DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
“filter cleaner” in claim 1. Paragraph [0040] suggests as an example the filter cleaner 43 includes, for example, a rotary brush, a brush motor, a dust box, and a filter transfer means (none of which are illustrated) or filter cleaning equivalents. The equivalents are interpreted to be any device that moves a filter past a cleaning mechanism. Below, it is interpreted to be a UV light with a filter transfer means.
“operation unit comprising a first button provided for performing a stop operation to stop each of an air conditioning operation of the air conditioner and the second maintenance operation” in claim 11. Paragraph [0045] of the published application teaches a remote control.
“a notification unit configured to issue a notification about the irradiating operation” in claim 2. (display unit of the remote control see paragraph [0049])
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite for requiring “an operation unit comprising a first button provided for performing a stop operation to stop each of an air conditioning operation of the air conditioner and the second maintenance operation…the controller simultaneously stops the air conditioning operation and initiates performance of the first and second maintenance operations, in response to performing the stop operation of the air conditioning operation via the first depression of the first button”
That is, claim 1 defines the stop operation of the first button as stopping each of the air conditioner operation and the second maintenance operation and then requires performing the stop operation to stop the air conditioning operation and initiate performance of the second maintenance operation. It is not clear how one single stop operation can simultaneously stop and initiate the second maintenance operation. It appears that the stop operation initially defined is not the same stop operation as performed by the controller, however no unambiguous determination can be made.
Claims 2-5 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naoto et al. (JP2004340406) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Naoto et al. teach an air conditioner (figs 1-3) configured to perform maintenance operations including a first maintenance operation (irradiation of suction filter with UV light from lamps 20 towards suction filter 15 to remove mold and bacteria from the suction filter, see paragraph [0021]-[0022] and [0027]. Note: anywhere else inside casing 2 that receives UV light in the interior will also be sterilized because the wavelength may be in the UVC range see paragraph [0011]) and a second maintenance operation ( lifting and lowering filter 15 such that entire filter is sterilized by lamps ([0027])), the air conditioner comprising:
an indoor unit (1) comprising an irradiator (UV lamps 20), an indoor fan (12) and a filter cleaner (mechanism for moving filter up and down best seen in figure 3 and at least one of the lamps 20), the indoor fan being used to perform an air conditioning operation of the air conditioner (inherent to a fan in an air conditioner), the irradiator being configured to perform the first maintenance operation (via UV irradiation by at least a different one of the lamps 20, see citations above), and at least either the indoor fan or the filter cleaner being configured to perform the second maintenance operation (by raising and lowering the filter in front of the UV lamp the entire surface is sterilized, the mechanism for ascending and lowering the filter is interpreted to be the filter cleaner along with the photocatalyst of the filter 50);
an operation unit (remote control, see paragraph [0030]) comprising a first button (remote controllers inherently have at least one button) provided for performing a stop operation to stop each of an air conditioning operation of the air conditioner ([0030] teaches the air conditioning operation is stopped from a signal from the remote) and the second maintenance operation ([0013] teaches lifting and lowering of the suction filter is operated by a remote controller, [0027] teaches an upward movement after a stop that ends in a stop. Therefore the remote control activation of lifting results in a stop operation as filter is retracted back into the air conditioning unit); and
a controller (since there is a remote controller, the air conditioner inherently has a controller to receive the signal from the remote controller) configured to control the air conditioning operation and control the maintenance operations to perform maintenance on the indoor unit of the air conditioner after the air conditioning operation is stopped via a first depression of the first button ([0030]), wherein
the first maintenance operation is an irradiating operation performed by the irradiator to irradiate an irradiation area of the indoor unit with ultraviolet rays (lamp 20 irradiates filter and irradiation area inside casing 2 as seen in figure 1, figure 3 clearly shows a space between lamps 20 and suction filter 15),
the second maintenance operation includes at least either the indoor fan to perform an internal cleaning operation or the filter cleaner to perform a filter cleaning operation (filter cleaning by raising/lowering the filter in front of the UV light source ([0027])),
the controller simultaneously stops the air conditioning operation and initiates performance of the first and second maintenance operations, in response to performing the stop operation of the air conditioning operation via the first depression of the first button ([0030] teaches a remote signals initiation of the disinfection operation after air conditioning is stopped and [0027] teaches the disinfection operation includes turning on lamps and the elevating device),
when the stop operation of the second maintenance operation is performed via a second depression of the first button in sequence after the first depression of the first button ([0013] teaches lifting and lowering of the filter is operated by the remote control. Paragraph [0027] teaches automatic operating of the elevating mechanism after air-conditioning is stopped. Paragraph [0030] teaches the first depression to stop the air conditioning operation. Paragraph [0027] further teaches the suction filter descends, stops, moves upwards and stops. Since elevating mechanism is automatically activated with the stopping of the air conditioning unit and the lifting and lowering are controlled by the remote controller, the initial decent is automatic and a second depression of the remote controller to elevate the filter ends with a stop. Thus the second depression after the first depression of the remote controller results in movement, then ultimately stopping of the second maintenance operation when the filter returns to its position inside the air conditioner), the controller controls the second maintenance operation to stop the second maintenance operation (inherent controller to receive the signal from the remote and actuate instructions, see discussion above for remote sending instructions to stop via elevating the filter) and controls the first maintenance operation to continue the irradiating operation (UV light continues to irradiate as filter is moved upward to final stop position [0027]), and
the first and second maintenance operations are simultaneously performed in a part of a period from the first depression of the first button to a stop of the first maintenance operation ([0027]).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto et al. in view of Toyoda (JP2016125710) (copy of machine translation submitted with the office action of 13 May 2024, publication submitted with IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Naoto et al. teaches the irradiation apparatus as discussed above in claim 1, however fails to disclose a notification unit connected to the controller, the notification unit being configured to issue a notification about the irradiating operation, wherein the controller controls the notification unit to issue the notification about the continuation of the irradiating operation.
However Toyoda teaches a notification unit (display calling attention to the user to stop filter cleaning operation (page 3, fourth paragraph)) connected to the controller (display inherently operated by a controller), the notification unit being configured to issue a notification about the maintenance operation (on-going and that the stop button has been pressed (see abstract and page 3, fourth paragraph)), wherein the controller controls the notification unit to issue the notification about the continuation of the maintenance operation (abstract and on page 3, fourth paragraph, calling attention is a notification about the maintenance operation).
Toyoda modifies Naoto et al. by suggesting a notification unit to notify the user that a stop button has been pressed and that the UV treatment (maintenance operation) is on-going.
Since both inventions are directed towards maintenance of an air conditioning unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Naoto et al. to have a notification unit in communication with a controller as suggested by Toyota because it would make it possible to prevent the filter cleaning operation from being stopped by mistake (page 3,fourth paragraph from the bottom).
Regarding claim 3, Cho in view of Naoto et al. teach a second button provided for performing a forced operation to forcibly stop the irradiating operation, wherein when a forced operation is performed by the second button to forcibly stop the irradiating operation, the controller controls the notification unit to issue the notification about the stop of the irradiating operation and controls the irradiating operation to forcibly stop the irradiating operation (Naoto et al. teaches the irradiating operation and Toyoda teaches the notification and control in abstract and on page 3, fourth paragraph of Toyoda. Moreover, Toyoda teaches an operation stop button 68 that is pressed after the notification to stop the filter cleaning (see fourth paragraph from the bottom of page 3). Thus a second button that forces a stop of the first maintenance operation. The rational to combine is the same as above).
Regarding claim 4, Naoto et al. in view of Toyoda teach wherein the forced operation is an operation different from the stop operation to stop the maintenance operation (Toyoda, see fourth paragraph from the bottom of page 3 of the translation, separate button that is pressed after notification thus different from the first button).
Regarding claim 5, Naoto et al. in view of Toyoda teach wherein the forced operation is enabled by a plurality of hierarchical operations (Toyoda, Fourth paragraph on page 3, first operation is the display the second operation is acting on the message on the display, thus plurality of hierarchical operations).
Relevant Art of interest to the applicant:
JP2015187543 teaches filter cleaning with a brush and UV sterilization after an air conditioner stops.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Note a button is insufficient structure to perform the claimed function see MPEP 2181 (I), prong (c) requires “the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.” That is, a button by itself cannot perform the claimed functional limitations, therefore operation unit invokes 112(f).