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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoo
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoo (CN1165726C – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Nakata (CN101384858A – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hoo teaches an air conditioner, comprising:
a case (20, Fig. 2, see Description) comprising an inlet and an outlet formed therein (inlet 31, outlet 32, Fig. 2, see Description);
a blowing fan disposed in the case to blow air from the inlet to the outlet (21, Fig. 2, see Description);
a heat exchanger disposed in the case to exchange heat with air flowing in the case (22, Fig. 2, see Description);
a drain pan disposed below the heat exchanger to collect condensed water falling down from the heat exchanger (24, Fig. 2, see Description);
a drain pump disposed on one side of the drain pan to discharge condensed water collected in the drain pan to an outside of the case (40, Fig. 2, see Description); and
a water level switch (25, see Description) configured to operate when a level of the condensed water reaches a reference level, wherein when the level of the condensed water reaches the reference level, a motor activating current is applied to the drain pump, and the drain pump is turned on (see Description, “the water level information that is arranged on the water level inductor 25 in the condensate draining 24, the action of control draining pump 40.That is, water level inductor 25 is when the water level of condensed water arrives the upper limit boundary line A of designated water level, connect motor 44 power supplys, drive draining pump 40, when the water level of condensed water arrives the following margin line B (generally being positioned at the lower end of pump chamber) of designated water level, cut off the electricity supply, stop driving draining pump 40”).
Hoo does not specifically teach when an applied current reaches a specific motor driving current corresponding to a predetermined speed, application of the specific motor driving current is maintained for a predetermined time period.
Nakata teaches an air conditioner (Nakata, Title) which uses a drain pump to discharge water (Nakata, Abstract) wherein the drain pump is operated predetermined speeds for predetermined time periods (Nakata, see Description, see S4-S7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo with operating the drain pump at a predetermined speed for a predetermined time period, as taught by Nakata, in order to control the drain pump speed over desired time periods to optimize the efficiency as desired.
The Examiner notes that the current required to operate the drain pump at the predetermined speed is defined as the specific motor driving current in Nakata.
Regarding claim 2, Hoo teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the drain pump is operated at a predetermined speed for a predetermined time period (Nakata, see Description, see S4-S7).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are the same.
Regarding claim 9, Hoo teaches the air conditioner according to claim 8, wherein the drain pump is operated at different speeds depending on water levels detected by the water level sensor (see Description which notes running the pump at a high speed when water is discharged, this suffices the claim as if the level is not reached for water to be discharged it is a different speed than when running at a high speed).
Regarding claim 10, Hoo teaches the air conditioner according to claim 8, wherein the reference level is a minimum water level detectable by the water level sensor (Hoo, the level noted in the Description as the margin line B is defined as the minimum).
Regarding claim 11, Hoo teaches the air conditioner according to claim 8, wherein the reference level is 0 mm or more (met by Hoo as “or more” offers an open interpretation that any level suffices the claim).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoo in view of Nakata, further in view of Je (US2021/0148032) and Nakata (CN101384858A – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Hoo as modified teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1, but does not teach that the drain pump is operated while increasing in speed in a stepwise manner for a predetermined time period. Je teaches a laundry machine with a drain pump (Je, Title, see claim 1, Fig. 3) wherein the motor of the drain pump is controlled to increase the speed in a stepwise manner (Je, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo with increasing the speed of the drain pump in a stepwise manner, as taught by Je, in order to reduce a speed ripple while dewatering (Je, Abstract).
While Hoo as modified by Je teaches predetermined time period through the combination with Nakata, see the rejection and motivation in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoo in view of Nakata, further in view of ‘982 (JP 2008099982A – previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Hoo as modified teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1, but does not teach the drain pump is operated at a predetermined speed, and then is turned off when an applied current becomes lower than a reference current value. ‘982 teaches a washing/drying machine (‘982, Title) which has a drain pump (‘982, 64, see Description) that is turned off when a detected current is lower than a predetermined value (‘982, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo as modified with turning off the drain pump when a current becomes lower than a reference value, as taught by ‘982, in order to prevent harm to the drain pump and to perform drainage in the future normally (‘982, Description).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoo in view of Nakata, further in view of ‘436 (JP2578436Y2 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Hoo as modified teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1, but does not teach that the drain pump is operated at a predetermined speed, and then is turned off when a motor torque becomes lower than a reference torque value. ‘436 teaches a water pump which is stopped when the torque value is lower than a reference torque value (‘436, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo as modified with turning off the drain pump when a torque becomes lower than a reference value, as taught by ‘436, in order to utilize a protective measure to ensure the pump is not running in a possible low fluid situation, thereby preventing damage to the pump.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoo in view of Nakata, further in view of ‘982 (JP 2008099982A – previously cited) and Je (US2021/0148032 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Hoo as modified teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the drain pump is operated while increasing in speed in a stepwise manner, and then is turned off when an applied current becomes lower than a reference current value.
‘982 teaches a washing/drying machine (‘982, Title) which has a drain pump (‘982, 64, see Description) that is turned off when a detected current is lower than a predetermined value (‘982, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo as modified with turning off the drain pump when a current becomes lower than a reference value, as taught by ‘982, in order to prevent harm to the drain pump and to perform drainage in the future normally (‘982, Description).
Je teaches a laundry machine with a drain pump (Je, Title, see claim 1, Fig. 3) wherein the motor of the drain pump is controlled to increase the speed in a stepwise manner (Je, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo as modified with increasing the speed of the drain pump in a stepwise manner, as taught by Je, in order to reduce a speed ripple while dewatering (Je, Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoo in view of Nakata, further in view of ‘436 (JP2578436Y2) and Je (US2021/0148032).
Regarding claim 7, Hoo as modified teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1, but does not teach the drain pump is operated while increasing in speed in a stepwise manner, and then is turned off when a motor torque becomes lower than a reference torque value.
‘436 teaches a water pump which is stopped when the torque value is lower than a reference torque value (‘436, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo as modified with turning off the drain pump when a torque becomes lower than a reference value, as taught by ‘436, in order to utilize a protective measure to ensure the pump is not running in a possible low fluid situation, thereby preventing damage to the pump.
Je teaches a laundry machine with a drain pump (Je, Title, see claim 1, Fig. 3) wherein the motor of the drain pump is controlled to increase the speed in a stepwise manner (Je, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Hoo as modified as modified with increasing the speed of the drain pump in a stepwise manner, as taught by Je, in order to reduce a speed ripple while dewatering (Je, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 USC 102 rejection. Applicant asserts that claim 1 and 8 overcome the rejection in view of Hoo as Hoo does not teach the amendment to the claims. The Examiner has considered the argument, and agrees. As the amendment changes the scope of the invention, the rejection has been updated. Please see the rejection above for how the claims are addressed.
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 NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763