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 2/17/2026 are entered.
Specification
The specification amendment received 2/17/2026 is entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ruff (US 2,516,094) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ruff (US 2,516,094) in view of Pugh et al (US 10,718,549).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19-20, Ruff discloses a heat pump for a water heater, comprising:
a water tank (10),
a housing comprising at least one air inlet and a plurality of air outlets disposed around a perimeter of the housing (air flow inlet and outlets are defined by the direction of airflow as airflow direction is functional the perimeter of the housing is regarded as an outlet and the top as the inlet);
at least one fan (22) configured to move air from the at least one air inlet to the plurality of air outlets;
an evaporator (16) positioned adjacent to the at least one air inlet; and
a diffuser (20) positioned below the evaporator, wherein the diffuser is configured to redirect and diffuse the air to the plurality of air outlets (the diffuser 20 widens the flow area cross section in the airflow direction discussed above).
Regarding limitations drawn to inlets and outlets and thus airflow direction, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
Alternatively, Pugh discloses a water heater heat pump unit including an inlet at the top of the unit and an outlet at the perimeter of the unit. 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 an air flow direction from the top to a perimeter and the perimeter to the top. It is known in the art to substitute one for the other. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Further regarding claims 19 and 20, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02. Therefor the apparatus as presented also reads on the method claim(s).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Ruff discloses a compressor (15) positioned below the diffuser (20).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ruff discloses the at least one air inlet is disposed on a top surface of the housing (air flow direction discussed at claim 1, top surface of the housing as discussed is the inlet).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ruff discloses the at least one fan (22) is positioned in a horizontal plane (the fan is arranged in a horizontal plane) about the at least one air inlet (upper grill, unlabeled, is the air inlet) and is configured to flow the air over the evaporator (16; airflow direction discussed at claim 1)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ruff discloses the at least one fan (22) is disposed below the at least one air inlet (air flow direction discussed at claim 1, top surface of the housing as discussed is the inlet), the evaporator (16) is disposed below the at least one fan (22), and the diffuser (20) is disposed below the evaporator.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ruff discloses the diffuser (20) comprises a cone or a dome (“frusto-conical plate” 1:50).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ruff discloses the diffuser (20) comprises a lip (17) configured to collect condensation. Ruff is silent concerning a drain pipe. The examiner takes official notice that drain pipes for condensate are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ruff with a condensate drain pipe in fluid communication with the lip, wherein the drain pipe is configured to direct condensation out of the heat pump in order to prevent condensate overflow.
Regarding claim 8, Ruff discloses insulation (24) disposed in the housing.
Regarding claim 9, Ruff discloses the insulation (24) is configured to further redirect air to the plurality of air outlets. Further Pugh discloses the use of foam insulation 134 to direct air flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ruff with foam insulation as is taught by Pugh in order to reduce noise and pressure drop.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff (US 2,516,094), with or without Pugh et al (US 10,718,549), and in further view of Kurth et al (US 2,813,474).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Ruff discloses the diffuser (20) but lacks fins. Kurth discloses a conical or hemispherical diffuser that includes fins (42 and 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ruff with diffuser fins as taught by Kurth in order to reduce noise (4:31-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not argue the rejection that was and is presented. The direction of airflow is a function of the operation of the fan 22. Although airflow is shown in figure 1 of Ruff as from the perimeter and exiting at the top, the arrangement is also capable of reverse direction. Such an operation is also provided by modification in view of Pugh. As can be seen in figure 1 of Ruff, flow from the top of the unit, through fan 22, and along diffuser 20 observes an increased cross-sectional area and thus the flow is diffused.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Porwal et al (US 11,747,058) air circulation of heat pump water heater.
Schaffer et al (US 10,281,171) condensate pan for water heater.
Suh (US 5,117,651) diffuser.
Galazzi (US 2,795,938) air circulation of heat pump water heater.
Melcher (US 1,917,537) air cooler.
Herdy et al (US 2025/0149015) heat pump water heater.
Hardy et al (US 2025/146707) heat pump water heater.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights