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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is referred to 37 C.F.R. 1.83 “Content of drawing. (a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.” Applicant has not stated on the record that the features objected to are conventional, which would obviate the objections. Accordingly, the objections are maintained below, where they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previous specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the previously added material. Accordingly, the previously set forth specification objection has been withdrawn. Please see below for new objection(s) pertaining to the amendment. Applicant argues that the added paragraphs describe elements already depicted in the originally filed drawings, yet the measurements and features described are not shown in the originally filed drawings and were not part of originally filed claims.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the disclosure of Verhoeven does not adequately disclose circular uniformly-spaced holes, yet makes the argument that Applicant’s own Figure 12, which does not show uniformly-spaced circular holes is adequate. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Nevertheless, Examiner has added an additional, alternative, grounds of rejection positively disclosing uniformly-spaced circular holes in a diffuser to further alleviate Applicant’s concerns. Regarding, the language “that distribute airflow to reduce noise by breaking up turbulence”, Examiner notes that this is a functional recitation that may be expected to result from the claimed structure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “F”, “110”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “studs”, “wall”, “flanges/brackets”, diffuser”, “fan”, “fan outlet diffuser”, “drain pan”, “sensors”, “divider”, “control unit”, “wireless communication controller”, “remote user interface”, and “Schrader valve” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 19 February 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: It does not appear that the text added, i.e. paragraphs [0088A]-[0088C] finds support in the originally filed disclosure or claims, as the added material was added in both the amended specification and the amended claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to release positive and negative ions such that the ions within the air flow, such that the negative an positive ions leave the dehumidifier when air exits the cabinet […]” appears to be in error. It is believed that the first “such that” recitation should be canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
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: expansion device (i.e. device [generic placeholder] for expansion [functional language]).
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. In the case of “expansion device”, expansion valve and/or capillary is found to be the corresponding structure.
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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. Claim 9 has been amended to recite the limitation “comprising a processor and a memory”. Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding “comprising a processor and a memory”. If Applicant believes that the originally filed disclosure does provide support for the added limitation, Applicant is encouraged to provide evidence of support in the originally filed disclosure for the added limitation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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. The limitations of claim 21 have been added to both the claims and disclosure in an amendment, and thus, are considered to add new matter.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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. The limitations of claim 22 have been added to both the claims and disclosure in an amendment, and thus, are considered to add new matter.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation “a dehumidifier comprising a cabinet installed over a doorframe with a fan outlet diffuser having uniformly-spaced circular apertures as in claim 1.”. It is unclear whether the fan outlet diffuser is the same or different from that in claim 1 or if only the uniformly-spaced circular apertures from claim 1 are required or if any other dehumidifier components from claim 1 are or are not required. Clarification is requested.
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.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Verhoeven (US 2019/0376700: previously cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Verhoeven (US 2019/0376700: previously cited) in view of King (US 3,280,979).
Regarding claim 1, Verhoeven shows a dehumidifier (dehumidifier #110), comprising:
a cabinet (see at least cabinet #140) configured to be installed between studs in or through a wall, or on a wall (see at least paragraph [0030]-[0031]);
an attachment mechanism for affixing the cabinet between the wall studs in the wall or through the wall, or on the wall (see at least paragraph [0035]), said attachment mechanism comprising:
said cabinet forming two or more mounting apertures at a rear of the cabinet for mounting the dehumidifier on one or more of the wall studs (see at least paragraph [0035]: Figure 3, holes #350#360);
one or more flanges and/or brackets for attaching the dehumidifier to one or more of the wall studs (see at least paragraph [0035]: Figure 3, holes #350/#360 are on flanges);
an air diffuser (see at least diffuser #210) configured to diffuse an airflow from the dehumidifier along a surface of the wall, the air diffuser comprising:
an inlet, and an outlet above the inlet (see at least paragraph [0029]: Figure 1, inlet at base; outlets at top/sides),
a compressor (see at least compressor #330);
an evaporator installed within the cabinet above the compressor (see at least evaporator #320);
a condenser installed within the cabinet above the evaporator (see at least condenser #310);
an expansion device (see at least paragraph [0047]); and
a fan (see at least fan #410) installed between the evaporator and a back surface of the cabinet (se at least paragraph [0033]), the fan configured to generate an airflow that flows into the cabinet through the inlet of the air diffuser and out of the cabinet through the outlet of the air diffuser, the airflow flowing through the evaporator and condenser in order to provide dehumidification to the airflow (see at least paragraph [0032]);
a fan outlet diffuser (see at least fan outlet diffuser #1210) positioned directly above and adjacent to the fan between the fan and the condenser (see at least paragraph [0044]), the fan outlet diffuser comprising a perforated plate having a plurality of uniformly-spaced circular apertures (see at least Figure 12, the apertures are uniformly spaced; see paragraph [0044]: the apertures may be circular), wherein the uniformly-spaced circular apertures distribute the airflow from the fan to the condenser to reduce airflow noise by the airflow by breaking up air turbulence (see at least paragraph [0044]: breaking up turbulence is inherent to diffuser as disclosed);
a drain pan (see at least drain pan #340) installed within the cabinet below the evaporator, the drain pan configured to capture water removed from the airflow by the evaporator (see at least paragraph [0043]).
To the extent that Verhoeven does not explicitly disclose the fan outlet diffuser having a plurality of uniformly-spaced circular apertures, a point which Examiner does not concede, Examiner notes that it was old and well-known in the art for a diffuser to have a plurality of uniformly-spaced circular apertures, as evidenced by King (see at least column 10, lines 27-31).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the fan outlet diffuser of Verhoeven with a plurality of uniformly -spaced circular apertures, since, as evidenced by King, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of providing for an easily manufactured common diffuser plate.
The combination would meet wherein the uniformly-spaced circular apertures distribute the airflow from the fan to the condenser to reduce airflow noise by breaking up air turbulence, since the structures and locations are taught by the combination (see above).
Regarding claim 3, Verhoeven further shows/discloses further comprising one or more sensors for sensing one or more environmental conditions of ambient air (see at least sensor #350; paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Verhoeven further shows/discloses wherein the attachment mechanism is further configured so that the cabinet is installed with access from only one side of the wall (see at least paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Verhoeven further shows/discloses further comprising a divider between the inlet and outlet (see at least divider #216), wherein the divider is configured to prevent the airflow entering the cabinet through the inlet from mixing with the airflow exiting the cabinet from the outlet (see at least paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Verhoeven further shows/discloses wherein the condenser comprises a plurality of layers of microchannel condenser coils (see at least paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Verhoeven further shows/discloses wherein an input of a first layer of a plurality of microchannel condenser coils receives a refrigerant flow from an output of a second layer of a plurality of microchannel condenser coils (see at least paragraph [0047]: #310A receives refrigerant from #310B).
Regarding claim 8, Verhoeven further shows/discloses wherein the plurality of layers of microchannel condenser coils comprises: a first layer of a microchannel condenser coil located so as to receive the airflow after it has passed through the evaporator (see at least Figure 13, #310A receives air flow from #320); and a second layer of a microchannel condenser coil located proximate to the first layer of the microchannel condenser coil (see at least Figure 13, #310B), the second layer of the microchannel condenser coil located on a side of the first layer of the microchannel condenser coil so as to receive the airflow after it has passed through the first layer of the microchannel condenser coil (see at least Figure 13, #310B receives airflow via #310A).
Regarding claim 9, Verhoeven further shows/discloses further comprising:
an electronic dehumidifier control unit (see at least computer system #1500) comprising a processor and memory (see at least paragraph [0062]);
a wireless communication controller in operational communication between the electronic dehumidifier control unit and a wireless communication network (see at least communication interface #1510; paragraph [0068]); and
a software enabled remote user interface in communication through the wireless communication network in operational communication with and control of the electronic dehumidifier control unit, wherein status monitoring or operational setting control of the dehumidifier is enabled remotely from a dehumidifier installation location (see at least paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 23, Verhoeven further shows/discloses wherein the cabinet is configured for blind installation from a front side only, without requiring access to a back side of the wall (see at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 24, Verhoeven further shows/discloses wherein the one or more flanges extend laterally from side edges of the cabinet for securing to the wall studs from the front side only (see at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhoeven, or, in the alternative, Verhoeven in view of King, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubo (JP 2020-139635: English machine translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 2, Verhoeven does not disclose further comprising: a bi-polar ion generator positioned within the cabinet downstream of both the evaporator and condenser, configured to release positive and negative ions such that the ions within the air flow, such that the negative and positive ions leave the dehumidifier when air exits the cabinet through the outlet of the air diffuser.
Kubo teaches another dehumidifier comprising a bi-polar ion generator positioned within the cabinet downstream of both the evaporator and condenser, configured to release positive and negative ions such that the ions within the air flow, such that the negative and positive ions leave the dehumidifier when air exits the cabinet through the outlet of the air diffuser (see at least translation: “In the cold air ventilation passage 14, the cold air blower 16 is arranged on the downstream side of the evaporator 10. The cold air blower 16 is composed of, for example, a horizontally placed sirocco fan, sucks air from below the casing, and blows air from the front of the casing toward the first air outlet 2. Further, for example, an ion generator (not shown) for generating positive ions and negative ions is provided in the cold air ventilation passage 14, and positive and negative ions are released into the room together with the cold air.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Verhoeven with further comprising: a bi-polar ion generator positioned within the cabinet, configured to release positive and negative ions such that the ions within the air flow, such that the negative and positive ions leave the dehumidifier when air exits the cabinet through the outlet of the air diffuser, as taught by Kubo, to improve the dehumidifier of Verhoeven by reducing contaminants in the airflow.
Verhoeven in view of Kubo does not disclose the generator positioned downstream of both the evaporator and condenser.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the generator positioned downstream of both the evaporator and condenser would result in a difference in function of the Verhoeven in view of Kubo system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Verhoeven in view of Kubo, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that “[t]he ion generator can be present at any point in the air flow in the dehumidifier, and it typically located in front of the fan, between the evaporator and the condenser coil.” (see paragraph [0082]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the alignment as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Verhoeven in view of Kubo with the generator positioned downstream of both the evaporator and condenser as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhoeven, or in the alternative Verhoeven in view of King, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Crawford (US 2013/0255294: previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Verhoeven is silent regarding wherein at least one of said plurality of layers of microchannel condenser coils are in fluid communication with a Schrader valve adapted to allow servicing, including recharging with refrigerant.
Crawford teaches another microchannel heat exchange system regarding wherein at least one layer of microchannel condenser coils is in fluid communication with a Schrader valve adapted to allow servicing, including recharging with refrigerant (see at least paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Verhoeven with regarding wherein at least one of said plurality of layers of microchannel condenser coils are in fluid communication with a Schrader valve adapted to allow servicing, including recharging with refrigerant, as taught by Crawford, to improve the dehumidifier of Verhoeven by allowing for charging or discharging of refrigerant to the system (see at least Crawford paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhoeven (US 2019/0376700: previously cited) or, in the alternative, over Verhoeven (US 2019/0376700: previously cited) in view of King (US 3,280,979).
Verhoeven, or, in the alternative, Verhoeven in view of King discloses all the elements of claim 1, upon which claims 21 and 22 depend (see rejection(s) above).
Regarding claim 21, Verhoeven further discloses wherein the cabinet has a depth dimension configured to fit between standard wall studs spaced 16 inches on-center (see at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Verhoeven is silent regarding wherein the fan outlet diffuser is spaced between 0.25 inches and 2 inches above a discharge surface of the fan.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the fan outlet diffuser is spaced between 0.25 inches and 2 inches above a discharge surface of the fan would result in a difference in function of the Verhoeven dehumidifier. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the dehumidifier of Verhoeven, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the dehumidifier would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, as the spacing is only present in the added claims and added portions of the specification, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Verhoeven with wherein the fan outlet diffuser is spaced between 0.25 inches and 2 inches above a discharge surface of the fan as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 22, Verhoeven, or, in the alternative Verhoeven in view of King is silent regarding wherein the perforated plate of the fan outlet diffuser has a thickness between 0.020 inches and 0.125 inches, and wherein the circular apertures have diameters between 0.125 inches and 0.75 inches.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the perforated plate of the fan outlet diffuser has a thickness between 0.020 inches and 0.125 inches, and wherein the circular apertures have diameters between 0.125 inches and 0.75 inches would result in a difference in function of the Verhoeven, or in the alternative, Verhoeven in view of King dehumidifier. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the dehumidifier of Verhoeven, or in the alternative Verhoeven in view of King, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the dehumidifier would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimensions solve any stated problem, as the dimensions are only present in the added claims and added portions of the specification, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimensions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Verhoeven, or, in the alternative Verhoeven in view King with wherein the perforated plate of the fan outlet diffuser has a thickness between 0.020 inches and 0.125 inches, and wherein the circular apertures have diameters between 0.125 inches and 0.75 inches as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verhoeven (US 2019/0376700: previously cited) or, in the alternative, over Verhoeven (US 2019/0376700: previously cited) in view of King (US 3,280,979) and further in view of Nakayama et al. (US 10,551,082).
Regarding claim 19, Verhoeven, or, in the alternative, Verhoeven in view of King discloses a dehumidifier comprising a cabinet with a fan outlet diffuser having uniformly-spaced circular apertures as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Verhoeven, or, in the alternative Verhoeven in view of King does not disclose installed over a doorframe.
However, wall mounted or installed over a doorframe (i.e. in/on a ceiling) are art-recognized equivalents, as evidenced by Nakayama et al. (see at least column 13, lines 35-39).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Verhoeven, or, in the alternative, Verhoeven in view of King, installed over a doorframe since, as evidenced by Nakayama et al. such provision was known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of saving wall space versus wall mounting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763