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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 1-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (PG-PUB US 2015/0143839) in view of Thomas JR. (PG-PUB US 2021/0325066) and Zhang et al (PG-PUB US 2022/0072191).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al disclose an air conditioning system (ABSTRACT). The system comprises
(1) a cabinet 110 (i.e., a housing, Figure 1, paragraph [0022]);
(2) a blower 130 within the cabinet 110 for generating airflow within the cabinet 110 (i.e., a blower …, Figure 2, paragraph [0022]);
(3) a heat exchanger 140 provided within the cabinet 110 (i.e., a heat exchanger …, Figure 2, paragraph [0022]); and
(4) a dust collector 120 configured to generate ionized substance and spaced apart from the heat exchanger 140, wherein the dust collector 120 comprises an ionizer 122 (i.e., an ion generating device …, Figures 2 - 4, & 10, paragraphs [0024], [0029], [0040], & [0063]).
Lee does not teach the ion generating device comprising a fan. However, Thomas JR. discloses an ion generating device (ABSTRACT). Thomas teaches that the ion generating device comprises a housing 11 to enclose an ionizer 28 and fans 15/16 at the outlet side 24 of the housing 11 to generate high velocity of conditioned air curtain for enhanced treatment (Figure 2, paragraphs [0006], [0011], [0015], & [0017]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a fan within the ion generating device as suggested by Thomas JR. in order to enhance treatment within the device of Lee.
Lee/Thomas dose not teach to operate the blower of the air conditioner while the ion generator being stopped. However, Zhang et al disclose an air conditioning system having an ion generating module (ABSTRACT). Zhang teaches that the apparatus comprises a fan within an air conditioner and an ion generating module, wherein a controller is configured to activate the fan within air conditioner for air conditioning function while turning off the ion generating module, hence independently controlling the air conditioning function and the purification function with improving flexibility (paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0026] –[0027] & [0039]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to control the fan within the air conditioner and the ion generating device independently as suggested by Zhang in order to separately control the respective components for achieving desired air conditioning function and purification function with improved flexibility within the device of Lee/Thomas.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches that a controller is configured to turn on the fan within air conditioner while turning off the ion generating module, hence independently controlling the air conditioning function and the purification function (paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0026] –[0027] & [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches that the controller is configured to turn on the fan within air conditioner and to turn on the ion generating module thereafter (paragraphs [0026] –[0027] & [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches that each of the air conditioning function and the purification function has different time schedule (paragraphs [0006] –[0009], [0028], & [0033] –[0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches that the time schedule of the air conditioning function and the purification function may depend upon the information received from sensors, input port, and desired output control target (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches that the controller is configured to schedule a first time, a second time, and a third time with different time duration based on the desired control target (paragraphs [0006] – [0009], [0028], [0033] –[0035], & [0061] –[0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches that the dust collector 120 comprises an ionizer 122 enclosed in a case 121 which includes holes/apertures facing inside of the case for allowing airflow therethrough (Figures 2 - 4, & 10, paragraphs [0024], [0029], [0040], & [0063]).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (PG-PUB US 2015/0143839), Thomas JR. (PG-PUB US 2021/0325066) and Zhang et al (PG-PUB US 2022/0072191) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Lee et al (PG-PUB US 2017/0007953, referred to Lee’953 thereafter).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches that the dust collector 120 including the ionizer 122 is provided at an air suction portion 116 (Figures 2-4, paragraphs [0022] – [0023] & [0029]), but Lee/Thomas/Zhang does not teach a detector for detecting dust. However, Lee’953 disclose an air conditioning system (ABSTRACT). Lee’953 teaches that the air condition system comprises a dust collector/filter 30 including an ionizing part is provided within a main body 10 and a pressure sensor is provided for detecting dust within airflow, wherein a control unit is configured to initiate a cleaning cycle for the dust collector/filter 30 when the control device determines a cleaning condition is satisfied based upon the information from the pressure sensor and/or other factors (Figure 1, paragraphs [0005], [0047], [0064], & [0088] - [0090]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a pressure sensor for detecting dust as suggested by Lee’953 in order to properly control for cleaning the dust collector within the device of Lee/Thomas/Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Lee’953 that the cleaning cycle/time varies with the reference time and/or reference usage and/or reference load and/or reference pressure (paragraphs [0088] –[0090]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee’953 that the cleaning cycle/time varies with the reference time and/or reference usage and/or reference load (paragraphs [0088] –[0090]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches that the controller is configured to schedule a first timer and a second timer with different time duration based on the desired control target (paragraphs [0006] – [0009], [0028], [0033] –[0035], & [0061] –[0062]). Lee’953 that the cleaning cycle/time may be based on the information from the pressure sensor and/or other factors (paragraphs [0088] - [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches that the controller is configured to schedule a first time, a second time, and a third time with different time duration based on the desired control target (paragraphs [0006] – [0009], [0028], [0033] –[0035], & [0061] –[0062]). Lee’953 that the cleaning cycle/time may be based on the information from the pressure sensor and/or other factors (paragraphs [0088] - [0090]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the heat exchanger 140 coupled to the dust collector 120 comprising an ionizer 122 (Figures 2 - 4, & 10, paragraphs [0022], [0024], [0029], [0040], & [0063]), but does not teach a plurality of heat exchangers or the ion generating device between the heat exchangers. However, Lee’953 disclose an air conditioning system (ABSTRACT). Lee’953 teaches that the air condition system comprises a plurality of heat exchangers 41 or a plurality of sections of the heat exchanger, wherein a dust collector 30 is arranged between heat exchangers or different sections of the heat exchanger to effectively collect dust (Figure 1, paragraphs [0005], [0047] –[0048], & [0064]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the ion generating device between a plurality of heat exchangers as suggested by Lee’953 in order to effectively clean air within the device of Lee/Thomas/Zhang.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
Regarding claim 13, Lee’953 teaches a plurality of heat exchangers or a plurality of sections of the heat exchanger and the dust collector 30 between heat exchangers or different sections of the heat exchanger (Figure 1, paragraph [0048]).
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine of skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis, 193 USPQ8. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of ion generating devices because it only involves routine skill in the art. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to the provide a plurality of ion generating devices at different heat exchanger of different sections of the heat exchanger.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches that the dust collector 120 including the ionizer 122 is provided at an air suction portion 116 (Figures 2-4, paragraphs [0022] – [0023] & [0029]), but Lee/Thomas/Zhang does not teach the dust collector provided on the top of the heat exchanger. However, Lee’953 disclose an air conditioning system (ABSTRACT). Lee’953 teaches that the air condition system comprises a plurality of heat exchangers 41 and a dust collector 30 including an ionizing part is provided on the top of the heat exchanger 41 to effectively collect dust (Figure 1, paragraphs [0005], [0047] –[0048], & [0064]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the dust collector having the ionizer on the top of the heat exchanger as suggested by Lee’953 in order to effectively clean air within the device of Lee/Thomas/Zhang.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
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.
Claims 1-2, and 12-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 17-18 of co-pending Application No. 17/984, 447(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprising substantially the same elements as that of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795