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 § 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.
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 2-3, 8-13, and 16-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a first heat exchanger”. As written, this is in addition to the evaporator and condenser recited in claim 1. However, only two heat exchangers (condenser 30 and evaporator 50) are recited in the original disclosure. Thus the limitation is considered to be a recitation of new matter.
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 16, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites a protrusion that extends from an evaporator side of a line separating the exchangers to a condenser side of the line separating the exchangers. However, the protrusion 81a is not disclosed as extending from one side of the line to the other, and instead is entirely contained on the evaporator side of the line (see Fig. 4B). It is noted that paragraph [0031] of the specification recites the protrusion extending from “the evaporator 50 side to the condenser 30 side”, however this recitation is not in relation to a line that separates the exchangers and as such the claimed limitation does not appear in the original disclosure. Thus the limitation is presumed to be a recitation of new matter.
Regarding claim 4, the claim contains new matter for the same reasons as discussed in regards to claim 3 above.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 16-20, the claims recite a heating element and heat releasing device. As written, this is in addition to the inverter and inverter board recited in claim 1. However, there is no heating element or heat releasing device in addition to the inverter/board recited in the original disclosure. Thus the limitation is considered to be a recitation of new matter.
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 17, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 3.
Regarding claims 5, 14-15, and 18-19, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 4.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation "the heat releasing device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, or in claim 1 from which it depends. For examination purposes the claim is presumed to refer to the heat releasing device recited in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 4,953,364) in view of Sillato (US 5,177,972).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches an air conditioning apparatus comprising:
a refrigerant circuit including a plurality of heat exchangers 2-3; and
an axial fan configured to send air to the heat exchangers 2-3, the refrigerant circuit and the fan being accommodated in a case (Figs. 1-2); wherein
the heat exchangers 2-3 are disposed in a direction orthogonal to an air flow direction (Figs. 1-2);
the axial fan is disposed on one side of a line separating the heat exchangers 2-3, and supplies air to the heat exchangers 2-3 (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below);
the exchangers 2-3 include a condenser and an evaporator (col. 2, lines 66-68); and
the air sent from the axial fan is distributed to the condenser and the evaporator (col. 2, lines 66-68).
Lee does not explicitly teach an inverter and inverter board as claimed. However, However, Sillato teaches that it is known to use an inverter to control compressor speed and to place the inverter in an airflow on the windward side of an evaporator to dissipate heat therefrom (Fig. 8; col. 12, lines 42-58). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Lee to include an inverter and inverter board in a flue on the windward side of the exchangers in the manner as claimed and taught by Sillato in order to provide variable compressor operation and maintain a desired temperature of the inverter.
The modified apparatus is silent as to the specific location of the inverter, and thus does not explicitly teach the inverter board being between the axial fan and the evaporator. However, absent any disclosure of criticality or unexpected result provided by the claimed feature, such is considered to have been an obvious design choice. Thus it would have been obvious to further modify the apparatus by having the inverter board between the axial fan and the evaporator as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular inverter board location solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with the board located at any position upstream of the evaporator.
As to claim 2, Lee teaches a one-side rectifier 17 configured to uniformize wind speed distribution of air flowing to exchanger 3 on the one side of the arrangement direction (Figs. 2-3). Lee does not explicitly teach a first exchanger in addition to exchangers 2-3. However, Official Notice is taken that use of more than two heat exchangers in a refrigeration circuit is a common and typical feature that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the system of (reference) for the purpose of providing increased heat exchange capabilities.
As to claims 6 and 12, Lee discloses the exchangers 2-3 arranged such that a central axis of each is orthogonal to air flow, parallel to each other in a vertical direction, and spaced from one another (Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Lee discloses the axis of exchanger 3 being nearer a central axis of the fan than that of exchanger 2 (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 8/8/2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed with respect to previously set forth claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sillato (US 5,177,972), which is considered to teach the limitations of the amended limitations for the reasons as set forth in the rejections above.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
581
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note
Claims 3-5, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features. However, these claims cannot be considered to be "allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
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 JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763