DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to claims filed on 12/05/2023. Claims 1 – 13 are pending in the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the opening and closing door device” in line 5, which should recite “the at least one opening and closing door device” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “purification device” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraph 0060 recites "the purification device 30 includes a purification air fan and a purification air filter assembly 103". Therefore, the Examiner interprets "purification device" to be a fan/blower and a filter.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recites “at least one vent” in line 3, but recites “the vent” in lines 5-6 and 8. This yields the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
Line 5-6 recites “the mounting boss being located at a side of the vent”. Because antecedent basis was previously established for “at least one vent”, it is unclear if the mounting boss is located at a side of each vent, or is located at a side of one vent of the at least one vent.
Similarly, line 8 recites “the valve being rotatably located at the at least one vent to open or close the vent”. Because antecedent basis was previously established for “at least one vent”, it is unclear if the valve opens or closes each vent, or opens and closes one vent of the at least one vent.
This yields the claim indefinite.
For purposes of interpretation, the Examiner interprets “the vent” in lines 5-6 and 8 to be “the at least one vent” for proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2 – 13 are rejected for their dependency on Claim 1.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN209181106U, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 12/05/2023, English Machine Translation provided herein and relied upon below).
Regarding Claim 1, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
An air conditioner indoor unit (100) comprising:
a housing (10) comprising an inner wall (20) provided with a mounting boss (210), the housing (10) having at least one vent (12), the mounting boss (210) having a first shaft hole (211) and a mounting notch (notch of 210 opposite 211) formed at a side wall (the side wall opposite 211) of the mounting boss (210) facing away (as illustrated in Figure 3) from the housing (10), the mounting notch (notch of 210 opposite 211) being in communication with (via 220, as illustrated in Figure 3) the first shaft hole (211), and the mounting boss (210) being located at a side (as illustrated in Figure 3, 210 is located along all four sides of 12) of the vent (12); and
at least one door opening and closing device (210, 310, 320) comprising a valve (210), a motor cover (320), and a motor (310), the valve (210) being rotatably (as illustrated in Figure 3) located at the at least one vent (12) to open or close the vent (12), the valve (210) being provided with a first pivoting portion (221) rotatably engaged to the first axial hole (211), the motor (310) having a motor shaft (the shaft of 210, as illustrated in Figure 3) cooperating with (as illustrated in Figure 3) the first pivoting portion (221) to drive the valve (210) to rotate, the motor cover (320) internally having a mounting space (the internal space within 320 in which 310 nests, as illustrated in Figure 3) for the motor (310), the first pivoting portion (221) assembled with (as illustrated in Figure 3) the motor (310) being mounted in the first shaft hole (211) through the mounting notch (notch of 210 opposite 211), and the motor cover (320) being fixed at (via 120, as illustrated in Figure 3) the mounting boss (210).
Regarding Claim 6, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
The mounting boss (210) is provided with a first guide member (120 on the left, as illustrated in Figure 3); and
the motor cover (320) is provided with a second guide member (120 on the right, as illustrated in Figure 3), the first guide member (120 on the left, as illustrated in Figure 3) and the second guide member (120 on the right, as illustrated in Figure 3) being engaged with each other (as illustrated in Figure 3) to guide the motor cover (320) to a fixing position (the position where 320 is mounted on 120) when mounting the opening and closing door device (210, 310, 320).
Regarding Claim 8, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
A positioning boss (120) disposed at (as illustrated in Figure 3, 120 is positioned at a side wall of 20) the inner wall (20) of the housing (10), the motor cover (320) being partially located between (as illustrated in Figure 3) the positioning boss (120) and the mounting boss (210) to restrict a freedom of movement (the freedom of movement of 320 is restricted via 120 during installation) of the motor cover (320).
Regarding Claim 12, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
The mounting boss (210) and the housing (10) are integrally formed (as illustrated in Figure 3, 210 is integrally formed to 10).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN209181106U, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 12/05/2023, English Machine Translation provided herein and relied upon below), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Ugai et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0268460).
Regarding Claim 10, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
A sidewall (the distal sidewall comprising the aperture, as illustrated in Figure 3) of the at least one vent (12) opposite to the first shaft hole (211) is formed into a support plane (the side wall is a support plane that supports the distal end of 220) .
However, Yan lacks showing the support plane having a second shaft hole and the valve is provided with a second pivoting portion rotatably engaged to the second shaft hole.
In the same field of endeavor of indoor air conditioners, Ugai teaches (Figures 1 and 2):
It is known in the indoor air conditioner (10) art for a vent (23b) to have a valve (27) with multiple pivoting portions (as illustrated in Figure 2, there are two pivoting 27s).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the valve shown by Yan to include first and second pivoting portions, as taught by Ugai, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
It is noted in combination, the second pivoting portion requires a second shaft hole in the support plane to rotate.
Regarding Claim 13, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
The housing (10) is internally provided with a purification device, the at least one vent (12) is an indoor air inlet (as described in Paragraph 0064); and
when the valve (210) is opened, indoor air flows into the housing (10) through the at least one vent (12) and is discharged.
However, Yan lacks showing the housing is internally provided with a purification device and the air drawn in is purified.
In the same field of endeavor of indoor air conditioners, Ugai teaches (Figures 1 and 2):
It is known in the indoor air conditioner (10) art for the housing (23) to include an internal purification device (24), wherein the air is purified (via 24).
Further, “dust larger than the mesh of the air filter is removed by the air filter 24 and does not reach the indoor heat exchanger”, Paragraph 0040.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the housing shown by Yan to include an air purification device, as taught by Ugai, to prevent dust larger than the mesh from reaching the indoor heat exchanger, thus prolonging the life of the heat exchanger.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN209181106U, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 12/05/2023, English Machine Translation provided herein and relied upon below).
Regarding Claim 11, Yan shows (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
The motor cover (320) is formed into a symmetrical structure (as illustrated in Figure 3, 320 is symmetrical about the center axis of the motor shaft) that is symmetrical with respect to a rotation center (the center of 310) of the motor shaft (the shaft of 310, as illustrated in Figure 3).
However, Yan lacks showing the at least one vent comprises a plurality of vents, the at least one door opening and closing device comprises a plurality of door opening and closing device, and each of the plurality of door opening and closing devices being provided for a corresponding one of the plurality of vents, and the motor covers of the door opening and closing devices has a same shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the single vent and corresponding door opening and closing device shown by Yan to include a plurality of vents and corresponding opening and closing devices, as taught by Ugai, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2, Yan teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
The motor cover (320) is provided with a first snap portion (120) and a first fixing portion (321).
However, Yan lacks showing the mounting boss is provided with a second snap portion and a second fixing portion, the first snap portion being snapped with the second snap portion, and each of the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion cooperating with a fixing connector to fixedly connect the motor cover and the mounting boss.
Modifying Yan accordingly teaches away from the principle operation of Yan.
Claims 3 – 5 depend from Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7, Yan shows the claimed invention except the first guide member comprises an arc-shaped guide plate disposed outside of the first shaft hole and the second guide member comprises a guiding post disposed at the motor cover.
Modifying Yan accordingly teaches away from the principle operation of Yan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related indoor air conditioners:
Han et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0390860): see Figure 1
Lui et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0003397): see Figure 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Steve McAllister, can be reached on 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762