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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“sealing member” (of claim 12) includes the generic/nonce term “member” coupled with the function of “sealing”. A return to the specification provide:
“FIG. 13 is a view for describing a sealing member according to an embodiment of the disclosure.
Referring to FIGS. 1 and 13, the window-type air-conditioner 10 according to an embodiment of the disclosure may include a sealing member 70. The sealing member 70 may seal a gap between the outer circumferential surface of the pipe cover 60 and the window frame 1 on a plane perpendicular to a direction in which the pipe cover 60 extends. The sealing member 70 may be connected to the pipe cover 60. The sealing member 70 may seal a gap between the window frame 1 and the window 11.
The sealing member 70 may include an insertion portion 700. The insertion portion 700 may be a portion for inserting the pipe cover 60. The insertion portion 700 may include a cut portion 71. The cut portion 71 may be a portion that is cut in a lower end portion of the insertion portion 700. The pipe cover 60 may be inserted into the insertion portion 700 through the cut portion 71.
The sealing member 70 may include an upper insulating member 72. The upper insulating member 72 may be located above the insertion portion 700. However, the positional relationship between the upper insulating member 72 and the insertion portion 700 is not limited thereto.
The insertion portion 700 may have a shape corresponding to the shape of the pipe cover 60. The insertion portion 700 may include an uneven portion 710. The uneven portion 710 of the insertion portion 700 may be a portion corresponding to the corrugations 610 of the pipe cover 60 having the bellows structure 61, on a coupling surface in contact with the outer circumferential surface of the pipe cover 60. The uneven portion 710 of the insertion portion 700 may assist a close contact between the sealing member 70 and the pipe cover 60, when the bellows structure 61 is inserted into the insertion portion 700. The uneven portion 710 of the insertion portion 700 may improve the insulation performance of the sealing member 70.”
Therefor the limitation is interpreted as sealing member 70 or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu (KR20210080821).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a window-type air-conditioner installable on a window frame, the window-type air-conditioner comprising:
an outdoor module (30) including:
a compressor (35) configured to compress a coolant,
an outdoor heat exchanger (34) configured to generate heat exchange between outdoor air and the coolant, and
an outdoor housing (32) accommodating the compressor (35) and the outdoor heat exchanger (34);
an indoor module (10) including:
an indoor heat exchanger (14) configured to generate heat exchange between indoor air and the coolant, and
an indoor housing (12) spaced apart from the outdoor housing, and accommodating the indoor heat exchanger (14);
a coolant pipe (22) providing a flow path along which the coolant moves between the outdoor module and the indoor module; and
a pipe cover (20) accommodating the coolant pipe, and connecting the indoor module and the outdoor module,
wherein the coolant pipe has a spiral shape (24) that is expandable ([0083]) and compressible, and the pipe cover (20) has a structure that is expandable ([0077]) and compressible, to adjust an interval between the outdoor module and the indoor module so that the interval corresponds to a thickness of the window frame.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses the coolant pipe is wound multiple times in the spiral shape around a virtual center axis (coils shown in figures 3 and 4 have central axes).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu discloses the virtual center axis of the coolant pipe extends in a direction from the outdoor module toward the indoor module (axes pointed between the indoor and outdoor unit as shown in at least figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses a virtual projection trajectory formed by an outer circumference of the spiral shape of the coolant pipe includes two line segments parallel to each other, a first curved line connecting a first pair of end portions of the two line segments to each other, and a second curved line connecting a second pair of end portions of the two line segments to each other (an infinite number of two line segments being parallel to each other are able to be drawn an a virtual projection, e.g. a pair of tangent lines, two curved lines are able to connect said parallel tangent lines).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses the window-type air-conditioner of claim 1, wherein the coolant pipe forms a coil ([0083]) and a virtual projection trajectory formed by an outer circumference of the spiral shape of the coolant pipe is oval (a circular shape projected at an angle produces an ellipse or oval shape).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu discloses the coolant pipe includes: a first coolant pipe providing a first flow path along which the coolant moves from the outdoor module to the indoor module, and a second coolant pipe providing a second flow path along which the coolant moves from the indoor module to the outdoor module (two coolant pipes shown in figures 3 and 4 to connect the indoor and outdoor units), and a virtual projection trajectory formed by an outer circumference of the spiral shape of the first coolant pipe is greater than a virtual projection trajectory formed by an outer circumference of the spiral shape of the second coolant pipe (a virtual projection of one spiral shape at an angle will produce a greater projection than the other when the virtual projection is taken on axis).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses the virtual projection trajectory of the second coolant pipe is formed inside the virtual projection trajectory of the first coolant pipe (projecting the trajectory of one pipe towards the other allows for one virtual projection to be within the other virtual projection).
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR20210080821).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses the window-type air-conditioner of claim 1, but is silent concerning the material of the coolant pipe. The examiner takes official notice that metal is an old and well known material for coolant pipes, e.g. copper or aluminum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have provided Ryo with copper or aluminum for the coolant pipe in order to observe those material’s robustness and resistance to corrosion.
Regarding claim 9, Ryu discloses the window-type air-conditioner of claim 1, but lacks a coil spring surrounding the coolant pipe. The examiner takes official notice that strain relief springs are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ryo with strain relief springs for the coolant pipes in order to reduce or prevent damage to the coolant pipes.
Regarding claim 10, Ryu discloses the window-type air-conditioner of claim 1, but is silent regarding a temporary support. The examiner takes official notice that temporary supports are old and well known, for example expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam) packing forms within shipping boxes restrain contents during shipping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ryu with a temporary support, such as bounding the indoor and outdoor modules with expanded polystyrene within a box during shipping, in order to prevent damage to the unit.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR20210080821) in view of Cur et al (US 6,983,621).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu discloses the window-type air-conditioner of claim 1, but lacks a bellows. Cur discloses a connection between an indoor unit and an outdoor unit of an air conditioner which includes a bellows pipe cover(48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ryu with a corrugated cover in order to protect the pipe structure as well as enhance the connection’s ability to accommodate bending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 is interpreted under §112(f) as detailed above. Claim 12 particularly recites “the coupling surface including an uneven portion corresponding to the plurality of corrugations of the pipe cover”. The examiner notes that sealing a corrugated conduit is known, e.g. Dieduksman et al (US 10,082,230) or Girola (US 10,364,924). It is known to connect corrugated passages to windows, e.g. Kim et al (US10,415,838). It is known to place refrigerant conduits within a corrugated passage, e.g. KR20170090926A or Cur et al (US 6,983,621). It is known to seal refrigerant passages through a window, e.g. Lingrey et al (US 8,850,832).
Thus although sealing refrigerant passages is known and sealing corrugations is known, there is no teaching to modify Ryu to yield the claimed invention.
No known reference, whether alone or in proper combination, would yield the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al (US 2025/0035322) split window air conditioner
Aryeh (US 11,384,945) window type air conditioner
Baumann et al (US 10,739,018) adjustable chaseway for window air conditioner
Karkhanis (US 5,167,131) seal for window air conditioner
Su (US 7,992,404) window air conditioner passage
Leezer et al (US 12,203,665) window air conditioner passage
Kim (US 11,913,665) corrugated passage connection
Polk (US 6,671,974) corrugated refrigerant passage
Copp Jr. (US 3,309,889) slide window air conditioner
Brugler (US 3,438,219) refrigerant passage for air conditioner
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