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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2022 and 11/27/2023 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 12 appears to be a cross-sectional view however there is no view showing where the cross-sectional view is taken. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0096207) in Wang et al. (US 2017/0167748).
Per claim 1, Kim teaches an air conditioner comprising: a housing (10) having an air outlet (16 and 17); an air duct component (44 and 70 which forms duct S1 and S2) within the housing, wherein the air duct component defines an air duct (44) and comprises an air duct outlet (outlet from S1 leading towards 16 and outlet S2 leading towards 17) in communication with the air duct (44), the air duct outlet (outlet from S1 leading towards 16 and outlet S2 leading towards 17) being opposite to and in communication with the air outlet (16 and 17, see figure 4); an air guide component (64) at the air duct outlet (outlet from S1 leading towards 16 and outlet S2 leading towards 17) but fails to explicitly teach a light emitting component downstream of the air guide component along an air flow direction, wherein the light emitting component comprises a light emitting body opposite to the air duct outlet and the air outlet.
However, using light emitting components to indicate functionality to a user of an air treatment system is old and well known. For example, Wang teaches an air condition including an light emitting component (“indicator lamp strip”, para. 0039) downstream of an air guide component (6) along an air flow direction (see figure 2), wherein the light emitting component (“indicator lamp strip”, para. 0039) comprises a light emitting body (structural body of “indicator lamp strip”) opposite to an air duct (duct formed between 5 and housing of 5) and an air outlet (2) for indicating an operating status of the air treatment system (para. 0039). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a light emitting component downstream of an air guide component along an air flow direction, wherein the light emitting component comprises a light emitting body opposite to an air duct outlet and the air outlet, as taught by Wang in the invention of Kim, in order to advantageously indicate an operating status of an air treatment system (para. 0039).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0096207) in Wang et al. (US 2017/0167748) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hwang (KR 10-2122172).
Per claims 2-3, Kim meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Kim teaches wherein:
the air duct comprises a first air duct (duct in which S1 passes) and a second air duct (duct in which S2 passes), and the first air duct is in the second air duct (see figure 4);
the air duct outlet (16 and 17) comprises a first air duct opening (16) in communication with the first air duct (duct in which S1 passes) and a second air duct opening (17) in communication with the second air duct (duct in which S2 passes), wherein the second air duct opening surrounds the first air duct opening (see figure 4); but fails to explicitly teach the light emitting body is between the first air duct opening and the second air duct opening (claim 2), wherein the light emitting body is formed as a ring and surrounds the first air duct opening (claim 3).
However, Hwang teaches an air treatment system wherein a light emitting body (350) is between a first air duct opening (plurality of 5) and a second air duct opening (opening between 10 and 50) (claim 2), wherein the light emitting body is formed as a ring and surrounds the first air duct opening (“LED lighting 350 may be installed along the circumference of the guide member “, pg. 5, ninth paragraph of translation) (claim 3) for indicating a heating/cooling mode (pg. 5, fourth paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a light emitting body between a first air duct opening and a second air duct opening (claim 2), wherein the light emitting body is formed as a ring and surrounds the first air duct opening (claim 3), as taught by Hwang in the invention of Kim, as modified, in order to advantageously indicate a heating/cooling mode (pg. 5, fourth paragraph of translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-16 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 2017/0356672) teaches an air conditioning system including a circular light emitting component.
Lee et al. (US 2019/0184324) teaches an air conditioning system including a circular light emitting component
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