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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/3/2024, 11/21/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 1/10/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “an operable coupling” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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: “an operable coupling” in claims 1 and 5 and “a coupling assembly” in claims 1, 5 and 7.
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.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the claims recite “an operable coupling between the internal unit and the external unit”. The term “operable coupling” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the bridge operably couples between the internal unit and the external unit. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of bridge operably coupling the internal unit and the external unit. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the claims recite “a coupling assembly extending within the heat pump system cavity and configured to couple with a wall below a sill of a window”. The term “assembly” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the heat pump system cavity is configured to couple with a wall below a sill of a window. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of coupling the heat pump system cavity to a wall below a sill of a window. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20250290663) in view of Eicher et al (US 20250207812).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a heat pump system (100), the heat pump system comprising: an internal unit (10) that includes: an internal unit heat exchanger (11), an internal unit fan (13), and an internal unit reservoir (12) disposed below the internal unit heat exchanger (fig. 2) and configured to receive fluid dripping from the internal unit heat exchanger (water, paragraph 0037); an external unit (20) that includes: an external unit heat exchanger(21), an external unit fan (23), and an external unit reservoir (22) disposed below the external unit heat exchanger and configured to receive fluid dripping from the external unit heat exchanger (water, paragraph 0037); and a fluid handling system (42, 31, 32, 33, 70) that includes: a first fluid line (41), a fluid pump (42) that pumps fluid from the internal unit reservoir into the external unit reservoir via the first fluid line (a second water conveying tube 41 having an end in communication with the indoor drain pan 12, and another end extending towards the outdoor unit assembly 20; and a second water conveying member 42 connected to the second water conveying tube 41, paragraph 0052), a sprayer (70) configured to obtain fluid from the external unit reservoir and expel the fluid obtained from the external unit reservoir into the outdoor space (The first water conveying member 32 can convey the water in the outdoor drain pan 22 to the sprayer device 70 through the first water conveying tube 31, the sprayer device 70 can transform the water in the outdoor drain pan 22 into the water mist and spray the water mist to the air outlet side of the outdoor fan 23. The water mist is blown away by the outdoor fan 23, paragraph 0048), the sprayer obtaining fluid from the collection area (area including 33, paragraph 0048) but fails to explicitly teach a bridge comprising an operable coupling between the internal unit and the external unit; a heat pump system cavity defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; a coupling assembly extending within the heat pump system cavity and configured to couple with a wall below a sill of a window, the wall being disposed within the heat pump system cavity such that the internal unit is disposed within an indoor space proximate to the window and with the external unit disposed in an outdoor space proximate to the window, and with the bridge and the operable coupling extending through the window and over the sill of the window; at least three sprayers disposed proximate to a front face and a bottom face of the external unit, wherein the external unit reservoir is defined as an integral part of an external unit housing base that comprises a linear slope with an angle θ of at least 5° to allow for fluid to drain toward a collection area of the external unit housing base, with the linear slope being from a rear face of the external unit reservoir toward a front face of the external unit reservoir.
However, Eicher teaches a bridge (106) comprising an operable coupling (pathway, paragraph 0042) between the internal unit and the external unit (fig. 1b); a heat pump system cavity (annotated fig. 1I below) defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; a coupling assembly (annotated fig. 2b) extending within the heat pump system cavity (understood the coupling assembly annotated would be connected within 104) and configured to couple with a wall below a sill of a window (annotated fig. 2b illustrates a coupling below the sill. Accordingly, the self-contained heat pump room conditioning unit 100 can be configured to straddle a window sill or another opening in a building envelope, paragraph 0042), the wall being disposed within the heat pump system cavity such that the internal unit is disposed within an indoor space (102 indoor portion, paragraph 0038) proximate to the window and with the external unit disposed in an outdoor space (104 outdoor portion, paragraph 0038) proximate to the window, and with the bridge and the operable coupling extending through the window and over the sill of the window (The bridge portion 106 can have a length sufficiently long to extend across a standard windowsill, paragraph 0043); at least three sprayers (502, one, three, four, five, six, or more nozzles can be included, paragraph 0050) disposed proximate to a front face and a bottom face of the external unit (fig. 5b), the external unit reservoir is defined as an integral part of an external unit housing base (area housing 122, 508, fig. 5b) that comprises a linear slope with an angle θ of at least 5° (the outdoor base pan 132 can be sloped to bias the flow of condensate to one or more desired locations for subsequent discharge or removal from the indoor base pan 126, paragraph 0041, one of ordinary skill the art would recognize a gradual slope for efficient collection) to allow for fluid to drain toward a collection area (locations, paragraph 0041) of the external unit housing base to efficiently cool the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat pump system of Wang to include a bridge comprising an operable coupling between the internal unit and the external unit; a heat pump system cavity defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; a coupling assembly extending within the heat pump system cavity and configured to couple with a wall below a sill of a window, the wall being disposed within the heat pump system cavity such that the internal unit is disposed within an indoor space proximate to the window and with the external unit disposed in an outdoor space proximate to the window, and with the bridge and the operable coupling extending through the window and over the sill of the window; at least three sprayers disposed proximate to a front face and a bottom face of the external unit, wherein the external unit reservoir is defined as an integral part of an external unit housing base that comprises a linear slope with an angle θ of at least 5° to allow for fluid to drain toward a collection area of the external unit housing base in view of the teachings of Eicher to efficiently cool the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the linear slope being from a rear face of the external unit reservoir toward a front face of the external unit reservoir.
However, 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), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Eicher regarding the slope of the external unit reservoir. In essence, Eicher considers an sloped external unit reservoir. As per (2), based on the above teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reservoir can be sloped in a finite combination as follows: (A) front to rear (B) rear to front, or (C) pitched in the middle and sloped to the sides or side. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that changing the slope of the external unit reservoir will not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose, since water accumulation from the outdoor coil in Eicher will continue to operate regardless of the slope of the external unit reservoir. In other words, modifying the prior art to achieve any of the aforementioned combinations of (A), (B) and (C) can be done with a reasonable expectation of success. This is supported by the fact that Eicher considers the use of sloped base ban. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that choosing a direction of the slope can be done as a matter of routine optimization, in order to achieve a configuration of flow of condensate to one or more desired locations for subsequent discharge.
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 taken the teachings of Eicher and to have modified them by having the linear slope being from a rear face of the external unit reservoir toward a front face of the external unit reservoir, as a matter of choosing a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to achieve a desired level of condensate flow, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the combined teachings teach the external unit reservoir is configured to hold between 3.5 to 5 Liters of fluid without overflowing (paragraph 0037, 0044, the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a heat pump system (100), the heat pump system comprising: an internal unit (10); an external unit (20) that includes: an external unit heat exchanger(21), and an external unit reservoir (22) disposed below the external unit heat exchanger and configured to receive fluid dripping from the external unit heat exchanger (water, paragraph 0037); and a fluid handling system (42, 31, 32, 33, 70) that includes: a sprayer (70) configured to obtain fluid from the external unit reservoir and expel the fluid obtained from the external unit reservoir into the outdoor space (The first water conveying member 32 can convey the water in the outdoor drain pan 22 to the sprayer device 70 through the first water conveying tube 31, the sprayer device 70 can transform the water in the outdoor drain pan 22 into the water mist and spray the water mist to the air outlet side of the outdoor fan 23. The water mist is blown away by the outdoor fan 23, paragraph 0048) but fails to explicitly teach a bridge comprising an operable coupling between the internal unit and the external unit; a heat pump system cavity defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; at least three sprayers.
However, Eicher teaches a bridge (106) comprising an operable coupling (pathway, paragraph 0042) between the internal unit and the external unit (fig. 1b); a heat pump system cavity (annotated fig. 1I below) defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; at least three sprayers (502, one, three, four, five, six, or more nozzles can be included, paragraph 0050) (fig. 5b), to efficiently cool the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat pump system of Wang to include a bridge comprising an operable coupling between the internal unit and the external unit; a heat pump system cavity defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; at least three sprayers in view of the teachings of Eicher to efficiently cool the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wang, as modified, teaches an internal unit (10) that includes: an internal unit heat exchanger (11), and an internal unit reservoir (12) disposed below the internal unit heat exchanger (fig. 2) and configured to receive fluid dripping from the internal unit heat exchanger (water, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach a coupling assembly (annotated fig. 2b of Eicher) extending within the heat pump system cavity (understood the coupling assembly annotated would be connected within 104 of Eicher) and configured to couple with a wall of a building (annotated fig. 2b illustrates a coupling. Accordingly, the self-contained heat pump room conditioning unit 100 can be configured to straddle a window sill or another opening in a building envelope, paragraph 0042 of Eicher), the wall being disposed within the heat pump system cavity such that the internal unit is disposed within an indoor space (102 indoor portion, paragraph 0038 of Eicher) proximate to the building and with the external unit disposed in an outdoor space (104 outdoor portion, paragraph 0038) proximate to the opening, and with the bridge and the operable coupling extending through the opening (paragraph 0042 of Eicher.
PNG
media_image2.png
488
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wang, as modified, teaches the fluid handling system (42, 31, 32, 33, 70) comprises a first fluid line (41), a fluid pump (42) that pumps fluid from the internal unit reservoir into the external unit reservoir via the first fluid line (a second water conveying tube 41 having an end in communication with the indoor drain pan 12, and another end extending towards the outdoor unit assembly 20; and a second water conveying member 42 connected to the second water conveying tube 41, paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the least three sprayers (502, one, three, four, five, six, or more nozzles can be included, paragraph 0050) disposed proximate to a front face and a bottom face of the external unit (fig. 5b of Eicher).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the external unit reservoir is defined as an integral part of an external unit housing base (area housing 122, 508, fig. 5b of Eicher) that comprises a linear slope with an angle θ of at least 5° (the outdoor base pan 132 can be sloped to bias the flow of condensate to one or more desired locations for subsequent discharge or removal from the indoor base pan 126, paragraph 0041 of Eicher, one of ordinary skill the art would recognize a gradual slope for efficient collection) to allow for fluid to drain toward a collection area (locations, paragraph 0041 of Want) of the external housing base, the at least three sprayers (502 of Eicher) obtaining fluid from the collection area (area including 33, paragraph 0048 of Wang).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches a heat pump system (100), the heat pump system comprising: an external unit (20) that includes: an external unit heat exchanger(21), and an external unit reservoir (22) disposed below the external unit heat exchanger and configured to receive fluid dripping from the external unit heat exchanger (water, paragraph 0037); and a fluid handling system (42, 31, 32, 33, 70) that includes: a sprayer (70) configured to obtain fluid from the external unit reservoir and expel the fluid obtained from the external unit reservoir into the outdoor space (The first water conveying member 32 can convey the water in the outdoor drain pan 22 to the sprayer device 70 through the first water conveying tube 31, the sprayer device 70 can transform the water in the outdoor drain pan 22 into the water mist and spray the water mist to the air outlet side of the outdoor fan 23. The water mist is blown away by the outdoor fan 23, paragraph 0048) but fails to explicitly teach one or more sprayers.
However, Eicher teaches one or more sprayers (502, one, three, four, five, six, or more nozzles can be included, paragraph 0050) to efficiently cool the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat pump system of Wang to include a bridge comprising an operable coupling between the internal unit and the external unit; a heat pump system cavity defined by the internal unit, the external unit and the bridge; at least three sprayers in view of the teachings of Eicher to efficiently cool the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
Regarding claim 12, Wang, as modified teaches the external unit reservoir (22) disposed below the external unit heat exchanger and configured to receive fluid dripping from the external unit heat exchanger (water, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 13, Wang, as modified, teaches the fluid handling system (42, 31, 32, 33, 70) comprises a first fluid line (41), a fluid pump (42) that pumps fluid from an internal unit reservoir (12) into the external unit reservoir via the first fluid line (a second water conveying tube 41 having an end in communication with the indoor drain pan 12, and another end extending towards the outdoor unit assembly 20; and a second water conveying member 42 connected to the second water conveying tube 41, paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach one or more sprayers (502, one, three, four, five, six, or more nozzles can be included, paragraph 0050 of Eicher) disposed proximate to a front face and a bottom face of the external unit (fig. 5b of Eicher).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the external unit reservoir is defined as an integral part of an external unit housing base (area housing 122, 508, fig. 5b of Eicher)
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach the external unit reservoir is comprises a linear slope with an angle θ of at least 2° (the outdoor base pan 132 can be sloped to bias the flow of condensate to one or more desired locations for subsequent discharge or removal from the indoor base pan 126, paragraph 0041 of Eicher, one of ordinary skill the art would recognize a gradual slope for efficient collection) to allow for fluid to drain toward a collection area (locations, paragraph 0041 of Want) of the external housing base, the at least three sprayers (502 of Eicher) obtaining fluid from the collection area (area including 33, paragraph 0048 of Wang).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20250290663) in view of Eicher et al (US 20250207812) as applied to claim and in further view of Eicher at al (US 20250198650, herein ‘650).
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach the at least three sprayers are ultrasonic perforated mesh atomizers having between 7.0 μm mesh size and 14.0 μm mesh size and collectively configured to generate a spray rate of at least 6.67 L/day at 0° C. and a spray rate of at least 11.2 L/day at 30° C. and operating at a driving voltage of 15-42.4 V peak.
However, ‘650 teaches the at least three sprayers (any number can be used, paragraph 0045) are ultrasonic perforated mesh atomizers (piezo atomizer, paragraph 0045) having between 7.0 μm mesh size and 14.0 μm mesh size and collectively configured to generate a spray rate of at least 6.67 L/day at 0° C. and a spray rate of at least 11.2 L/day at 30° C. and operating at a driving voltage of 15-42.4 V peak (The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)) to easily dissipate or be carried away by wind or the exhaust of the outdoor unit
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat pump system of the combined teachings to include at least three sprayers are ultrasonic perforated mesh atomizers having between 7.0 μm mesh size and 14.0 μm mesh size and collectively configured to generate a spray rate of at least 6.67 L/day at 0° C. and a spray rate of at least 11.2 L/day at 30° C. and operating at a driving voltage of 15-42.4 V peak in view of the teachings of ‘650 easily dissipate or be carried away by wind or the exhaust of the outdoor unit.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the combined teachings teach a heating assembly that includes a Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) heating element (414, electric heating element, paragraph 0051 of ‘650) that snakes (fig. 5 of ‘650) within a plurality of at least three brackets (holder for pump 306 and tubing to nozzle 304, paragraph 0046 of ‘650) that define fluid ports (holder for pump 306 and tubing to nozzle 304, paragraph 0046, the heat source 414 and fan 408 may be disposed within the outdoor base pain 132 and may blow heated air on the condensate therein, paragraph 0051 of ‘650), the heating element heated via electric power to heat the at least three brackets along with heating the at least three sprayers that are respectively associated with the brackets and the fluid ports (paragraph 0051 of ‘650), the heating of the heating element preventing fluid proximate to the heating element from freezing, which may otherwise clog the at least three sprayers (freezing, paragraph 0051 of ‘650), the heating element being between 4 and 6 feet in length and operating with a power of <45 W (The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763