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 11/14/2025 are entered. Claims 2-5, 9, 16-17, and 22 are cancelled. Claims 27-28 are new.
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.
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, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pannell (US 5,307,645), in view of Leasure (US 11,059,352), and in view of Abbott (US 3,973,939).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Pannell discloses an air treatment unit configured for installation to a recreational vehicle, the air treatment unit comprising:
a housing (10) extending along a longitudinal axis defining an upstream direction and a downstream direction opposite the upstream direction (left to right direction as oriented in figure 2 is the longitudinal axis or a vertical axis as discussed in claim 19), the housing comprising an outlet manifold (50) positioned at a downstream end of the housing (housing for air treatment towards the vehicle is defined from 18 to 48 thus providing 50 is at the downstream end adjacent to 48);
a refrigerant loop comprising a compressor, a condenser, an expander, and an evaporator (shown in at least figure 4), , and wherein the evaporator is positioned within the housing (10); and
a blower (51) positioned within the housing downstream of the evaporator (30), wherein the blower is configured to charge air through the evaporator toward the outlet manifold (50).
Pannell lacks an air filter. Abbott discloses an air conditioning system for a mobile home including an air filter (60; best shown in figures 9 and 10) positioned at an upstream end of the housing, upstream of both an evaporator (42) and blower (54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a filter in order to remove contaminants from the air flow. Moreover providing the filter at an upstream portion prevents fouling of downstream components, e.g. heat exchangers.
Pannell lacks a power conditioning circuit and is silent concerning relative voltages. Pannell lacks a heater.
Leasure discloses a refrigerated vehicle including a power conditioning circuit (shown in figure 2 and noting that the compressor may be DC powered rather than using inverter 250; 8:67-9:3; further including “AC-DC converter (not shown) that rectifies or converts the AC power to a DC power.” 5:35-36; still further 225) configured to convert alternating current power (208) of a first voltage to direct current power of a second voltage (such as 12, 24, or 48V), wherein the second voltage is less than the first voltage (first voltage is “shore power” which is a nominal standard of 120/240V in the US);
Leasure also discloses that operating the refrigeration components is known to be done in AC or DC (8:67-9:3).
Leasure also discloses a heater (275) and an evaporator blower (265) at a same voltage (shown on common line in figure 2; 8:18-25, the heater is optionally powered at the DC voltage or by the AC inverter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Pannell with AC-DC conversion as taught by Leasure in order to utilize shore power and to also power the air conditioning system (including components like blowers, compressor, heater, etc.) off of DC architecture.
Moreover, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that it is known to utilize an Ac or a DC power source and AC or DC components. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only four potential solutions to powering the refrigeration system: AC source to AC components, AC source to DC components, DC source to AC components, or DC source to DC components. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing an AC source to power DC components would have not yielded unpredictable results, since mere power conversion would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the power source and power utilization are selected from a plurality of factors, e.g. shore power may be AC as well as a generator may be configured to provide AC power. Refrigeration components may use DC architecture as they may be powered from DC vehicle batteries. Leasure discloses AC to DC conversion
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a power conditioning circuit, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to power the refrigeration components, without yielding unpredictable results.
Additionally regarding the location of the heater. In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that positioning a heater at a blower outlet manifold is old and well known. (official notice was taken at now cancelled claim 2 in the OA dated 6/17/2025) In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant (AAPA). See MPEP §2144.03(C). In addition or alternative to AAPA, Abbott discloses an electric heater (59) positioned between the blower (54) and outlet manifold (62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Pannell with a heater in order to heat the cabin space.
The examiner notes that “about” in claim 6 is regarded as +/- 10% as disclosed in the specification.
Regarding claim 8, Pannell discloses the evaporator comprises a pair of coils arranged in an A-frame configuration (2 evaporator coils shown in figure 4, an “A” shape is found at one half of the “X” intersections).
Alternatively, in the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that A-frame evaporator arrangements are old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Pannell with an A-frame arranged pair of evaporator coils in order to utilize a large surface area of heat transfer in a compact space.
Regarding claim 12, Pannell as modified discloses the air treatment unit of claim 1, but is silent concerning an amp draw.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that RV sized air conditioners are known to run on 10 or fewer amps. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Pannell with a system sized at 10 amps or less in order to prevent overload of the electrical system.
Regarding claim 14, Pannell discloses the air treatment unit is mounted below a floor (14) of the recreational vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Pannell as modified discloses a recreational vehicle comprising the air treatment unit of claim 1, the recreational vehicle further comprising a ventilation system including at least one floor duct (18), wherein the ventilation system is configured to direct treated air from the air treatment unit to the at least one floor duct (as shown in figure 1 the floor duct is a return duct but because of the recirculation of air the treated air is ultimately directed to the return duct to be treated again).
Regarding claim 19, Pannell discloses the longitudinal axis is a vertical axis. As discussed at claim 1 the longitudinal direction is discussed in the left-right direction as oriented in figure 2. Alternatively, the housing is inclusive of the vertical duct shown in figure 1 and includes a vertical axis.
Regarding claim 10 (depending from claim 19), Pannell discloses the evaporator is positioned below the blower (as shown in figure 2 at least a portion of the evaporator is below the blower) and the outlet manifold is positioned above the blower such that air flows generally upward through the housing.
Regarding claim 11 (depending from claim 19), Pannell discloses the air treatment unit of claim 9, but lacks the generally downward flow.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that downward flow is known in the art of air conditioning. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Pannell with the evaporator positioned above the blower and the outlet manifold positioned below the blower such that air flows generally downward through the housing in order to distribute air from a rooftop unit.
Claim(s) 7, 20-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pannell (US 5,307,645), in view of Leasure (US 11,059,352), in view of Abbott (US 3,973,939), and in view of Shimizu (US 4,940,396).
Regarding claim 7, Pannell as modified discloses the air treatment unit of claim 1, but is silent concerning a serviceable scroll compressor. The examiner previously took official notice that serviceable scroll compressors are old and well known. In his subsequent reply (remarks dated 11/14/2025) applicant challenged the official notice. Shimizu discloses a serviceable refrigerant scroll compressor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a serviceable scroll compressor in order to realize a scroll compressors relatively low noise and vibration when compared to other compressor types, e.g. rotary or reciprocating.
Further the term “serviceable” means able to be serviced. As discussed in the background section of Shimizu conventional welded scroll compressors are capable of repair (service) but often is cost-ineffective (1:32-51). The claim is addressed by providing the scroll compressor with the particular adaptation of Shimizu which makes service easier to perform; it is pointed out that while other conventional scroll compressors may not be serviced due to cost, they are still capable of being serviced.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 is addressed as discussed in claims 1 and 7 above.
Regarding claim 21, Claim 21 is addressed as discussed in claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 23, Claim 23 is addressed as discussed in claim 12 above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pannell (US 5,307,645), in view of Leasure (US 11,059,352), in view of Abbott (US 3,973,939), and in further view of McGaugh (US 9,173,255).
Regarding claim 13, Pannell as modified discloses a recreational vehicle comprising the air treatment unit of claim 1, but lacks that the air treatment unit is mounted within a cabin of the recreational vehicle. McGaugh discloses an air treatment unit mounted within the RV cabin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have protected the unit from the environment, e.g. road debris.
Claim(s) 18 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pannell (US 5,307,645), in view of Leasure (US 11,059,352), in view of Abbott (US 3,973,939), and in further view of She et al (US 2023/0271476).
Regarding claims 18 and 27-28, Pannell as modified discloses the air treatment system of claim 1, but lacks solar panels. She discloses solar panels configured to provide the air treatment unit with direct current power such that the air treatment unit is operable with the direct current power provided by the one or more solar panels ([0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Pannell with solar panels as a power source as taught by She in order to provide renewable power to the system such as the compressor, blower, and heater.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pannell (US 5,307,645), in view of Leasure (US 11,059,352), in view of Abbott (US 3,973,939), in view of Shimizu (US 4,940,396), and in further view of She et al (US 2023/0271476).
Regarding claims 24-26, Claims 24-26 are addressed as discussed in claim 18 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 9-10 applicant asserts that the subject matter of claim 1 is fundamentally different from the prior art as it was designed from the ground up as a DC powered climate system. However this assertion is unpersuasive as the prior art rejection provided above addresses each and every limitation of the claim.
In regard to claim 27 and DC powering of the compressor, blower, and heater; these features are addressed in the analysis of claim 1. She et al is relied upon to teach the use of solar power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A plurality of references are provided to show electrical architectures for RV or other mobile refrigeration arrangements.
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