the moisture absorption process of the humidity controlling device for 0.16 to 6 minutes which improves the functionality of the dehumidifier [Fukuda; 0029].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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-Daryl 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.
/ADAM D MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights