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 Objections
The terms “one or more sides” in claim 1 and “its sides” in claim 4 are inconsistently used.
Additionally, according to the MPEP, claim amendments must use precise mark-up (underlining for additions, strikethrough for deletions) to reflect changes relative to the immediate prior version, as required by 37 CFR 1.121. A comparison of the current Claim set dated Feb. 01, 2026 and the previous claim set dated Oct. 22, 2025 shows inaccurate use of mark ups, for example, the strikethrough limitation “the body having a base” in the current claim set is not included in the previous claim set, and therefore, does not need to be deleted. Similar issues with limitations (f) and (g) because the wording is substantially the same as the previous claim set, but the entire limitation is underlined. Please check the entire claim set and make sure mark-up are precisely used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1 and 4–6 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.
The limitation of “the base” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis because a dust reduction unit does not inherently have a base and it is unclear which structure is the claimed “base.”
Claims 4–6 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jurek, US 2022/0001718 A1 (“Jurek “) in view of Watvedt et al., US 2003/0009998 A1 (“Watvedt”).
Regarding claim 1:
Jurek discloses that a dust reduction unit for a recreational vehicle (Jurek’s mobile air conditioner 30 for RV 10, Jurek Figs. 1–2, [0038]), the dust reduction unit comprising:
(a) a body adapted to be affixed through a side wall of the recreational vehicle (Jurek’s air conditioner 30 comprising a body that is affixed through Jurek’s rear wall 16, Jurek Fig. 1, [0047]);
(b) an external vent in the body (Jurek’s air shroud 32, Jurek Fig. 7, [0055]), wherein the external vent includes one or more sides (as shown in Fig. 7, Jurek, Fig. 7, [0055]);
(c) a fan within the body configured to draw air through the external vent and into the recreational vehicle (Jurek’s fan 202, configured to draw air through the external vent 32 via apertures 146, 147, Jurek Fig. 7, [0053]).
(d) a filter within the body configured to catch dust before air passes into the recreational vehicle (Jurek discloses a filtration assembly may be provided in the area of the air passing into the mobile air conditioner 30 before the air reaches a condenser, Jurek [0044]);
Jurek does not disclose (e) one or more collection wells configured to collect water that ingresses into the vent or (f) one or more drains connected to the collection wells, enabling water to escape the dust reduction unit and (g) wherein the one or more drains include: a strip well along the base of the body and one or more pocket wells at the base of the body.
Similar to Jurek, Watvedt discloses an air filter 10 (Watvedt, Fig. 1, [0027]). Similar to Jurek, Watvedt discloses an external vent (Watvedt’s frame 24, Watvedt Fig. 2, [0028]). Additionally, Watvedt discloses:
(e) one or more collection wells configured to collect water that ingresses into the vent (Watvedt’s bottom portion 19, which is configured to collect water that ingresses into Watvedt’s flow duct 34, Watvedt Fig. 3, [0029]) and
(f) one or more drains connected to the one or more collection wells, enabling water to escape the dust reduction unit (Watvedt discloses bottom portion 19 is provided with liquid outlet 39, which is connected to drain pipe 40, common drain duct 42 and outlet pipe 44, through which water is drained, Watvedt Fig. 5, [0030], Watvedt’s drain pipe 40, drain duct 42, outlet pipe 44 would be the claimed “one or more drains”),
wherein the one or more drains include: a strip well along the base of the body and one or more pocket wells at the base of the body (Watvedt’s drain pipe 40, drain duct 42, outlet pipe 44 are all located at a base of Watvedt’s air filter 10 as shown in Fig. 4, Watvedt’s drain pipe 40 read on the claimed strips well because it is located along the base of the body and it is narrow structure configured to hold water, and Watvedt’s drain duct 42 read on the claimed “pocket well” because it is located at the base and reads on the structure claimed, Watvedt Fig. 4, [0030]). Watvedt discloses its design allows the collection and draining of particles of liquid from a gas flowing through its filter, so that liquid particles are prevented from permeating and dripping out from the downstream clean side of the filter. Watvedt [0014]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Watvedt’s draining system at inlet side of Jurek’s air conditioner 30 for the benefits disclosed above. Jurek would appreciate such modification because Jurek’s air conditioner 30 is arranged at an external wall of a RV, which would encounter water issues caused by increment weather such as storm, rain, snow.
Regarding claim 4:
Jurek as modified in claim 1 discloses that the dust reduction unit of claim 1, wherein the external vent includes a grille on one of its sides for air intake (Jurek discloses in an alternative embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein Jurek’s air shroud 32 comprises a grille 46 on a side, Jurek Fig. 2, [0044]).
Regarding claim 5:
Jurek as modified in claim 1 discloses that the dust reduction unit of claim 1, wherein the external vent is configured to rotate with respect to the body, enabling the dust reduction unit to be affixed on the left-hand side or right-hand side of the recreational vehicle (Jurek’s Fig. 1 shows an embodiment, where an external vent has symmetric air inlets on both sides as indicated by arrows, such structure is capable of being rotated with respect to the body and Jurek’s structure is capable of being affixed on the left-hand side or right-hand side of the recreational vehicle, Jurek Fig. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurek in view of Watvedt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wettlaufer et al., US 2014/0314918 A1 (“Wettlaufer”).
Regarding claim 6:
Jurek as modified in claim 1 does not disclose that the dust reduction unit of claim 1, wherein the filter is made of cotton gauze that maintains airflow and captures contaminants.
Similar to Watvedt, Wettlaufer discloses a filter bag 24. Wettlaufer Fig. 3, [0021]. Wettlaufer discloses a filter bag made of unbleached cotton gauze, commonly known as cheese cloth, is large and strong enough under pressure. Id. Additionally, Wettlaufer discloses its filter bag could hold liquid inside while allowing air out. Wettlaufer [0031]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Jurek’s filter to be made of cotton gauze for the benefits of strength under pressure and ability to hold liquid while allowing air out. With such modification, Jurek’s filter would be capable of maintaining airflow while captures contaminants, includes water drops (liquid).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner maintains the current rejection because the applicant’s amendment does not overcome the current rejection. The applicant indicates that claim 1 is amended to include a limitation of “the body having a base”, Applicant Rem. dated Feb. 01, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 1. The examiner points out that the limitation of “the body having a base” is marked-up with a strikethrough line, and therefore interpreted as being deleted, and not considered as part of claim 1. The examiner encourages the applicant to use the mark-ups accurately (with underline) if such limitation meant to be considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Incorporation of Allowable Subject Matter
The applicant argues that the current claim 1 includes claims 2 and 3, which are indicated as allowable subject matter, Applicant Rem. p. 2.
In response, the examiner points out that in the claim set dated Oct. 22, 2025, claims 2–3 was cancelled, and the examiner did not indicate any allowable subject matter in the Non-Final Rejection dated Dec. 12, 2025.
Rejection over Jurek in view of Watvedt
The applicant argues that Jurek is non analogous, and states Jurek relies on standard air conditioning condensate management or intake structures not designed for the high-volume dust filtration and “splash” ingress issues a dedicated dust retention unit faces, Applicant Rem. p. 2.
The examiner does not agree, Jurek shows an HVAC system (with air filters) for RV systems, which is in the same field as the claimed invention. Additionally, the features of “high-volume dust filtration and splash ingress” are not part of the instant claim, and therefore are not given patentable weight because they are not commensurate with the scope of the current invention. Furthermore, even if they do, Jurek necessarily has to deal with high volume dust filtration and splash ingress because Jurek teaches its air conditioner could be used on an RV.
The applicant then argues that Watvdet fails to teach the specific claimed drainage structure, the applicant specifically argues that “a strip well” is not a pipe, because a pipe is conduit for transport and while a “strip well” implies a “structure channel or trough running along a length (the base) to catch pooling water across a wide area, and therefore a simple pipe does not function as a strip well, Applicant Rem. p. 2.
The examiner does not agree. There is not statement in applicant’s instant disclosure limits the term “strip well” to the implied structure stated in applicant’s arguments, and the examiner is therefore interpreting the term broadly based on one ordinary skill in the art, Watvdet’s drain pipe 40 is one of the drains located along the base of the body and enables water to escape the dust reduction unit, reading on the claimed limitation of a “strip well”. Additionally, Watvdet’s drain pipe 40 even reads on applicant’s implication of “a structure channel or trough running a long the base to catch pool water, as best shown in Fig. 5 of Watvdet. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
The applicant argues that a drain duct is not a pocket well, because Watvedt’s duct 42 is a generic manifold or connection point, it does not teach a “pocket well” located at the base of a unit specifically designed to catch residual ingress from a side vent, Applicant Rem. p. 3.
The examiner does not agree, Watvdet’s duct 42 is located at the base of Watvdet’s body and enabling water to escape the dust reduction unit, Watvdet’s duct 42 read on the claimed limitation and therefore is the claimed “strip well.” Additionally, the term “pocket well” itself does not inherently have a feature of “specifically designed to catch residual ingress from a side vent” and such limitation are not included as part of the claim, and therefore, not commensurate with the scope of the invention.
The applicant then argues that there is no motivation to combine to achieve the specific claim geometry, and the applicant argues that combing Jurek with Watvedt results in an air conditioner with a drain pipe, there is no teaching in either reference to engineer a strip well running along the base combined with pocket wells. This specific geometry is adapted for a side-wall mounted unit where water enters horizontally and runs down the grille face to pool at the bottom edge, Applicant Rem. p. 3.
The examiner does not agree. Jurek’s Fig. 1 shows the alleged specific geometry for a side wall mounted unit where water enters horizontally (via inlet arrow) and runs down the grill face to pool at the bottom edge (with outlet arrow). The claimed invention is essentially an air conditioner with a draining structure, and this is exactly what Jurek in view of Watvedt teaches.
The applicant argues that Watvedt is a generic gas filter concerned with liquid particles in a gas flow, not environmental rain/wash water ingress into a recreational vehicle side vent. Appling a gas filter drainage pipe to an RV air conditioner does not result in specific strip and pocket well construction defined in amended claim 1, Applicant Rem. p. 3.
The examiner does not agree. As admitted by the applicant in the arguments above, Watvedt is a filter concerned with liquid particles in a gas flow, which is closely related with an RV air conditioner that is located at an external side of a vehicle, as clearly shown in Jurek’s Fig. 1. Watvedt teaches a drainage system located on the base to allow water to drain out of a filter system due to gravity, Watvedt [0007]. And Jurek teaches its embodiment relies on gravity to move water downward and away from HVAC system on an outer surface of the vehicle, Jurek [0007]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to look into Watvedt to understand how a drainage constructure look like because Jurek does not show the drainage details. Additionally, the argument of “environmental rain/wash water” does not get patentable weight because they are not part of the structure, and modified Jurek’s air conditioner is capable of handling rain/wash water. Furthermore, Watvedt teaches the claimed strip and pocket well, because it Watvedt’s structures 40, 42 have the claimed structures and perform the same function as the claimed strip and pocket well.
Youtube Video
The examiner thanks the applicant for clarifying the YouTube video and applicant identity.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776