Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/405,423

KIND OF DUPLEX-SUPPLY KITCHEN AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM WITH A TANK SEPARATED FROM AN AIR CONDITIONER

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Examiner
CRENSHAW, HENRY T
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ningbo Dongda Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
753 granted / 992 resolved
+5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1009
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 992 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . This action is in response to the filing made 12/15/2025. Claims 9-16 are pending. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-16 appear to be allowable, for the same reasons as provided in the prior action, provided that the 112 rejections can be resolved without changing the scope of the claims. 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 9-16 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 9 The preamble recites “a two-supply” kitchen air conditioning system. What does “two-supply” mean? The term does not appear to be defined in the specification. Page 1, line 4 recites, “an air conditioning and refrigeration system”. This is confusing because can be describing two different systems, such as an air conditioner for room air, and a refrigeration system for cooling perishable items. It is not clear if the two terms are redundant, or if they mean two separate systems. Page 1, lines 6-13 recite various items that are sequentially connected by refrigerant lines. Two of the connected items are an electronic thermostat and a controller. It is not clear these two items can be connected to anything using refrigerant lines. Page 1, lines 17 recites, “a miniature water pump”. The term “miniature” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Beginning at page 1, line 25, “wherein compressor” lacks proper antecedent basis. “bottom of the compressor” lacks proper antecedent basis. “bottom of the water-side heat exchanger”. “bottom of the casing” lacks proper antecedent basis. “the left side wall” lacks proper antecedent basis. Note: applicant should please carefully proofread the entire claim set to resolve any additional errors of this type. Claim 13 (depending from claim 9) There is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the blowdown valve.” “on bottom” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 (depending from claim 9) There is a lack of proper antecedent basis for the automatic make-up valve, the motorized valve, and the blowdown valve. Claim 15 Page 3, lines 10-15, the claim recites, “if . . . . for some reason the refrigeration system experiences an excessively high pressure or an abnormally low pressure that reaches a preset protection value, the high-pressure switch or the low-pressure switch immediately actuates to cut off a power supply”. It is not clear what, if any, meaning should be attributed the “for some reason” qualifier. Does this mean any reason whatsoever? If so, it is not clear why the language is included, because leaving it out would provide the same meaning. It is not clear how a single “preset value” can be used to control both the high pressure and low pressure cut-offs. Page 3, line 26, recites, “a water level in the thermal storge tank drops to a certain extent, the automatic make up valve opens . . . .” The meaning of “a certain extent” is not clear. Is this referring to a drop of three inches (for example), or a drop to some specific level within the tank? Claims dependent upon those specifically discussed above are likewise rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of the parent claims. In the interests of compact prosecution, the claims are examined herein against the art as best as possible, notwithstanding the lack of clarity in the claims. If amendments are made to resolve the clarity issues, new searches for 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 HENRY T CRENSHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1550. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JD Fletcher can be reached on 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. /HENRY T CRENSHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584669
REFRIGERATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578137
REFRIGERATOR WITH FILTER HAVING PHOTOCATALYST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578133
IMPROVED COOLING SYSTEM CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571400
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE (VFD) SURGE DETECTION AND RESPONSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560349
AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 992 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month