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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-10 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 111486516A). Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an air conditioner outdoor unit comprising a housing (100) comprising a first cavity (inside space surrounded by the housing 100) and an air outlet (140) in communication with the first cavity; a heat exchanger (500) in the first cavity, wherein in a horizontal direction, the heat exchanger comprises a first portion and a second portion opposite to each other (see figures 7, U-shaped heat exchanger 500 with two parallel first and second portion), and a distance between the first portion and the second portion is S; and a fan assembly (200) comprising a bracket (16) arranged in the first cavity and above the heat exchanger (21), and connected to the housing, a motor (220) in the first cavity and on the bracket (110, 111, see figure 5); and a fan wheel (210) arranged in the first cavity and connected to the motor (220), and having a diameter of D (width of the fan wheel); wherein a first part of the bracket is opposite to the heat exchanger in an up-down direction, a distance between the first part of the bracket and the heat exchanger in the up-down direction is L1. Chen discloses (figure 7) that a width or diameter of the fan 200 is smaller than the distance S between two portions of the U-shaped heat exchanger 500). Chen further discloses that the distance L1, between the first part of the bracket (110/111) and the heat exchanger is about 0, which is within the range 0<=L1<=0.05 D. (Figures 2 and 3 show that the bracket is approximately placed on the top of the heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses (figure 2 and paragraph 65) that a distance (L2) between the fan wheel (210) and the bracket (110/111) in the up-down direction is about 60 mm, which satisfies the claimed range A1<=L2 <=A1+50 mm, wherein A1 is a first preset value. (A is 10).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses (figure 2 and paragraph 60) that a distance (L2) between the fan wheel (210) and the bracket (110/111) in the up-down direction is about 60 mm, which satisfies the claimed range A1<=L2<= A1+50 mm, wherein A1 is between 20 mm and 55 mm.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111486516A) in view of Shima et al. (CN 104981613A). Regarding claim 5, Chen. discloses (figure 1) a mesh cover (150), wherein the air outlet (140) is at an upper end of the housing, the fan wheel is opposite to the air outlet in the up-down direction, the mesh cover is arranged at the air outlet and connected to the housing (100) Chen does not disclose that the blockage ratio is between 0.12 and 0.15 (or the opening ratio is 0.85 to 0.88). Shima discloses ( figure 1 and paragraph 105) a fan protective cover (40) having an opening ratio is set to 80% or more (or blocking ratio less than 0.2 or between 0 and 0.2) for a purpose of obtaining a desired air quantity and wind speed providing by a fan (20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Shima’s teaching in Chen’s device for a purpose of obtaining a desired air quantity and wind speed providing by the fan. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the range 0.12 and 0.15, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller. 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111486516A) and Shima et al. (CN 104981613A as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kajiwara et al. (EP 2549194A1). Regarding claim 6, Chen and Shima substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the mesh cover includes a plurality of first ribs, second ribs, third ribs and fourth ribs with dimension of the ribs as claimed. Kajiwara discloses (figures 3 and 4) an air conditioner unit that has a fan mesh cover (60) comprising a plurality of first ribs (80) parallel to each other and spaced apart along a first horizontal direction; a plurality of second ribs (70) parallels to each other and spaced apart along a second horizontal direction, wherein each of the plurality of the first ribs is perpendicular to each of the plurality of second ribs, and each of the plurality of first ribs and each of the plurality of second ribs cross and form a grid; a plurality of third ribs (90), wherein each of the plurality of third ribs (90) is between two adjacent first ribs (80) in the first horizontal direction, and each of the plurality of the third ribs (90) is parallel to each of the plurality of first ribs and perpendicular to each of the plurality of second ribs (70), and a plurality of fourth ribs (91), wherein each of the plurality of fourth ribs (91) is between two adjacent second ribs (70) in the second direction, and each of the plurality of fourth ribs (91) is parallel to each of the plurality of second ribs (70) and perpendicular to each of the plurality of first ribs for a purpose of reducing the resistance of the air flow and the invasion of the hand into the fan cover can be prevent and the strength and rigidity of the ventilation surface portion of the fan cover mesh can be enhanced (paragraphs 4 and 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kajiwara’s teaching in the combination device of Chen and Shima for a purpose of reducing the resistance of the air flow and the invasion of the hand into the fan cover can be prevent and the strength and rigidity of the ventilation surface portion of the fan cover mesh can be enhanced. Kajiwara further discloses that each of the first ribs and the second ribs has a diameter greater than the diameter of the third ribs and the fourth ribs. Kaijwara does not disclose the range of the first and second ribs is between 5 to 7 mm and the range of the third and fourth rib is between 2 to 3 mm. Applicant does not disclose any criticality or any unexpected result for the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the diameter of the first, second, third and fourth ribs as in the claimed 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 range of diameter of first, second, third and fourth ribs involves only routine skill in the art to enhance the rigidity of the mesh cover while reducing the resistance of air flowing through the cover. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Shima et al. and Kajiwara et al. (EP 2549194A1) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Ishida et al. (AU 2006309888A1). Chen, Shima and Kajiwara substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the distance between the fan wheel and the mesh cover in the up-down direction is L3 that satisfies A2<=L3<= 150 mm, wherein A2 is a second preset value. Ishida discloses (figure 7 and page 8, fifth paragraph in the English translation) an air conditioner outdoor unit that has a distance between the fan wheel and the mesh cover in the up-down direction is L3 (approximately L3=110mm, and A =90mm, 90mm < L3=110 mm < 150 mm) which satisfy the claimed range for a purpose of preventing a person to touch the fan blade with his/her finger tip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ishida’s teaching in the combination device of Chen, Shima and Kajiwara for a purpose of preventing a person to touch the fan blade with his/her finger tip.
Claims 7- 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Shima et al. (CN 104981613A) and Kajiwara et al. (EP 2549194A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2016/0097548A1). Chen, Shima and Kajiwara substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the minimum distance between the mesh cover and the fan blade is 90 mm to 150mm. (A is equal 90 mm), Wang discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 46) an air conditioner unit that has the top end 82 of the wind blade (8) is paced from the grid cover (1) by a distance of 110 mm which is within the claimed range 90 to 150 mm for a purpose of avoiding the fan blade from hitting the mesh cover and preventing a person for touching the fan with his/her finger tip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use Wang’s teaching in the combination device of Chen, Shima and Kajiwara for a purpose of avoiding the fan blade from hitting the mesh cover and preventing a person for touching the fan with his/her finger tip.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111486516A) and Shima et al. (CN 104981613A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Song et al. (CN 109958637A). Chen discloses (figure 2) an air guide ring (400) with an inner surface in the first cavity, wherein the air guide ring is connected to the housing (100) and is fitted over the fan wheel, an upper end of the air guide ring (400) is above an upper end of the fan wheel. Chen does not disclose a distance between the air guide ring and the fan wheel in a radial direction of the fan is L4 and L4 is greater than 0 and less than 0.02 D (claim 9) and (L4 is greater than 0.013 and less than 0..017D (claim 10), wherein D is diameter of the fan. Song discloses (figure 6, paragraph 64) an outdoor air conditioner that has a gap clearance d1 between a fan ring (4) and a fan (21) with diameter (D1), wherein d1 is greater than 0.01 D1 and less than 0.03 D1. With this range, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a value within the range disclosed by Song, such as d1= 0.015D, which satisfies the claimed range less than 0.02 D (claim 9) and between 0.013D and 0.017 D (claim 10), for a purpose of reducing the noise generated and greatly improve the practicability of the fan assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Song’s teaching in the combination device of Chen and Shima for a purpose of reducing the noise generated and greatly improving the practicability of the fan assembly.
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights