DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, has been examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 7, 2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Remarks
Applicant is thanked for their thorough response to the office action filed July 7, 2026.
The examiner respectfully submits that Applicant may have misunderstood paragraph 6 of the July 7, 2025 Office Action. In the remarks filed June 4, 2025, Applicant remarked “that that none of Yasutomi, Furuhashi and Oka discloses the feature recited in claim 1, as amended, of the present application.” The examiner responded that the newly amended limitation “extending from 0 m to 1.6 m or higher” had not been examined (yet), as the limitation was not part of any of the previous claims.
To be clear, examination of the limitation was included in the July 7, 2025 office action. Please see page 3 of 12, paragraph 10, second bullet point, as the amendment was not overlooked.
Regarding the 35 USC §102 rejection of claims 1 – 4 as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20110075475), Applicant remarks (inter alia) Lee does not disclose or suggest the newly amended limitations in claim 1, or that the wide mode air conditioning capacity is lower compared with the normal mode air conditioning capacity.
The examiner respectfully notes that, while Lee is silent as to whether wherein in the wide mode an average wind velocity in the first range and an average wind velocity in the second range are substantially equal to each other, and an average wind velocity in the third range is less than 1.5 times of the average wind velocity in the first range, the examiner maintains that Lee discloses wherein the wide mode air conditioning capacity is lower compared with the normal mode air conditioning capacity, due to the comparatively lower temperature differential in the wide mode.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), 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) 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), 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), 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 control unit configured to switch between a normal mode and a wide mode.” (Claim 1, line 4; any other claim that makes reference to the control unit)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Per a review of the Applicant’s disclosure, it’s unclear what the corresponding structure of the control unit, for performing the claimed function, is. The figures point to element 40, but element 40 is an arbitrary, dashed box. The written disclosure does not offer any additional details outside of reciting “control unit” and “40.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant shall:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, “control unit” as recited in the claims invokes 35 USC 112(f), and it’s unclear what the corresponding structure of the control unit for performing the claimed function is.
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.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claims 1 – 4:The claim limitation “a control unit configured to switch between a normal mode and a wide mode.” (claim 1, line 4; claim 2, line 2; claim 3, line 2; claim 4, line 2) invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As noted above, “control unit” as recited in the claims invokes 35 USC §112(f), and it’s unclear what the corresponding structure of the control unit for performing the claimed function is.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (JP 05 240488), in view of Furuhashi et al (US 2015/0377242), in view of Lee et al (KR 20110075475).
In re Claim 1, Yoneda discloses an indoor unit (fig 5: (1)) of an air conditioner, the indoor unit being configured to be installed in an air-conditioning target space (as seen in fig 5) and to be capable of changing a direction of an airflow that is blown out through a blow-out port (3), the indoor unit comprising:
a control unit (fig 16: (20), [0015 - 0016]) configured to switch between a normal mode (figs 13a, 13b) [0042] and a wide mode (14a - c) [0034 - 0038], and
wherein in the wide mode, a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air- conditioning target space is extended at least vertically (as seen in fig 14c) compared with the normal mode (as seen in fig 13b).
Yoneda is silent as to whether:
an air conditioning capacity in the wide mode is lower compared with an air conditioning capacity in the normal mode, and
wherein in the wide mode, when: a range of 1600 mm high from a floor surface at a position away from the blow-out port by any distance within a range of 1000 mm to 2000 mm on a front side is set as a reference height range; among three ranges obtained by equally dividing the reference height range into three in a height direction, a range positioned on an upper side is set as a first range, a range positioned on a lower side is set as a second range, and a range positioned between the first and second ranges is set as a third range; and the indoor unit is provided on a side wall in the air-conditioning target space such that a center of the blow-out port is at a position of 2000 mm above from the floor surface, an average wind velocity in the first range and an average wind velocity in the second range are substantially equal to each other, and an average wind velocity in the third range is less than 1.5 times of the average wind velocity in the first range.
Furuhashi et al teaches an indoor unit (figs 1 – 3: (1)) of an air conditioner, the indoor unit being configured to be installed in an air-conditioning target space (as seen in figs 1, 2) and to be capable of changing a direction of an airflow that is blown out through a blow-out port (1b), the indoor unit comprising:
a control unit (fig 5: (11)) configured to switch between a normal mode (FIG 8) and a wide mode (figs 1 – 7 ),
wherein in the wide mode, a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air- conditioning target space is extended at least vertically [0054, 0055] compared with the normal mode [0058], and
wherein in the wide mode, when:
a range of a human body height from a floor surface at a position away from the blow-out port by any distance within a range of 3600 mm on a front side is set as a reference height range;
the indoor unit is provided on a side wall in the air-conditioning target space such that a center of the blow-out port is at a position of less than 2000 mm above from the floor surface,
based on a detected area around a head of the human body [0068], the control unit (11) randomly adjusts positions of vertical airflow direction vanes [0069] and fan speed [0070] in response to an apparent temperature of the human body.
Please note that Furuhashi et al endeavors to provide a technical effect – “generating airflow simulating that in the natural world” [0113] – that is analogous to Applicant’s invention “to blow out an airflow similar to comfortable natural wind” [0073], by defining a reference distance from an indoor unit and a reference height of a person.
However, a distance of a person from an indoor unit and a height of the person are not structural elements of a claimed invention. Please see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), where the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Similarly, varying ranges of wind velocities across a vertical height would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant discloses that the claimed limitations are used to effect feelings by an occupant [0054, 0065].
Additionally, as the target point location (an occupant) and wind velocity across a vertical plane at the target point location are result-effective variables, (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), given the general conditions of the claim disclosed by Furuhashi et al, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Yoneda as taught by Furuhashi et al, such that the system provides wherein, when operating in the wide mode, when:
a range of 1600 mm high from a floor surface at a position away from the blow-out port by any distance within a range of 1000 mm to 2000 mm on a front side is set as a reference height range;
among three ranges obtained by equally dividing the reference height range into three in a height direction, a range positioned on an upper side is set as a first range, a range positioned on a lower side is set as a second range, and a range positioned between the first and second ranges is set as a third range; and
the indoor unit is provided on a side wall in the air-conditioning target space such that a center of the blow-out port is at a position of 2000 mm above from the floor surface, an average wind velocity in the first range and an average wind velocity in the second range are substantially equal to each other, and an average wind velocity in the third range is less than 1.5 times of the average wind velocity in the first range.
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Making this modification would be obvious for the benefit of optimally generating airflow for user comfort, for example one that could be expected to simulate airflow in the natural world, as suggested in para. 0013 of Furuhashi; or for any other desired reason. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Yoneda is silent as to whether an air conditioning capacity is lower compared with an air conditioning capacity in the normal mode. However, such a technique was known in the art as taught by Lee et al.
Lee et al teaches an indoor unit (figs 4, 5: (1)) of an air conditioner, the indoor unit being configured to be installed in an air-conditioning target space (fig 5: S1) and to be capable of changing a direction of an airflow that is blown out through a blow-out port (121, 122, 131), the indoor unit comprising:
a control unit (170) configured to switch between a normal mode and a wide mode,
wherein in the wide mode (“general cooling mode”), a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air-conditioning target space is extended at least vertically compared with the normal mode (“concentrated cooling mode”) to a range extending from 0 m (figs 4, 5: plane (P11) floor at 0 m) to 1.6 m or higher (plane (P14): 1.1m≤P4≤1.8m above (P1)) or higher in height at a position 1 m or more (1 m -1.2 m) away from the indoor unit and an air conditioning capacity is lower (“refers to a case where general indoor space cooling is performed… so that it (air) even flows through the indoor space”) compared with an air conditioning capacity in the normal mode (“refers to a case where cooling is performed at a predetermined concentrated cooling temperature”).
Lee et al discloses :[0019]
“More specifically, the input unit (150) receives signals for at least the concentrated cooling mode and the general cooling mode.”
“general cooling mode refers to a case where general indoor space cooling is performed… so that it (air) even flows through the indoor space”
“concentrated cooling mode figs 1, 3, concentrated cooling space S1 (P4 is horizontal) refers to a case where cooling is performed at a predetermined intensive cooling temperature”
“In addition, the input unit 150 may receive a signal for setting the start and end of the normal cooling mode, the normal cooling time, and the general cooling temperature. And the cooling is performed at a predetermined concentrated cooling temperature…. The controller 170 controls the display unit 160, That is, the indoor heat exchanger 141 and the blowing fan 143, so that the concentrated cooling mode or the general cooling mode is performed according to the temperature of the indoor heat exchanger…The concentrated cooling temperature is set to a temperature of 18° C or more and 22° C or less. Preferably, the intensive cooling temperature is set to a temperature of 18° C or lower.”
The examiner respectfully notes that, after viewing three machine translations1 of Lee et al, the terms “centralized cooling mode/ space/ temperature”, “intensive cooling mode/space/temperature”, “concentrated cooling mode/ space/ temperature”, and “concentration cooling mode/ space/ temperature are used interchangeably; the “concentrated cooling mode” is set to a temperature of 18oC or more and 22oC or less, preferably set to a temperature of 18oC or lower. Please refer to Lee et al [0029]. For purposes of examination, this cooling mode has been identified as a “concentrated cooling”.
Similarly, the examiner respectfully notes that Lee et al uses the terms “normal cooling” and “general cooling” interchangeably; Please refer to Lee et al [0021 – 0024]. For purposes of examination, this cooling mode has been identified as a “general cooling”.
Accordingly, Lee et al teaches wherein the air conditioning capacity in the wide (general) mode more being lower than the air conditioning capacity is the normal (concentrated) mode is due to a lower temperature differential.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Lee et al, such that the system comprises an air conditioning wide mode capacity that is lower when compared with an air conditioning normal mode capacity in the normal mode, for the benefit of “the user feeling more comfort and speed according to the lowering of the body temperature.”
In re Claim 2, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Lee et al further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to switch to the normal (concentrated) mode when the wide (general) mode has been continued for a predetermined period or more during cooling.
[0025] The controller 170 controls the display unit 160, That is, the indoor heat exchanger 141 and the blowing fan 143, so that the concentrated cooling mode or the general cooling mode is performed according to the temperature of the indoor heat exchanger. That is, when the input unit 150 receives the signal for starting the intensive cooling mode, the controller 170 controls the indoor unit 1 to cool the intensive cooling space S1 by the cooling of the intensive cooling temperature. The control unit 170 also controls the indoor unit 1 to receive a signal for terminating the centralized cooling mode or to terminate the centralized cooling mode when the centralized cooling time elapses. The control unit 170 controls the indoor unit 1 so that the general cooling mode is performed when the centralized cooling mode is terminated.”
[0099] “Meanwhile, when the user inputs a signal for terminating the centralized cooling mode to the input unit 150 or a predetermined centralized cooling time elapses, the control unit 170 ends the centralized cooling mode. The control unit 170 controls the indoor unit 1 so that the general cooling mode is performed when the centralized cooling mode is terminated.”
Claim 5: “The method according to claim 1,A signal for selecting the cooling mode, and an input unit for receiving a signal for selecting a general cooling mode for cooling the entire indoor space, wherein the centralized cooling mode is started when the input unit receives a signal for selecting the start and end of the centralized cooling mode and ends when a predetermined centralized cooling time elapses after the centralized cooling mode is started.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Lee et al, such that the system comprises wherein the control unit is configured to switch to the normal mode when the wide mode has been continued for a predetermined period or more during cooling, for the benefit of providing centralized cooling when a predetermined general cooling time elapses, for improved used comfort.
In re Claims 3 and 4, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Lee et al teaches the control unit is configured to switch between the normal mode and the wide mode based on a presence/absence of a person inside a range that is to be reached by the airflow of the wide mode in the air-conditioning target space.
[0045] The sensing sensor 180 senses whether or not the user is located in the intensive cooling space S1 (S2) (see Figs. 1 to 5). The control unit 170 controls the indoor unit 1 so that the intensive cooling mode is performed when the sensing sensor 180 senses that the user is located in the intensive cooling spaces S1 and S2. The control unit 170 controls the indoor unit 1 so that the intensive cooling mode is terminated when the sensing sensor 180 senses that the user is not located in the intensive cooling spaces S1 and S2 In the present embodiment, even if the user does not input the signal for the centralized cooling mode to the input unit 150, the centralized cooling mode is performed when the user is located in the centralized cooling space S1 (S2).
Claim 14: The method of claim 13, the concentrated cooling mode is started when the sensor detects that the user is in the concentrated cooling space, and when the predetermined concentrated cooling time elapses or when the sensor detects that the user is absent. The air conditioner terminates when it senses that the air conditioner is in operation.
Claims 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (JP 05 240488), in view of Furuhashi et al (US 2015/0377242), in view of Lee et al (KR 20110075475), and further in view of Chiguchi et al (CN 1174968).
In re Claims 5, 6, and 7, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein the indoor unit further comprising:
a heat exchanger (figs 1, 2: (141)) that is configured to exchange heat with air that is taken in from the air- conditioning target space [0020] to thereby regulate a temperature of the air [0025 – 0026],
However, Lee et al is silent as to whether the control unit (170) is configured to cause a temperature of at least a portion of the heat exchanger in the wide mode during cooling to be lower than a dew temperature in the air- conditioning target space.
Chiguchi et al teaches an indoor unit of an air conditioner (figs 1, 8, 12: (1)) in a room, the indoor unit comprising a fan (2), a heat exchanger (8), and at least one wind-direction regulating plate (7) at an air outlet (6), and a control device (“not shown) capable of changing a direction of an airflow (via (7)) that is blown out through the air outlet (6),
wherein the control device comprising a detection unit, and configured to switch between a first mode and a second mode;
wherein the room temperature TR1, the cold air outlet temperature t, and the humidity are detected by the detection unit (fig 9: S2);
wherein the room temperature (TR) is set in accordance with the humidity (at a predetermined room temperature, fig 10: room humidity (x-axis)) and with the supply air temperature (t) fig 10: t (y - axis); and a limit time of condensation is estimated (fig 9: S3)),
wherein the wind direction plate (fig 11: (7)) is placed in the first state F, and the cold air is sent in the horizontal direction and the upward direction, and the upward movement is performed;
after the tw (minutes), the wind direction plate 7 is placed in the second state G (where the cold air speed is lower than the cold air speed in the first state F) and the downward air blowing mode from the upward air blowing mode to the downward conveying cold air is performed in a short time, and then the upward air blowing is repeatedly performed;
PNG
media_image1.png
373
1423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the control unit is configured to cause a temperature (t)** of at least a portion of the heat exchanger (8) (**heat exchanger temperature being analogous to the supply air temperature (t), fig 10: y-axis) in a wide mode (analogous to fig 11, plate position G) during cooling to be lower than a dew temperature (represented by the curves Tc, Tb, Ta) in the air-conditioning target space.
Please note that Chiguchi et al further teaches:
“According to the room temperature TR1 (°C), the command is as follows: in the tw (minute) time, the wind direction plate 7 is placed in the first state F, and the blower is along The cold air is delivered in the horizontal direction and the upward direction (indicated by the dashed lines in figure 11). Then, if the time tw (minutes) has elapsed, the following manner is commanded in a short time: the wind direction plate 7 is placed in the second state G, and the cold air is sent from the upward air blowing mode to the downward air blowing mode (indicated by the solid lines in figure 11) by the air blower. Therefore, the dew generated on the lower surface of the wind direction plate 7 can be eliminated, and then the command of the upward air blowing mode and the downward air blowing mode can be repeatedly issued.”
PNG
media_image2.png
246
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“in a microcomputer of the control device, the room temperature TR1 (° C.) is set in accordance with the humidity at the predetermined room temperature and the air supply temperature shown in FIG. 10, and is determined by the cold air upward blowing mode of the jet blower. Condensation limit time. Then, in a state where step S1 of selecting the upward air blowing mode is executed, in step S2, the detecting unit detects each piece of data such as room temperature TR1 (°C), and sets it in step S3 in which the setting operation is performed based on the detection result. Condensation limit time tw (minutes).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lee et al as taught by Chiguchi et al, such that the system control unit is configured to cause a temperature of at least a portion of the heat exchanger in the wide mode during cooling to be lower than a dew temperature in the air- conditioning target space, for the benefit of including a system operation that provides a dehumidifying effect and a comfortable cooling, improving indoor air quality.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (JP 05 240488), in view of Furuhashi et al (US 2015/0377242), in view of Lee et al (KR 20110075475), and further in view of Yoshizawa et al (JP 2011106769).
In re Claim 8 – 11, the proposed system has been discussed, but is silent as to whether the control unit is configured to vary a blow-out velocity of the airflow in the wide mode.
Yoshizawa et al teaches a wall mounted system (fig 1) comprising a fan (5), at least one wind-direction regulating plate (7) at an air outlet (6), and a control device (23) capable of changing a direction of an airflow (via regulating plate (7)) between a normal mode (fig 7: (2a)) and a wide mode (fig 6: (2a))
wherein in the wide mode (clothes drying mode [0066, 0067, 0069], [ 0077]), a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air-conditioning target space is extended at least vertically (α2) compared with the normal mode (α3)
[0077] wherein a lower limit angle of the operation range (fig 6(2a) :(α1)) can be finely adjusted by operating the down switch 21b of the wind direction adjusting switch 21, and the change angle per switch operation is about 5 degrees. The user finely adjusts the lower limit angle of the reciprocating operation range to an appropriate position while confirming the blowing direction,
[0078] wherein after adjusting the lower limit angle has been set to an appropriate position, the remote controller 13a transmits a wind direction adjustment signal of the upper limit angle, and when the receiving means 15 receives the wind direction adjustment signal of the upper limit angle, the louver (regulating plate) 7 Is moved to the upper limit angle of the reciprocating motion range. The upper limit angle is adjusted in the same manner as the lower limit angle, and
[0062] wherein, when the louver (regulating plate) 7 is moved to a predetermined position and the air outlet 4 is opened, the control device 23 drives the fan motor 6 to rotate at a high speed when it is strong, and rotates at a low speed when it is weak. Then, the fan 5 is operated.
Please note that Yoshizawa et al teaches a user selectable regulating plate limits and a variable speed fan in each of the embodiments [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lee et al, as taught by Yoshizawa et al, such that the system comprises a control device, such that a blow-out velocity of the airflow in the wide mode is varied, for the benefit of providing a user with a system that is varied to suit their installation preferences and requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (JP 05 240488), in view of Furuhashi et al (US 2015/0377242), in view of Lee et al (KR 20110075475), in view of Yoshizawa et al (JP 2011106769). and further in view of Chiguchi et al (CN 1174968).
In re Claim 11, the proposed system has been discussed, but is silent as to whether the control unit is configured to vary a blow-out velocity of the airflow in the wide mode.
Yoshizawa et al teaches a wall mounted system (fig 1) comprising a fan (5), at least one wind-direction regulating plate (7) at an air outlet (6), and a control device (23) capable of changing a direction of an airflow (via regulating plate (7)) between a normal mode (fig 7: (2a)) and a wide mode (fig 6: (2a))
wherein in the wide mode (clothes drying mode [0066, 0067, 0069], [ 0077]), a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air-conditioning target space is extended at least vertically (α2) compared with the normal mode (α3)
[0077] wherein a lower limit angle of the operation range (fig 6(2a) :(α1)) can be finely adjusted by operating the down switch 21b of the wind direction adjusting switch 21, and the change angle per switch operation is about 5 degrees. The user finely adjusts the lower limit angle of the reciprocating operation range to an appropriate position while confirming the blowing direction,
[0078] wherein after adjusting the lower limit angle has been set to an appropriate position, the remote controller 13a transmits a wind direction adjustment signal of the upper limit angle, and when the receiving means 15 receives the wind direction adjustment signal of the upper limit angle, the louver (regulating plate) 7 Is moved to the upper limit angle of the reciprocating motion range. The upper limit angle is adjusted in the same manner as the lower limit angle, and
[0062] wherein, when the louver (regulating plate) 7 is moved to a predetermined position and the air outlet 4 is opened, the control device 23 drives the fan motor 6 to rotate at a high speed when it is strong, and rotates at a low speed when it is weak. Then, the fan 5 is operated.
Please note that Yoshizawa et al teaches a user selectable regulating plate limits and a variable speed fan in each of the embodiments [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lee et al, as taught by Yoshizawa et al, such that the system comprises a control device, such that a blow-out velocity of the airflow in the wide mode is varied, for the benefit of providing a user with a system that is varied to suit their installation preferences and requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Fukuda et al (US 4,671,458) who discloses a wall mounted indoor air conditioning unit. The indoor unit is provided with an infrared ray detection unit which has an infrared ray sensor for sensing infrared rays, and a temperature sensor for sensing a temperature in the detection unit. The detection unit is horizontally swung with a discharge opening of the indoor unit, from which warm or cold air is discharged, so that the room is swept by the field of view and the air. The room temperature distribution is obtained from the output signal from the detection unit and, the amount of the discharged air directed to the respective areas of the room is adjusted in accordance with the room temperature distribution. (Abstract))
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No 11,493231.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other ,because a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would recognize that the portions where the claim language is not identical, US 11,493,231 either uses synonymous terms of art, or claims a broader range, as discussed below.
In re Claim 1, Application 17/685685 discloses “a control unit configured to switch between a normal mode and a wide mode”, and US 11,493,231 discloses that “(a) fan and (a) wind direction regulator are configured to selectively function in a normal mode and a wide mode”. Although the disclosure of a “wind direction regulator” is limited to Claim 1 in US 11,493,231 (not shown in the specification or drawings), in that “The control unit (40) performs… control the number of rotations of the fan, control the operation of the first …and second wind-direction regulating plates” (col 3, ln 64 – col 4, ln 1), it appears that the regulator of US 11,493,231 is the controller of application 17/685685.
In re Claim 1, Application 17/685685 discloses “an average wind velocity in the third range is less than 1.5 times of the average wind velocity in the first range”, and US 11,493,231 discloses “an average wind velocity in the third range is equal to or more than 0.5 times and less than 1.1 times of the average wind velocity in the first range”, the range disclosed by US 11,493,231 is less than the range claimed in 17/685685 and so anticipates the claimed value.
Cl.
Application 17/685685
US 11,493,231
1
An indoor unit of an air conditioner, the indoor unit being configured to be installed in an air-conditioning target space and to be capable of changing a direction of an airflow that is blown out through a blow-out port, the indoor unit comprising:
a control unit configured to switch between a normal mode and a wide mode,
wherein in the wide mode, a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air- conditioning target space is extended at least vertically compared with the normal mode and an air conditioning capacity is lower compared with an air conditioning capacity in the normal mode, and
wherein in the wide mode, when:
a range of 1600 mm high from a floor surface at a position away from the blow-out port by any distance within a range of 1000 mm to 2000 mm on a front side is set as a reference height range;
among three ranges obtained by equally dividing the reference height range into three in a height direction, a range positioned on an upper side is set as a first range, a range positioned on a lower side is set as a second range, and a range positioned between the first and second ranges is set as a third range; and
the indoor unit is provided on a side wall in the air-conditioning target space such that a center of the blow-out port is at a position of 2000 mm above from the floor surface, an average wind velocity in the first range and an average wind velocity in the second range are substantially equal to each other, and an average wind velocity in the third range is less than 1.5 times of the average wind velocity in the first range.
An indoor unit for an air conditioner, the indoor unit being configured to be installed in an air-conditioning target space and to be capable of changing a direction of an airflow that is blown out through a blow-out port, the indoor unit comprising:
a heat exchanger;
a fan; and a wind direction regulator,
wherein the fan and the wind direction regulator are configured to selectively function in a normal mode and a wide mode,
wherein, in the wide mode, an air conditioning load is higher than a predetermined value and at least vertically a range that is to be reached by the airflow in the air-conditioning target space in the wide mode is extended compared with the normal mode, and
wherein, in the wide mode, when
a range of 1600 mm high from a floor surface at a position away from the blow-out port by any distance within a range of 1000 mm to 2000 mm on a front side is set as a reference height range, and
among three ranges obtained by equally dividing the reference height range into three in a height direction, the range positioned on an upper side is set as a first range, the range positioned on a lower side is set as a second range, and the range positioned in a middle is set as a third range, and
when the indoor unit for the air conditioner is provided on a side wall in the air-conditioning target space such that a center of the blow-out port is at a position of 2000 mm above from the floor surface, an average wind velocity in the first range and an average wind velocity in the second range are substantially equal to each other, and an average wind velocity in the third range is equal to or more than 0.5 times and less than 1.1 times of the average wind velocity in the first range.
4
wherein a difference between an intake temperature and a blow-out temperature is reduced in the wide mode compared with the normal mode.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on T – Th: 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang, can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F. Hamilton/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 worldwide.espacenet.com autotranslation, worldwide.espacenet.com translation from Korean to English, PE2E search translation
Prosecution Insights