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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 03/02/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. Claims 2, 4, & 9 are cancelled. The Applicant has overcome the claim objections of record and they have been withdrawn; see below for new claim objections. The Applicant has overcome the 112(b) rejections of record, and they have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on page 11 regarding “The claimed structure prevents a recirculation phenomenon in which discharged air flows back into the suction port and improves a straightness (directivity) of discharged airflow”, and “The plurality of guides forms a structure in which the discharged air does not return to the suction port disposed on the front side of the air conditioner.”,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments a spurious as the claims as currently constructed does not require a limitation relating discharged air returning or not returning, to the suction port disposed on the front side of the air conditioner; further, the Applicants own disclosure casts doubt on this statement, as air conditioned by the Applicants device is discharged into the indoor room, of which the supply of air for the device is also the same air in the same room; even the Applicants own Figure 9 shows the air conditioner discharging air into the open area; there are no means preventing the discharged air in the room from being naturally recycled within an indoor space. The device of Joo is an indoor air conditioner, which intakes previously discharged air within the room of which the air conditioner discharged air into; referencing previously noted Fig. 15, where does the Applicant think the indoor air conditioner of Joo receives its supply of air from? Further, all the limitations of the claim have been met, to which MPEP 2115 says material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The prior art is capable of performing the claimed function as evidenced by the rejection of claim 1. The Applicants argument is overcome.
The remainder of the Applicants arguments derive from their incorrect assertion above, and thus, are similarly overcome.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the phrase “the plurality of guides is inclined”, to which the Examiner understands the correct phrasing to be “the plurality of guides are inclined”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-14, 16, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al (US 2005/0097915), hereinafter referred to as Joo, in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0115028), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Joo (US 2005/0097915) shows an air conditioner comprising:
a case (160, Fig. 3) having an inner space (Fig. 15);
a fan (154, Fig. 15) disposed inside the case (Fig. 15);
a frame (34, Fig. 5) coupled to a front portion of the case (Fig. 3);
a front plate (42, Fig. 3) coupled to the frame to be movable in a front-rear direction (Fig. 15 – when opened and closed, the front plate moves in a front-rear direction), wherein a suction port (First suction port; see Annotated Figure 1) is formed between the front plate and the frame (Fig. 15, see Annotated Figure 1);
a discharge flow path (Fig. 15 – the flow arrows indicate the discharge flow path) through which air blown by the fan flows and that is spaced rearward from the suction port (Fig. 15); and
a discharge grille (169, Fig. 20) disposed downstream of the discharge flow path (Fig. 15/19) and comprising at least one guide (Fig. 20/23 – the discharge grille is comprised of a plurality of guides 169),
wherein the at least one guide comprises a plurality of guides (169, Fig. 20/23) spaced apart from each other (Fig. 20),
a front-rear direction (Fig. 2 – the front-rear direction is from the left hand side of the figure, to the right hand side of the figure),
wherein each of the plurality of guides (Fig. 23) comprises: a guide body (see Annotated Figure 4) positioned inward further than an outer surface of the discharge grille (see Annotated Figure 4); and a guide end portion (see Annotated Figure 4) positioned outward further than the outer surface of the discharge grille (see Annotated Figure 4).
However, Joo lacks showing the at least one guide inclined forward as the at least one guide extends away from the discharge flow path, and the plurality of guides are spaced apart from each other in the front-rear direction,
Lee (US 2017/0115028), an indoor air conditioner with a grille, is in the same field of endeavor as Joo which is an indoor air conditioner with a grille.
Lee teaches a guide (Fig. 5, see Annotated Figure 2) inclined forward as the at least one guide extends away from the discharge flow path (Fig. 5),
and the plurality of guides are spaced apart from each other in the front-rear direction (Fig. 5 – the front direction is the lower portion of the figure, and the rear direction is the upper portion of the figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the grille of Lee, which would reduce the overall area of the grille instead of a constant linear profile, saving on production costs and making for more room within the device, while also modifying the air distribution pattern.
However, Joo further lacks showing wherein the discharge grille comprises: a front end portion positioned at a front of the discharge flow path; and a front protruding portion that protrudes outward of the case from the front end portion and positioned at a rear of the suction port.
Choi (KR20040015870), an indoor air conditioner with a grille, is in the same field of endeavor as Joo which is an indoor air conditioner with a grille.
Choi teaches wherein the discharge grille (60c, Fig. 4) comprises: a front end portion (60c, Fig. 3) positioned at a front of the discharge flow path (Fig. 3 – element 60C is a discharge grill, of which the front end portion of the element 60c is positioned at a front of the discharge flow path); and a front protruding portion (61c, Fig. 3) that protrudes outward of the case (55, Fig. 3 – the case 55 can be seen without the discharge grille, showing how far it protrudes outwards from the case when assembled) from the front end portion (Fig. 3) and positioned at a rear of the suction port (8a, Fig. 1 – the front protruding portion 61c is positioned at a rear of the suction port 8a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have modified the discharge grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the discharge grille of Choi, which would provide a discharge grille that can reduce the resistance of the air being exhausted (¶0010).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
266
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
653
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 3, Joo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the discharge grille.
However, Joo lacks showing wherein the discharge grille is inclined with respect to the front-rear direction.
Lee teaches wherein the discharge grille (72, Fig. 5) is inclined with respect to the front-rear direction (Fig. 5 – the front is located at the lower end of the Figure, with the upper end being at the upper end of the Figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the grille of Lee, which would reduce the overall area of the grille instead of a constant linear profile, saving on production costs and making for more room within the device, while also modifying the air distribution pattern.
Regarding claim 5, Joo shows wherein a length of the guide body is longer than a length of the guide end portion (see Annotated Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Joo shows wherein the plurality of guides comprises: a rear guide (see Annotated Figure 5) connected to the case and positioned at a rear of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
484
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding claim 12, Joo shows wherein the case comprises: a first body (see Annotated Figure 5) forming a boundary of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5) and arranged along extending directions of the rear guide and the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Joo shows wherein the plurality of guides comprises: a front guide (see Annotated Figure 5) connected to the frame and positioned at a front of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Joo shows wherein the frame comprises: a second body (see Annotated Figure 5) forming a boundary of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5) and arranged along extending directions of the front guide and the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, Joo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the frame and the second body forming a boundary of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 5).
However, Joo lacks showing the second body having a groove that the guide is seated.
Lee teaches wherein the frame comprises: a second body (see Annotated Figure 2) forming a boundary of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 2) and having a groove that the guide is seated (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the frame of Lee, which would make the structure associated with the grille easier to remove for maintenance purposes than a single, solid piece of structure.
Regarding claim 18, Joo shows wherein the discharge grille comprises: a first discharge grille (Fig, 4/20 – the first discharge grille 169 is located on the left-hand side where element 160 is) spaced apart from a first side of the fan (154, Fig. 4/19); and a second discharge grille (Fig, 4/20 – the second discharge grille 169 is located on the right-hand side where element 160 is) spaced apart from a second side of the fan (Fig. 4/19), and wherein the suction port comprises: a first suction port (see Annotated Figure 1) spaced forward from the first discharge grille (see Annotated Figure 1); and a second suction port (see Annotated Figure 1) spaced forward from the second discharge grille (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Joo shows wherein the frame (34, Fig. 3) comprises: a first wall (see Annotated Figure 1) disposed between the first discharge grille (see Annotated Figure 1) and the first suction port (see Annotated Figure 1); and a second wall (see Annotated Figure 1) disposed between the second discharge grille (see Annotated Figure 1) and the second suction port (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Joo shows wherein outer surfaces of the first wall and the second wall are positioned outside an outer end portion of the guide (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al (US 2005/0097915), hereinafter referred to as Joo, in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0115028), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 6, Joo shows the plurality of guides is inclined along an extending direction of the discharge grille (Fig. 23 – the guides 169 of the discharge grille 169 are inclined along a direction vertical direction of which the discharge grille extends), and wherein an inclined angle of the plurality of guides has a relative angle in degrees (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation “wherein an inclined angle of the guide ranges from 22 to 26 degrees”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the Joo (Fig. 23) where Joo shows the inclined angle of the guide has a relative angle in degrees. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joo’s guide to have an inclined angle of the guide ranges from 22 to 26 degrees for the predictable result and benefit of having the device blow air at a predetermined angle and in a constant direction (¶0341).
Regarding claim 7, Joo shows wherein a length of the guide is of a relative length (Fig. 23).
However, Joo lacks showing a length of the plurality of guides is of a relative length ranges from 12mm to 15mm..
Lee teaches a length of the plurality of guides is of a relative length (see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation “a length of the guide ranges from 12mm to 15mm”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the Lee (see Annotated Figure 2) where Joo shows the length of the guide is of a relative length. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lees plurality of guides to have a length of the plurality of guides that ranges from 12mm to 15mm, for the predictable result and benefit of having the device blow air at a predetermined angle and in a constant direction (¶0341).
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al (US 2005/0097915), hereinafter referred to as Joo, in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0115028), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in further view of Chun et al (US 2018/0209687), hereinafter referred to as Chun.
Regarding claim 8, Joo elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the discharge grille and the discharge flow path.
However, Joo lacks showing wherein the discharge grille further comprises: a rear end portion positioned at a rear of the discharge flow path; and a rear protruding portion that protrudes outward from the case from the rear end portion and positioned at a rear of the discharge flow path.
Chun (US20180209687), an indoor air conditioner with a grille, is in the same field of endeavor as Joo which is an indoor air conditioner with a grille.
Chun teaches the discharge grille (45, Fig. 6) further comprises: a rear end portion (see Annotated Figure 3) positioned at a rear of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 3); and a rear protruding portion (see Annotated Figure 3) that protrudes outward from the case from the rear end portion (see Annotated Figure 3) and positioned at a rear of the discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the discharge grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the discharge grille of Chun, which would provide means for the air conditioner to employ multiple air discharging methods, with heat exchanged air able to be selectively discharged through different areas (¶0002/0014).
PNG
media_image5.png
336
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 10, Joo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the frame.
However, Joo lacks showing wherein the front protruding portion is positioned at a rear of a lateral wall of the frame.
Chun teaches wherein the front protruding portion (see Annotated Figure 3) is positioned at a rear of a lateral wall of the frame (see Annotated Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the discharge grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the front protruding portion of Chun, which would provide means for the air conditioner to employ multiple air discharging methods, with heat exchanged air able to be selectively discharged through different areas (¶0002/0014).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al (US 2005/0097915), hereinafter referred to as Joo, in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0115028), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in further view of Choi (KR20040015870).
Regarding claim 9, Joo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the discharge grille, the discharge flow path, the case, and the suction port.
However, Joo lacks showing wherein the discharge grille comprises: a front end portion positioned at a front of the discharge flow path; and a front protruding portion protruding outward of the case from the front end portion and positioned at a rear of the suction port.
Choi (KR20040015870), an indoor air conditioner with a grille, is in the same field of endeavor as Joo which is an indoor air conditioner with a grille.
Choi teaches wherein the discharge grille (60c, Fig. 4) comprises: a front end portion (60c, Fig. 3) positioned at a front of the discharge flow path (Fig. 3 – element 60C is a discharge grill, of which the front end portion of the element 60c is positioned at a front of the discharge flow path); and a front protruding portion (61c, Fig. 3) protruding outward of the case (55, Fig. 3 – the case 55 can be seen without the discharge grille, showing how far it protrudes outwards from the case when assembled) from the front end portion (Fig. 3) and positioned at a rear of the suction port (8a, Fig. 1 – the front protruding portion 61c is positioned at a rear of the suction port 8a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have modified the discharge grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the discharge grille of Choi, which would provide a discharge grille that can reduce the resistance of the air being exhausted (¶0010).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al (US 2005/0097915), hereinafter referred to as Joo, in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0115028), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in further view of Wu et al (US 2018/0142906), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 15, Joo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 14 including the discharge flow path.
However, Joo lacks showing wherein the second body comprises: a first body wall that faces the discharge flow path; a second body wall bent forward from the first body wall; and a third body wall that is bent forward from the second body wall.
Wu (US 2018/0142906), an indoor air conditioner with a grille, is in the same field of endeavor as Joo which is an indoor air conditioner with a grille.
Wu teaches wherein the second body comprises: a first body wall (see Annotated Figure 6) that faces discharge flow path (see Annotated Figure 6); a second body wall (see Annotated Figure 6) bent forward from the first body wall (see Annotated Figure 6); and a third body wall (see Annotated Figure 6) that is bent forward from the second body wall (see Annotated Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grille of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the grille of Wu, which would provide a means to solve the problem of restriction of limited air volume by widening the outlet (¶0003).
PNG
media_image6.png
460
765
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al (US 2005/0097915), hereinafter referred to as Joo, in view of Lee et al (US 2017/0115028), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in further view of Kim et al (US 2015/0153062).
Regarding claim 17, Joo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the front plate.
However, Joo lacks showing wherein the front plate comprises: a front wall disposed to be movable in the front-rear direction from the frame; and a lateral wall that protrudes from the front wall, wherein the suction port is formed between the lateral wall and the frame.
Kim (US 2015/0153062), an indoor air conditioner, is in the same field of endeavor as Joo which is an indoor air conditioner.
Kim teaches wherein the front plate (80, Fig. 3) comprises: a front wall (Fig. 4 – the front wall is located where element 80 is identified in Fig. 3, at the front of the device) disposed to be movable in the front-rear direction from the frame (13, Fig. 3); and a lateral wall (Fig. 3) that protrudes from the front wall (Fig. 3/4 – the lateral wall is wall that is oriented 90 degrees from the front wall, on the corner of where element 80 is identified in Figure 3), wherein the suction port (13a, Fig. 4) is formed between the lateral wall and the frame (Fig. 3/4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front plate of Joo to incorporate the teachings of the front plate of Kim, which would provide the benefit of creating a large opening adequate enough to condition the air but also aid in cooling any lighting implements on the device such as an LED (¶0006, Lines 1-7).
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762