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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 10th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on July 08th, 2025. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 2: “a drain pan panel” should read “the drain pan panel”
Claims 15-17 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 18 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-19 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 13 recites the limitation "the multi-poise heat exchanger" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the multi-poise heat exchanger" in lines 6-7 of claim 13 to “the multi-poise heat exchanger coil” which is given proper antecedent basis in line 2 of claim 1. The Examiner recommends using consistent terminology when referring to the multi-poise heat exchanger coil throughout the claim set.
Claim 13, lines 16-23 recite, “a first sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a first side of an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger receivable therein and a second sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a second side of the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger to define a first hollow interior of the first drain pan for capturing condensate, the drain pan panel having a generally vertical orientation, wherein the first sidewall is positioned vertically above and is arranged at a non-parallel angle relative to the second sidewall;” which is unclear to the Examiner as the recitation of lines 16-23 is after a period and is largely repetitive of limitations claimed prior to the period. Further, the previously presented claim set did not include a fourth paragraph (corresponding to lines 16-23 of the present claim set), yet lines 16-23 include tracked changes as if they were previously presented. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitations of lines 16-23 to be a typographical and/or formatting error and will not consider lines 16-23 as additional positive limitations of claim 13.
Claims 14 and 19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Claims 15-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US Design Patent No. D761,943), hereinafter Yamamoto in view of Mercer et al. (US 20200378648), hereinafter Mercer and Rios et al. (US Patent No. 7,79339999,514), hereinafter Rios.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a condensate drain assembly (Fig. 8) for use with a multi-poise heat exchanger (Fig. 8 of Yamamoto depicts a condensate drain assembly being used with a multi-poise heat exchanger) comprising:
a first cover which can perform the functions of a drain pan in certain orientations (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, first drain pan A) being configured to receive an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger therein (first drain pan A of Yamamoto has the same structure as the claimed first drain pan and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed), the first cover having a generally vertical orientation (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, first drain pan A is depicted having a generally vertical orientation);
a second drain pan (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second drain pan B) having a base (See annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto, base H), a second hollow interior (See annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto below, second hallow interior D), a second drain (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second drains C) and the second hollow interior being configured to receive a header of the multi-poise heat exchanger therein (second hollow interior D of Yamamoto has the same structure as the claimed first drain pan and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed), the second drain pan having a generally horizontal orientation (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second drain pan B is depicted having a generally horizontal orientation).
However, Yamamoto does not disclose a first drain pan including:
a drain pan panel and a first sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a first side of an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger receivable therein and a second sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a second side of the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger to define a first hollow interior of the first drain pan for capturing condensate, the drain pan panel having a generally vertical orientation;
a first channel fluidly connected to the first hollow interior.
Mercer explicitly teaches a first drain pan (Fig 4, condensate receptor 140) having a first drain (Fig. 4, fluid drain port 190) and a first hollow interior (Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 having a hollow interior) for capturing condensate therein (Pg. 2, paragraph 21, A condensate receptor (receptor) 140 is mounted within the evaporator housing 120, below the v-coil 130, for receiving condensate from the v-coil 130), the first drain pan including a drain pan panel (Fig. 3C, bottom surface 200) and a first sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a first side of an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger receivable therein and a second sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a second side of the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger to define a first hollow interior of the first drain pan for capturing condensate, the drain pan panel having a generally vertical orientation (Fig. 3C, side surfaces 150a, 150b; Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 having a hollow interior; Fig. 3C, converging angle A; Pg. 2, paragraph 25-26, A converging angle A between the surfaces 150a, 150b may be between approximately 50° and approximately 90°, which may be optimized to limit impact on the airflow. Other angle configurations, below 50° and above 90°, are within the scope of the disclosed embodiments so as to optimize performance. In an embodiment a shape of the top portion 210a of the first internal cross section 210 is constant between the first opposing ends 145a, 145b. The On the other hand, the second channel 160 has a second internal cross section that is rectangular. When installing the v-coil 130, a bottom 135, such as a bottom apex, of the v-coil 130 may be positioned against at least part of the bottom surface 200 (FIGS. 2A-2B). This steadies the v-coil 130 during installation and, in addition, the shape of the converging orientation of the side surface 150a, 150b provide for vertical (upright) alignment of the v-coil 130 during installation; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The second channel 160 may include a first orifice 170 illustrated schematically intermediate the second opposing ends 165 for receiving condensate from the first channel 150; Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 to have a generally vertical orientation);
a first channel fluidly connected to the first hollow interior (Fig. 4, second channel 160; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The second channel 160 may include a first orifice 170 illustrated schematically intermediate the second opposing ends 165 for receiving condensate from the first channel 150);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first cover of the condensate drain assembly of Yamamoto of claim 1 with the condensate receptor of Mercer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is desirable to provide a condensate receptor that is effective in capturing condensate from a heat exchanger for removing the condensate from the housing (Mercer, Pg. 1, paragraph 3). Further, this modification would result in the second channel 160 of Mercer, which corresponds to the first channel as claimed, to be positioned within the second drain pan B fluidly connecting the hollow interiors of the first and second drain pans.
Further, Yamamoto as modified discloses the first hollow interior being fluidly connected to the second hollow interior (Annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto depicts first drain pan A to be fluidly connected to second drain pan B which contains second hollow interior D. Therefore, when first drain pan A of Yamamoto is modified as described herein to include the hollow interior as taught by Mercer, the first hollow interior will be fluidly connected to the second hollow interior). Further, the recitation “the first hollow interior being fluidly connected to the second hollow interior” is a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Yamamoto as modified does not explicitly disclose the orientations that the multi-poise heat exchanger can be used in.
Rios teaches a multi-poise heat exchanger that can be used in a horizontal orientation (Col. 2, lines 60-63, Evaporator assembly 2 is configured such that coil 6 may be used in either a horizontal or vertical configuration, which is why evaporator assembly 2 includes horizontal condensate pan 14 and vertical condensate pan 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the multi-poise heat exchanger of Yamamoto as modified in a horizonal orientation as taught by Rios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for flexibility of a single heat exchanger to be used in vertical and horizontal applications.
Further, Yamamoto as modified discloses the generally vertical orientation wherein the first sidewall is positioned vertically above and is arranged at a non-parallel angle relative to the second sidewall (Based on the teachings of Yamamoto as modified the assembly can be utilized in both horizontal and vertical orientations. In the horizontal orientation, Fig. 8 of Yamamoto would be rotated 90° clockwise putting the second drain panel in a generally horizontal orientation such that the side surface 150b is positioned vertically above the side surface 150a); and
the generally horizontal orientation such that the base is arranged within a horizontal plan and condensate is collectable within the second hollow interior, the first hollow interior being fluidly connected to the second hollow interior (Based on the teachings of Yamamoto as modified the assembly can be utilized in both horizontal and vertical orientations. In the horizontal orientation, Fig. 8 of Yamamoto would be rotated 90° clockwise putting the second drain panel in a generally horizontal orientation such that the base is arranged within a horizontal plan and condensate is collectable within the second hollow interior. Further, the modification as described herein allows the first hollow interior being fluidly connected to the second hollow interior). Further, the limitations of claim 1 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 herein.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto
PNG
media_image2.png
649
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a distal end of at least one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall is bent to form a channel (Mercer, Fig. 4, first channel 150; Pg. 2, paragraph 25, That is, in the bottom portion 210b, side surfaces 150a, 150b of the first channel 150 converge toward the bottom surface 200 of the first channel 150) configured to collect condensate from the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger (Mercer, Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The second channel 160 may include a first orifice 170 illustrated schematically intermediate the second opposing ends 165 for receiving condensate from the first channel 150; Further, the channel 150 of Yamamoto as modified has the same structure as the claimed channel and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed). Further, the limitations of claim 10 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the channel is fluidly coupled with the second hollow interior (Annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto depicts first drain pan A to be fluidly connected to second drain pan B which contains second hollow interior D. Therefore, when first drain pan A of Yamamoto is modified as described herein to include the channel 150 as taught by Mercer, the channel 150 will be fluidly connected to the second hollow interior via at least the second channel 160). Further, the limitations of claim 11 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
649
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto discloses a condensate drain assembly (Fig. 8) for use with a multi-poise heat exchanger (Fig. 8 of Yamamoto depicts a condensate drain assembly being used with a vertically oriented multi-poise heat exchanger) comprising:
a first cover which can perform the functions of a drain pan in certain orientations (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, first drain pan A) being configured to receive an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger therein (first drain pan A of Yamamoto has the same structure as the claimed first drain pan and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed), the first cover having a generally horizontal orientation (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, first drain pan A is depicted having a generally horizontal orientation);
a second drain pan (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second drain pan B) having a base and a plurality of side walls that cooperate to define a hollow interior (See annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto below, second hallow interior D, base H, sidewalls K), the second hollow interior being configured to receive a header of the multi-poise heat exchanger therein (second hollow interior D of Yamamoto has the same structure as the claimed first drain pan and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed), the second drain pan having a generally vertical orientation (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second drain pan B is depicted having a generally vertical orientation).
However, Yamamoto does not disclose a first drain pan having a first hollow interior for receiving condensate and at least one first drain the drain pan including a drain pan panel arranged at a bottom of the first hollow interior and a first sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a first side of an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger receivable therein, and a second sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a second side of the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger, the drain pan panel having a generally horizontal orientation.
Mercer explicitly teaches a first drain pan (Fig 4, condensate receptor 140) having a first hollow interior (Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 having a hollow interior) for receiving condensate (Pg. 2, paragraph 21, A condensate receptor (receptor) 140 is mounted within the evaporator housing 120, below the v-coil 130, for receiving condensate from the v-coil 130) and at least one first drain (Fig. 4, fluid drain port 190) the drain pan including a drain pan panel (Fig. 3C, bottom surface 200) arranged at a bottom of the first hollow interior (Fig. 3C of Mercer depicts the bottom surface 200 to be arranged at a bottom of the hollow interior of the condensate receptor 140) and a first sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a first side of an apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger receivable therein, and a second sidewall that extends from the drain pan panel at an angle parallel to a second side of the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger, the drain pan panel having a generally horizontal orientation (Fig. 3C, side surfaces 150a, 150b, converging angle A; Pg. 2, paragraph 25-26, A converging angle A between the surfaces 150a, 150b may be between approximately 50° and approximately 90°, which may be optimized to limit impact on the airflow. Other angle configurations, below 50° and above 90°, are within the scope of the disclosed embodiments so as to optimize performance. In an embodiment a shape of the top portion 210a of the first internal cross section 210 is constant between the first opposing ends 145a, 145b. The On the other hand, the second channel 160 has a second internal cross section that is rectangular. When installing the v-coil 130, a bottom 135, such as a bottom apex, of the v-coil 130 may be positioned against at least part of the bottom surface 200 (FIGS. 2A-2B). This steadies the v-coil 130 during installation and, in addition, the shape of the converging orientation of the side surface 150a, 150b provide for vertical (upright) alignment of the v-coil 130 during installation; Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 to have a generally horizontal orientation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first cover of the condensate drain assembly of Yamamoto of claim 13 with the condensate receptor of Mercer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is desirable to provide a condensate receptor that is effective in capturing condensate from a heat exchanger for removing the condensate from the housing (Mercer, Pg. 1, paragraph 3).
However, Yamamoto as modified does not explicitly disclose the orientations that the multi-poise heat exchanger can be used in.
Rios teaches a multi-poise heat exchanger that can be used in a vertical orientation (Col. 2, lines 60-63, Evaporator assembly 2 is configured such that coil 6 may be used in either a horizontal or vertical configuration, which is why evaporator assembly 2 includes horizontal condensate pan 14 and vertical condensate pan 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the multi-poise heat exchanger of Yamamoto as modified in a vertical orientation as taught by Rios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for flexibility of a single heat exchanger to be used in vertical and horizontal applications.
Yamamoto as modified further discloses generally vertical orientation such that the base is arranged within a vertical plane, a portion of the first drain pan being arranged within the second hollow interior proximate a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls forming a bottom of the second hollow interior (Based on the teachings of Yamamoto as modified the assembly can be utilized in both horizontal and vertical orientations. In the horizontal orientation, as depicted in Fig. 8 of Yamamoto, the second drain pan B is in a generally vertical orientation such that the base is arranged within a vertical plane; Further, the second channel 160 of Mercer would be to be positioned within the second drain pan B proximate a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls forming a bottom of the second hollow interior fluidly connecting the hollow interiors of the first and second drain pans). Further, the limitations of claim 13 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 13 herein.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto
PNG
media_image2.png
649
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 13 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the first drain pan further comprises a drain pan panel (Mercer, Fig. 3C, bottom surface 200) and a front wall (See annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer below, front wall E), a rear wall (Mercer, Fig. 3B, upstream end wall 250), and two opposing sidewalls extending from the drain pan panel to define the first hollow interior (Mercer, Fig. 3C, side surfaces 150a, 150b; converging angle A; Fig. 4, first channel 150; Pg. 2, paragraph 25, That is, in the bottom portion 210b, side surfaces 150a, 150b of the first channel 150 converge toward the bottom surface 200 of the first channel 150). Further, the limitations of claim 14 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above.
PNG
media_image3.png
429
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the drain pan panel has a sloped configuration to direct condensate towards the front wall (Mercer, Pg. 2, paragraph 24, In an embodiment the first channel 150 may have a bottom surface 200 (FIG. 2B) that is sloped between first opposing ends 145a, 145b. From this configuration a first depth D1 of the first channel 150, located at the junction 180, is deeper than a second depth D2 of the first channel 150 located at the other end of the first channel 150). Further, the limitations of claim 15 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 17, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the first drain pan further comprises a distribution channel (Mercer, Fig. 4, second channel 160) arranged in fluid communication with the first hollow interior (Mercer, Pg. 3, paragraph 22, The second channel 160 may include a first orifice 170 illustrated schematically intermediate the second opposing ends 165 for receiving condensate from the first channel 150), the distribution channel including a channel wall (See annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer below, channel wall F), offset from the front wall (See annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer below, channel wall F is offset from front wall E), and a bottom (See annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer below, bottom G) and two connecting walls extending between the channel wall and the front wall (See annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer below, proximate end 165a, distal end 165b). Further, the limitations of claim 17 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above.
PNG
media_image3.png
429
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 17 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the at least one first drain is formed in the channel wall (See annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer below, drain port 190 is formed in channel wall F). Further, the limitations of claim 18 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above.
PNG
media_image3.png
429
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Mercer
Claims 2-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as modified by Mercer and Rios as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Polk et al. (US Patent No. 5,904,053), hereinafter Polk.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the base of the second drain pan has a first portion and a second portion (See annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto, first portions I, second portion II) defined by a crease (See annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto, creases J).
However, it is unclear from the figures of Yamamoto whether or not at least one of the first portion and the second portion has a sloped configuration.
Polk teaches at least one of the first portion and the second portion has a sloped configuration (Fig. 3B; Col. 6, lines 51-53, The drain pan slopes downwardly from left sidewall 66 to drainage channel 68 and slopes upwardly from channel 68 to upraised edge 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the base of Yamamoto as modified to have a sloped configuration as taught by Polk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for more efficient drainage of condensate from the coil (Polk, Col. 1, lines 43-48).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Yamamoto as modified does not disclose wherein the second drain pan includes at least one header protrusion extending from the base, the at least one header protrusion being configured to position the header of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the second drain pan.
Polk teaches wherein the second drain pan includes at least one header protrusion extending from the base (Fig. 3A, support tabs 74), the at least one header protrusion being configured to position the header of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the second drain pan (Col. 6, lines 56-61 and 64-67, Coil frame support tabs 74 inwardly extend from the inner front and rear walls, 76 and 78 respectively, of drain pan 20 and engage edge 80 of vertical wall 82 of coil rear base 34, thereby providing support for the A-coil when mounted in the horizontal position… This combination of upraised edge 70, Tabs 74, support channel 73, and associated structure of coil rear base 34 provide support for the coil and frame assembly and help hold same in place within the drain pan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the second drain pan of Yamamoto as modified to include at least one header protrusion extending from the base as taught by Polk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification provide an improved support structure for A-coils (Polk, Col. 1, lines 43-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
Yamamoto as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one header protrusion has a contour complementary to the header receivable therein. However, the recitation, “wherein the at least one header protrusion has a contour complementary to the header receivable therein” is not a patentably distinct feature of the claims as it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Paragraph A).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Yamamoto as modified does not disclose wherein the second drain pan further comprises a wall extending from the base, the wall being arranged adjacent to the at least one header protrusion.
Polk teaches wherein the second drain pan further comprises a wall extending from the base, the wall being arranged adjacent to the at least one header protrusion (Fig. 3B, upraised edge 70; Col. 6, lines 53-56, The area in the drain pan from upraised edge 70 to right sidewall 72 defines support channel 73 for receiving rear base lower portion 38 of the A-coil frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the second drain pan of Yamamoto as modified to include a wall extending from the base as taught by Polk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification provide an improved support structure for A-coils (Polk, Col. 1, lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), a top surface of the wall is arranged within a horizontal plane (Fig. 3A-3B of Polk depict upraised edge 70 to be arranged within a horizontal plane).
Yamamoto as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of the wall varies over relative to the base. However, the recitation, “wherein a height of the wall varies over relative to the base” is not a patentably distinct feature of the claims as it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Paragraph A). Further, the limitations of claim 6 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), further comprising:
a gutter (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, gutter K); and
at least one cross-channel (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, cross-channel L) having a body including a first end (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, first end L-1) positioned adjacent to the at least one header protrusion (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, first end L-1 is positioned in the second drain pan B which is modified herein to include the at least one header portion, therefore the first end L-1 would be adjected to the at least one header portion when modified as described herein) and having a second end (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second end L-2) arranged within the gutter and a fluid flow path extending between the first end and the second end (See annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto below, second end L-2 is arranged within gutter K creating a fluid flow path between second end L-2 and first end L-1), the at least one cross-channel being configured to fluidly couple the gutter to the second hollow interior (the cross channel L of Yamamoto as modified has the same structure as the claimed cross-channel and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed). Further, the limitations of claim 7 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
649
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Yamamoto
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 13 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above).
However, Yamamoto as modified does not disclose wherein the second drain pan includes at least one header protrusion extending from the base, the at least one header protrusion being configured to position the header of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the second drain pan.
Polk teaches wherein the second drain pan includes at least one header protrusion extending from the base (Fig. 3A, support tabs 74), the at least one header protrusion being configured to position the header of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the second drain pan (Col. 6, lines 56-61 and 64-67, Coil frame support tabs 74 inwardly extend from the inner front and rear walls, 76 and 78 respectively, of drain pan 20 and engage edge 80 of vertical wall 82 of coil rear base 34, thereby providing support for the A-coil when mounted in the horizontal position… This combination of upraised edge 70, Tabs 74, support channel 73, and associated structure of coil rear base 34 provide support for the coil and frame assembly and help hold same in place within the drain pan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the second drain pan of Yamamoto as modified to include at least one header protrusion extending from the base as taught by Polk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification provide an improved support structure for A-coils (Polk, Col. 1, lines 43-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamamoto
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as modified by Mercer, Rios, and Polk as applied to claim 7 above, respectively, and further in view of Martin Sr. (US Patent No. 5,987,909), hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 7 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 7 above).
However, Yamamoto as modified does not disclose further comprising:
an upper channel having a hollow interior; and
at least one mounting bracket fluidly connecting the hollow interior of the upper channel with the fluid flow path of the at least one cross-channel.
Martin teaches further comprising:
an upper channel having a hollow interior (Fig. 3, pan 30; Col. 4, lines 45-47, If the coil 12 was positioned to the other side, the pan 30 would be beneath the coil 12 and water from the coil could fall into the pan 30); and
at least one mounting bracket fluidly connecting the hollow interior of the upper channel with the fluid flow path of the at least one cross-channel (Fig. 3, braces 76, tabs 77; Col. 4, lines 51-56, For stability, braces 76 may be attached with screws, bolts, and/or glue to tabs 77 of the pans 30, 40; or the braces may be connected directly to the pan walls. Such braces may also be positioned for attachment to the coil 12 with appropriate fasteners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condensate drain assembly of Yamamoto as modified to include an upper channel connected to the cross-channel via at least one mounting bracket as taught by Martin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an efficient drain pan assembly (Martin, Col. 2, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the upper channel is disposed vertically above the multi-poise heat exchanger (Fig. 3 of Martin depicts pan 30 to be disposed vertically above the coil 12). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as modified by Mercer and Rios as applied to claims 10 and 14 above, respectively, and further in view of Shao et al. (CN 108759060), hereinafter Shao.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above).
However, Yamamoto does not disclose wherein at least one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall includes a plurality of ribs configured to position the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the first hollow interior.
Shao teaches wherein at least one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall includes a plurality of ribs configured to position the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the first hollow interior (Fig. 1; Paragraph 46, In the above embodiment, the first water receiving disc 10 and the third water receiving disc 30 connection is provided with a reinforcing rib. the second water receiving disc 20 and the third water receiving disc 30 connection is provided with a reinforcing rib. it can improve the integral strength of the water plate component and improve the service life and the reliability through reinforcing ribs, Further, the ribs of Shao have the same structure as the claimed ribs and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewalls of the first drain pan of Yamamoto as modified to include a plurality of ribs as taught by Shao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the integral strength of the water plate component and improve the service life and the reliability through reinforcing ribs (Shao, Paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto as modified discloses the condensate drain assembly of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above).
However, Yamamoto does not disclose wherein at least one of the two opposing sidewalls includes a plurality of ribs configured to position the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the first hollow interior.
Shao teaches wherein at least one of the two opposing sidewalls includes a plurality of ribs configured to position the apex of the multi-poise heat exchanger relative to the first hollow interior (Fig. 1; Paragraph 46, In the above embodiment, the first water receiving disc 10 and the third water receiving disc 30 connection is provided with a reinforcing rib. the second water receiving disc 20 and the third water receiving disc 30 connection is provided with a reinforcing rib. it can improve the integral strength of the water plate component and improve the service life and the reliability through reinforcing ribs, Further, the ribs of Shao have the same structure as the claimed ribs and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewalls of the first drain pan of Yamamoto as modified to include a plurality of ribs as taught by Shao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the integral strength of the water plate component and improve the service life and the reliability through reinforcing ribs (Shao, Paragraph 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8 of the response, “Yamamoto fails to teach a drain pan having a sidewall arranged parallel to the sides of the heat exchanger apex. On the contrary, Yamamoto teaches a generally rectangular tray having a base and a plurality of sidewalls arranged at a periphery of the base and extending perpendicularly therefrom. None of the disclosed sidewalls are oriented parallel to a side of the heat exchanger apex. With reference to FIG. 8 of Yamamoto, the apex of the heat exchanger is laterally offset from not only the base, but also from the sidewalls of the drain pan disclosed therein.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the cover of Yamamoto is replaced as described herein with the condensate receptor of Mercer. Further, the condensate receptor of Mercer has the first and second sidewalls arranged as claimed (Mercer, Fig. 3C, side surfaces 150a, 150b; Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 having a hollow interior; Fig. 3C, converging angle A; Pg. 2, paragraph 25-26, A converging angle A between the surfaces 150a, 150b may be between approximately 50° and approximately 90°, which may be optimized to limit impact on the airflow. Other angle configurations, below 50° and above 90°, are within the scope of the disclosed embodiments so as to optimize performance. In an embodiment a shape of the top portion 210a of the first internal cross section 210 is constant between the first opposing ends 145a, 145b. The On the other hand, the second channel 160 has a second internal cross section that is rectangular. When installing the v-coil 130, a bottom 135, such as a bottom apex, of the v-coil 130 may be positioned against at least part of the bottom surface 200 (FIGS. 2A-2B). This steadies the v-coil 130 during installation and, in addition, the shape of the converging orientation of the side surface 150a, 150b provide for vertical (upright) alignment of the v-coil 130 during installation; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The second channel 160 may include a first orifice 170 illustrated schematically intermediate the second opposing ends 165 for receiving condensate from the first channel 150; Fig. 4 of Mercer depicts the condensate receptor 140 to have a generally vertical orientation). See the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above.
In response to applicant's argument that “Applicant submits that while Mercer teaches a drain pan having a first and second sidewall arranged parallel to the sides of the heat exchanger apex, there is no suggestion that Mercer is suitable for use with such a heat exchanger in a horizontal orientation. Paragraph [0021] of Mercer teaches that "A condensate receptor 140 is mounted within the evaporator housing 120, below the v-coil 130, for receiving condensate from the v coil 130." Further, paragraph [0026] states, "When installing the v-coil 130, a bottom 135, such as a bottom apex, of the v-coil 130 may be positioned against at least part of the bottom surface 200 (FIGS. 2A-2B). This steadies the v-coil 130 during installation and, in addition, the shape of the converging orientation of the side surface 150a, 150 b provide for vertical (upright) alignment of the v-coil 130 during installation.” Applicant submits that there is nothing in Mercer to suggest the use of the receptor when the heat exchanger is not arranged in the described vertical orientation or to combine the receptor with another drain pan, such as disclosed in Rios”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 of the response, “Rios teaches a drain pan arranged underneath a horizontally oriented heat exchanger. As shown, the A-frame evaporator coil is positioned such that the apex of the heat exchanger is vertically offset from the condensate pan 14. Further, while Rios does teach a second vertically oriented condensate pan, connected to the horizontal drain pan, the vertically oriented condensate pan is arranged at the end of the heat exchanger coil opposite the apex. Such a configuration is similar to the disclosure of Yamamoto, but with the assembly rotated to position the heat exchanger horizontally. As shown, the apex is unsupported, and condensate at the apex is configured to drip via gravity directly into the horizontal condensate pan. There is nothing in Rios to suggest putting the vertical condensate pan at the apex instead of the opposite end of the A-frame heat exchanger. Further, Rios teaches that the second condensate pan 16 is intended to collect water from the heat exchanger when vertically oriented, by being positioned underneath the coil. In such a vertical configuration, the apex of the heat exchanger is distal from the support surface. Positioning a condensate pan, such as that disclosed in Mercer, at the apex would perform its intended function of collecting condensate in embodiments where the coil is arranged in an A-frame configuration as described. In such a configuration, the apex would be located vertically beneath the condensate pan, and condensate thereat would drip via gravity into the horizontally oriented pan below the opposite end of the heat exchanger.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Rios are simply relied upon to show that A-frame/V-frame heat exchangers, like the one depicted in Yamamoto can be used in both horizontal and vertical orientations (Rios, Col. 2, lines 60-63, Evaporator assembly 2 is configured such that coil 6 may be used in either a horizontal or vertical configuration, which is why evaporator assembly 2 includes horizontal condensate pan 14 and vertical condensate pan 16). See the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above.
The rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8