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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth drawing objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth drawing objection(s) have been withdrawn and the replacement drawings have been entered.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth specification objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth specification objection(s) have been withdrawn and the amendments to the specification have been entered. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims to address the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have introduced new deficiencies in the specification. Please see below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth claim objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth claim objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment, except for those not addressed by amendment or argument (see below), which are maintained. Accordingly, with the exception of the rejections maintained below, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant is arguing about limitation(s) added to the claims in an amendment, which are addressed in the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment, presented below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: amendment to link the previously set forth “scattering prevention part” to the claimed “scattering preventer” and “drain guide part” to the claimed “drain guide” should be made.
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 1-9 and 11-15 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 1 recites the limitation “a drain guide provided in the drain pan and configured to guide the collected condensate and fall down to a lower portion of the drain pan”. As currently presented, it appears that the drain guide is configured to fall down to a lower portion of the drain pan. Clarification is requested. To expedite prosecution, Examiner has attempted to apply prior art to the claims as best they could be understood as presented. Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 7 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 7, the term “gradually” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” 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.
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, limitations “the support bar insertion part is spaced at regular intervals along the reinforcing rib so as to be provided in plurality” is not understood. How can one part be spaced to result in a plurality? Additionally, “the cover support bar is provided in plurality to correspond to the support bar insertion part” is not understood. How may support bar insertion part(s) are intended and to how many should be bar/bars correspond? Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong-Woo (KR 20-0441282: cited by Applicant; previously cited by Examiner with English translation) in view of Tait, Jr. (US 1,154,141: previously cited) and Salmini (US 1,004,913: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong-Woo discloses a portable air conditioner comprising:
a housing having an internal space (see at least main body #1);
a heat exchanger provided in the internal space and exchanging heat with external air introduced from outside of the housing (see at least evaporator #10);
a blower fan configured to generate a negative pressure in the internal space so that that the external air is introduced and configured to discharge the heat-exchanged external air upward (see at least “In addition, the main components of the mobile air conditioner, such as a compressor, a condenser, an expansion valve, a blower fan, etc., will be easily constructed by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention belongs. The evaporator 10 is installed inside the main body 1 as a heat exchanger that absorbs the surrounding heat while the refrigerant changes to a gaseous state. The outer wall of the evaporator 10 becomes a low temperature state due to the refrigerant absorbing heat, and moisture contained in the air introduced into the main body 1 through the filter 12 condenses on the outer wall of the evaporator to generate condensed water.”);
a drain pan provided below the heat exchanger and configured to collect condensate generated in the heat exchanger and discharge the condensate downward (see at least collector #20);
a water tank configured to store the condensate discharged from the drain pan (see at least storage #40);
a drain guide provided in the drain pan and configured to guide the collected condensate and fall down to a lower portion of the drain pan (see at least drain #22/drain pipe #30).
Jeong-Woo does not disclose and a scattering preventer provided above the drain guide and configured to prevent the condensate guided by the drain guide from being scattered by the negative pressure generated in the internal space, wherein the scattering preventer includes a drain cover having a top surface curved convexly upward.
Tait, Jr. teaches another drain pan (see at least drain pan #3) including a drain guide provided in the drain pan (see at least pocket #6/pipe #4); and a scattering preventer provided above the drain guide (see at least cover #7 with notches #8), wherein the scattering preventer includes a drain cover having a top surface curved convexly upward (see at least convex lug #11 of cover #7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air conditioner of Jeong-Woo with and a scattering preventer provided above the drain guide, wherein the scattering preventer includes a drain cover having a top surface curved convexly upward, as taught by Tait, Jr., to improve the air conditioner of Jeong-Woo by preventing debris from falling into the drain guide and by creating a trap with the drain guide to prevent backflow/odors.
The combination of Jeong-Woo and Tait, Jr. meets functional recitation and configured to prevent the condensate guided by the drain guide from being scattered (inherent to cover #7 with notches #8 of Tait, Jr.) by the negative pressure generated in the internal space (inherent to combination with Jeong-Woo and Tait, Jr.).
Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. does not disclose the drain cover having a top surface curved convexly upward and a bottom surface curved concavely upward to correspond to the top surface.
However, it was old and well-known to provide a drain cover having a top surface curved convexly upward and a bottom surface curved concavely upward to correspond to the top surface, as evidenced by Salmani (see at least cover/cap #16, which is has a convexly upward curved top surface and concavely upward curved bottom surface that corresponds to the top surface).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the drain cover of Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. with the drain cover having a top surface curved convexly upward and a bottom surface curved concavely upward to correspond to the top surface, since, as taught by Salmani, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of reducing the amount of material/weight of the drain cover, and since it has been held that changes in shape are a routine matter of design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. above further discloses wherein the drain guide includes:
a drain pipe provided with a passage that guides the condensate collected in the drain pan downward (see at least Jeong-Woo pipe #30/Tait, Jr. pipe #4); and
a flange part provided at an upper end of the drain pipe and coupled to the
bottom of the drain pan (see at least Tait, Jr. flanged ring #16/extended end flange #10 and adjacent bottom area of pocket #6/cover flange #9),
wherein the drain cover of the scattering preventer has a predetermined width (see at least Tait, Jr., cover #7: predetermined width is inherent to the apparatus of Tait, Jr.)
wherein the scattering preventer further includes:
a cover support bar coupled to the flange part to support the drain cover (see at least Tait, Jr. bars between notches #8 which support the cover and which are coupled to the flange part at least through the body of pocket #6/pipe#4).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. does not disclose wherein the drain pipe includes:
a first inclined cutoff part defined by cutting one side of a lower end in an upwardly convex shape;
a second inclined cutoff part defined by cutting the other side disposed opposite to the one side of the lower end in an upwardly convex shape; and
a pair of peak parts disposed between the first and second inclined cutoff parts and spaced apart from each other.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the air conditioner with wherein the drain pipe includes: a first inclined cutoff part defined by cutting one side of a lower end in an upwardly convex shape; a second inclined cutoff part defined by cutting the other side disposed opposite to the one side of the lower end in an upwardly convex shape; and
a pair of peak parts disposed between the first and second inclined cutoff parts and spaced apart from each other would result in a difference in function of the Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed alignment. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem, indicating that “[t]he drain pipe may include: a first inclined cutoff part defined by cutting one side of a lower end in an upwardly convex shape; a second inclined cutoff part defined by cutting the other side disposed opposite to the one side of the lower end in an upwardly convex shape; and a pair of peak parts disposed between the first and second inclined cutoff parts and spaced apart from each other” (see paragraph [0059]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the shape as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. with wherein the drain pipe includes: a first inclined cutoff part defined by cutting one side of a lower end in an upwardly convex shape; a second inclined cutoff part defined by cutting the other side disposed opposite to the one side of the lower end in an upwardly convex shape; and a pair of peak parts disposed between the first and second inclined cutoff parts and spaced apart from each other as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. above further discloses wherein flange part includes a first flange extending radially outward from the outer circumferential surface of the drain pipe (see at least Tait, Jr. extended end flange #10 and adjacent bottom area of pocket #6); and
a second flange extending radially outward from the outer circumferential surface of the first flange (see at least Tait, Jr. cover flange #9).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. above further discloses a coupling stepped portion is disposed on a bottom surface of the second flange so as to be seated and coupled to the drain pan (see at least Tait, Jr. page 1, lines 70-76: flanges #9 and #10 are functionally coupled via a stepped surface created at the bottom of flange #9 and by the interface of extended end flange #10 and the adjacent bottom area of pocket #6).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. above further discloses wherein the drain guide further includes a reinforcing rib that protrudes from an upper portion of the first flange and has a hollow communicating with the drain pipe therein (see at least Tait, Jr. extended end flange #10 extending up from the adjacent bottom area of pocket #6, which corresponds with Applicant’s disclosure of reinforcing rib).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong-Woo as modified by Tait, Jr. above further discloses wherein the reinforcing rib has a top surface facing upward (see at least Tait, Jr. top of extended end flange #10); and
a curved inner surface disposed around the hollow, wherein the inner circumferential surface is curved so that a cross-sectional area of the hollow gradually decreases downward (see at least inner surface of extended end flange #10 forming a funnel shaped drain opening about the hollow),
wherein the top surface and the curved inner surface forms one surface (the top surface and side surface of #10 are integrally formed).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. does not disclose wherein the drain guide protrudes from an upper end of the reinforcing rib and further includes one or more support bar insertion parts provided to allow the cover support bar to be inserted and supported.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a drain guide with wherein the drain guide protrudes from an upper end of the reinforcing rib and further includes one or more support bar insertion parts provided to allow the cover support bar to be inserted and supported, as evidenced by Salmini (see at least apertured flange #17 protruding from lugs #15 which protrude from boss #6 and receive screws #18 of cap #16).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air conditioner of Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. with wherein the drain guide protrudes from an upper end of the reinforcing rib and further includes one or more support bar insertion parts provided to allow the cover support bar to be inserted and supported, since, as evidenced by Salmini, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of reliably securing the cover in position to prevent accidental removal.
Regarding claim 9, Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini further discloses wherein the reinforcing rib is ring shaped (see at least Tait, Jr. extended end flange #10 extending up from the adjacent bottom area of pocket #6; Salmini upward extended areas of #6), and the support bar insertion part is spaced at regular intervals along the reinforcing rib so as to be provided in plurality (see at least Salmini lugs #15), and the cover support bar is provided in plurality to correspond to the support bar insertion part (see at least Salmini flange #17 and screws #18).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong-Woo further discloses wherein the water tank is configured to be removable from the housing (see at least translation “The condensate reservoir 40 is removable from the main body 1”).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-1593657: cited with English Translation).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Jeong-Woo does not disclose wherein the housing defines a first inlet configured to permit ingress of the external air introduced from outside of the housing and a second inlet configured to permit ingress of the external air introduced from outside of the housing, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a first heat exchange chamber and a second heat exchange chamber, wherein the first heat exchange chamber is configured to cool the external air introduced through the first inlet, and wherein the second heat exchange chamber is configured to heat the external air introduced through the second inlet; wherein the blower fan comprises a first fan configured to introduce the external air into the first heat exchange chamber and a second fan configured to introduce the external air into the second heat exchange chamber.
Kim et al. teaches another dehumidifier wherein the housing defines a first inlet configured to permit ingress of the external air introduced from outside of the housing (see at least Figure 1, first inlet #122) and a second inlet configured to permit ingress of the external air introduced from outside of the housing (see at least Figure 1, second inlet #124),
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a first heat exchange chamber (see at least Figure 2, chamber with evaporator #600 and fan #722) and a second heat exchange chamber (see at least Figure 2, chamber with condenser #400 and fan #724),
wherein the first heat exchange chamber is configured to cool the external air introduced through the first inlet (inherent to combination of inlet #122, evaporator #600, and fan #722), and
wherein the second heat exchange chamber is configured to heat the external air introduced through the second inlet (inherent to combination of inlet #124, condenser #400, and fan #742);
wherein the blower fan comprises a first fan configured to introduce the external air into the first heat exchange chamber (see at least fan #722) and a second fan configured to introduce the external air into the second heat exchange chamber (see at least fan #724).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini with wherein the housing defines a first inlet configured to permit ingress of the external air introduced from outside of the housing and a second inlet configured to permit ingress of the external air introduced from outside of the housing, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a first heat exchange chamber and a second heat exchange chamber, wherein the first heat exchange chamber is configured to cool the external air introduced through the first inlet, and wherein the second heat exchange chamber is configured to heat the external air introduced through the second inlet; wherein the blower fan comprises a first fan configured to introduce the external air into the first heat exchange chamber and a second fan configured to introduce the external air into the second heat exchange chamber, as taught by Kim et al., to improve the dehumidifier of Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini by allowing for a separate airstream to dissipate heat and to absorb heat, thus improving the efficiency of the dehumidifier by allowing for the air streams to be directed to different areas.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Achter (CN 1089346: cited with English Translation).
Regarding claim 14, Jeong-Woo is silent regarding wherein the water tank includes a water detector configured to determine a water level of the condensate.
Achter teaches another dehumidifier with water tank wherein the water tank includes a water detector configured to determine a water level of the condensate (see at least float #70 with sensors #75/#76 in tank #26, best seen in Figures 9A-9D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dehumidifier of Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini with wherein the water tank includes a water detector configured to determine a water level of the condensate, as taught by Achter, to improve the dehumidifier of Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr. and Salmini by allowing for the user to know when the tank is full or about to be full to allow for timely emptying.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong-Woo in view of Tait, Jr., Salmini, and Achter further discloses wherein the water detector includes:
a float configured to move according to the water level of the condensate (see at least float #70), wherein the float includes a magnet (see at least magnet(s) #74A/#74B); and
a sensor configured to detect the magnet (see at least Achter, sensor(s) #75/#76).
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 TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763