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 .
The claims received 3/30/2026 is entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Although the phrase “expansion device” combines the nonce term “device” with the function of “expansion” the phrase is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) as it is considered to have sufficiently definite meaning in the art corresponding to a structure. MPEP 2181
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu (US 11,859,839) in view of Paulus (US 3,270,804).
Regarding claim 1, Chiu discloses a portable air conditioning unit, comprising:
a housing (10) having a first side (side having 131), a second side (side having 141), a first end (end having 121), and a second end (end having 111), the first side of the housing being oppositely disposed relative to the second side of the housing, and the first end of the housing being oppositely disposed relative to the second end of the housing;
a cold air outlet 121) disposed at the first end of the housing;
a hot air outlet (111) disposed at the second end of the housing;
a supply air fan (24) disposed inside the housing; and
a plurality of refrigeration cycle components (2:1-3) disposed inside the housing, the plurality of refrigeration cycle components configured to cool an intake air stream entering the first side and/or the second side of the housing, and the supply air fan configured to discharge a cooled air stream through the cold air outlet at the first end of the housing, and the plurality of refrigeration cycle components further configured to dissipate heat to a condenser air stream entering the first side and/or the second side of the housing, and expel a heated condenser air stream through the hot air outlet at the second end of the housing (1:65 – 2:16);
wherein the plurality of refrigerant cycle components comprises a condenser fan (25), the condenser fan configured to expel the heated condenser air stream through the hot are outlet (111) at the second end of the housing.
Chiu lacks that the condenser fan is an axial fan. Paulus discloses a portably air conditioning apparatus with use of both a radial blower (41) and an axial fan (37) with a rotational axis that is parallel to an airflow direction of heated condenser air stream (from condenser 21) discharged through a hot air outlet at a second end of the housing.
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of an axial fan. It is known in the art to substitute a radial fan for an axial fan. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Additionally, axial fans tend to move larger volumes of air more efficiently than radial fans.
Regarding claim 2, Chiu discloses the plurality of refrigeration cycle components further comprises:
an evaporator coil (211) configured to transfer heat from the intake air stream entering the first side and/or the second side of the housing to a refrigerant circulated through the evaporator coil so as to cool the intake air stream;
a compressor (213) fluidly coupled to the evaporator coil, the compressor configured to increase a pressure of the refrigerant entering the compressor from the evaporator coil;
a condenser coil (212) fluidly coupled to the compressor, the condenser coil configured to transfer heat from the refrigerant entering the condenser coil to the condenser air stream entering the first side and/or the second side of the housing so as to heat the condenser air stream; and
an expansion device (214) fluidly coupled to the condenser coil, the expansion device configured to allow the refrigerant entering the expansion device to decrease in pressure prior to the refrigerant entering the evaporator coil.
Regarding claim 4, Chiu and Paulus disclose the plurality of refrigeration cycle components further disclose the condenser fan configured is to expel the heated condenser air stream through the hot air outlet at the second end of the housing after the condenser air stream has been heated by the refrigerant in the condenser coil; and wherein the compressor is disposed in an air flow path of the heated condenser air stream between the condenser coil and the condenser fan (see annotated figure of Paulus below).
PNG
media_image1.png
687
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Still further, it has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. In this instance providing a compressor within the air stream between the condenser and fan provides further cooling to the compressor, increasing performance.
Regarding claim 5, Chiu discloses the supply air fan (24) is in a form of a centrifugal blower, the cooled air stream configured to enter an axial air inlet of the centrifugal blower, and the centrifugal blower configured to radially discharge the cooled air stream through the cold air outlet of the housing.
Claim interpretation: the phrase “is in a form of a centrifugal blower” is read as –is a centrifugal blower—as having the form is regarded as having all the characteristics thereof.
Claim(s) 3, 6-11, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu (US 11,859,839), in view of Paulus (US 3,270,804), and in view of Ma (US 11,009,240).
Regarding claim 3, Chiu discloses the compressor (213) but is silent concerning the type of compressor. “The refrigerant circulating system 21 is a conventional standard component and thus further details about the refrigerant circulating system is omitted.” (41-3). Ma discloses the use of a double cylinder compressor (3:4-6) in a portable air conditioner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Chiu with a double-cylinder compressor in order to increase refrigerating capacity.
Regarding claim 6, Chiu discloses the portable air conditioning unit according to claim 1, but lacks a rechargeable battery pack. Ma discloses a portable air conditioning unit including a rechargeable battery pack (20) for powering the portable air conditioning unit, the rechargeable battery pack configured to be electrically coupled to an electrical port on the housing of the portable air conditioning unit (16:59-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Chiu with a battery pack as taught by Ma in order to allow use of the air conditioner without grid power
Regarding claim 7, Chiu and Ma disclose the rechargeable battery pack is configured to be removably attached to a bottom of the housing so as to form a base for the portable air conditioning unit (shown in figures 1,2, and 8 of Ma is the battery pack 20 forming a base of the air conditioner).
Regarding claim 8, Chiu and Ma disclose the rechargeable battery pack comprises a release button (205 of Ma) disposed on a housing of the rechargeable battery pack for detaching the rechargeable battery pack from the portable air conditioning unit.
Regarding claim 9, Chiu and Ma disclose the rechargeable battery pack comprises a direct current (DC) power output port disposed on a housing of the rechargeable battery pack for powering an external electronic device requiring DC power (3:7-26; 18:55-19:10 of Ma).
Regarding claim 10, Chiu and Ma the rechargeable battery pack comprises one or more Universal Serial Bus (USB) output ports disposed on a housing of the rechargeable battery pack for powering one or more external electronic devices (18:65 of Ma).
Regarding claim 11, Chiu and Ma disclose the rechargeable battery pack comprises a direct current (DC) power charging port disposed on a housing of the rechargeable battery pack for enabling the rechargeable battery pack to be recharged using a DC power source (3:7-26; 18:55-19:10 of Ma).
Regarding claim 15, Chiu discloses the portable air conditioning unit according to claim 1, but lacks a solar panel. Ma discloses a portable air conditioner comprising a solar panel for powering the portable air conditioning unit, the solar panel configured to be electrically coupled to an electrical receptacle on the housing of the portable air conditioning unit by means of an electrical power cord (15:16-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Chiu with a solar panel as taught by Ma in order to power the air conditioner without grid connection.
Regarding claim 20, Chiu discloses the portable air conditioning unit according to claim 1, but lacks a filter. Ma discloses a portable air conditioner wherein at least one of the air intakes includes an air filter (7:43-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided one of the first side and second side of the housing with an air filter side panel through which the intake air stream enters the housing, the air filter side panel being removable from the housing so that dirt and/or debris is able to be cleaned from the air filter side panel by a user in order to prevent impurities from fouling the evaporator or condenser as well as filter air for the user.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu (US 11,859,839), in view of Paulus (US 3,270,804), and for claim 12, Ma (US 11,009,240). All in further view of Elliott (US 5,762,129) and Donaldson et al (US 9,091,449).
Regarding claims 12-14, Chiu discloses the portable air conditioning unit according to claim 1, but is silent concerning a power source. The examiner previously took official notice that powering via AC or DC power adapters are old and well known. Applicant challenged that assertion.
Donaldson discloses a portable air conditioner where a battery is charged by an AC/DC adapter (3:28-30).
Elliot discloses a portably air conditioner configured to receive power from a building power supply or vehicle power supply (6:13-7:35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided receptacle connections for AC or DC power sources in order to increase flexibility of power supply.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu (US 11,859,839), in view of Paulus (US 3,270,804), and in view of Guercio (US 9,644,852) and Small III (US 10,309,661).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Chiu discloses the portable air conditioning unit according to claim 1, but lacks a supply or exhaust duct. The examiner previously took official notice that supply and exhaust ducts are old and well-known as well as connecting means therefor, e.g. grooves and protrusions. Applicant challenged that assertion.
Guercio discloses supply and exhaust duct collars (11 and 12) extending from the housing and including attaching means (e.g. “snap-fitting”) with a flexible duct (14). 4:26-52.
Small discloses a duct collars (shown in figure 18B) including a groove (at 89) for receiving a protrusion (85,86) of an attachment end portion of a flexible duct (33 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Chiu with a supply or exhaust duct and connection therefor in order to separate conditioned and exhaust air, e.g. duct hot air outdoors when the unit is in a conditioned space or duct conditioned air to the conditioned space when the unit is outdoors.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu (US 11,859,839), in view of Paulus (US 3,270,804), and in view of Ballard (US 9,989,299) and Ma (US 11,009,240)
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Chiu discloses the portable air conditioning unit according to claim 1, but is silent concerning a control panel. The examiner previously took official notice that control panels are old and well known and including lights. Applicant challenged that assertion.
Ma discloses a control panel on the housing including a power button, fan speed button, fan mode button, and status indicator, among others (16:55-17:44).
Ballard discloses a control panel including a light button for activating and deactivating a liquid on the unit (6:30-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Chiu with a control panel in order to power the unit on/off, adjust fan speed, temperature, or otherwise control the unit’s operation as well as indicate an operational status, e.g. green or red lights.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding an axial fan, Paulus is now provided.
Regarding traverse of official notice, evidence is now provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Selg et al (US 10,859,277) – portable air conditioner including exhaust duct.
Kim et al (US 10,101,042) – portable air conditioner.
Arend et al (US 9,829,896) – portable air conditioner including supply duct.
McDonald et al (US 3,859,816) portable air conditioner.
Chapple et al (US 3,320,765) – portable air conditioner.
Walker et al (US 3,205,676) – portable air conditioner.
Swanson (US 2018/0328600) – portable air conditioner.
Nazarian et al (US 11,940,163) battery charging port.
Barley (US 2024/0277147) charging port connector
Takenaka et al (US 5,097,672) duct connector
Smith (US 2,115,288) axial fan
Ulich (US 3,552,139) duct connector
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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799