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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 15, last line, “110 degrees..” should read “110 degrees..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Tilting of the features, such as:
the top surface 12 tilts backwards and downwards as described in Par. 0066 of the as-filed specification and claim 25
the bottom surface 14 tilts backwards and downwards as described in Par. 0067 of the as-filed specification and claim 28, and
the upper and lower portions of the front surface tilt backwards and upwards or downwards, respectively, as described in Par. 0065 and claim 27
are interpreted under the definition of ‘tilt’ as ‘a sloping surface’, i.e., reciting that the shape of the structure is tilted, rather the definition of ‘tilt’ as ‘move or shift so as to lean or incline’, i.e., reciting that the structure itself must move or shift. This interpretation is at least based on Figs. 1-2 which show the structures of the top surface 12, bottom surface 14, and front surface 11 are sloped as claimed but do not appear to be capable of moving or shifting.
Figure 4 is understood to be prior art, rather than an illustration of the Applicant’s invention.
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 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding broader and narrower ranges within the same claim:
Claim 7, lines 7-10 recite “a first intersection angle…is greater than or equal to 60 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees, wherein the first intersection angle is greater than or equal to 90 degrees and less than or equal to 110 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broader recitation “a first intersection angle…is greater than or equal to 60 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees“ and the claim also recites the narrower recitation “the first intersection angle is greater than or equal to 90 degrees and less than or equal to 110 degrees “ The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that prior art reads on the limitation if the prior art teaches either or both of the broader and narrower recitations.
Claim 10, lines 2-5 recite “a second intersection angle…is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees, wherein the second intersection angle is greater than or equal to 70 degrees and less than or equal to 75 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that prior art reads on the limitation if the prior art teaches either or both of the broader and narrower recitations.
Claim 12, lines 2-5 recite “a third intersection angle…is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 155 degrees, wherein the third intersection angle is greater than or equal to 140 degrees and less than or equal to 145 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that prior art reads on the limitation if the prior art teaches either or both of the broader and narrower recitations.
Claim 15, lines 2-4 recite “a fourth intersection angle…is greater than 0 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees, wherein the fourth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 3 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that prior art reads on the limitation if the prior art teaches either or both of the broader and narrower recitations.
Claim 17, lines 2-4 recite “a fifth intersection angle…is greater than or equal to 5 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees, wherein the fifth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that prior art reads on the limitation if the prior art teaches either or both of the broader and narrower recitations.
Claim 19, lines 10-12 recite “a sixth intersection angle…is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 200 degrees, wherein the sixth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 155 degrees and less than or equal to 175 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that prior art reads on the limitation if the prior art teaches either or both of the broader and narrower recitations.
Regarding numbering of the intersection angles:
Claim 10, lines 2-5 recite “second intersection angle” which renders the claim indefinite. The use of ‘second’ implies there is a ‘first’ instance of an intersection angle, but there are no intersection angles recited in the parent (claim 6) or base (claim 1) claims. Examiner notes a ‘first intersection angle’ was recited in claim 7, but that claim 10 has no dependency from claim 7. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that claim 10 only requires one intersection angle. Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant 1) amend claim 10 to recite “ intersection angle” instead of “second intersection angle” or 2) modify the claim dependencies to resolve the issues noted above if a different interpretation is desired.
Claim 12, lines 2-5 recite “third intersection angle” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that claim 12 only requires one intersection angle. Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant 1) amend claim 12 to recite “intersection angle” instead of “third intersection angle” or 2) modify the claim dependencies to resolve the issues noted above if a different interpretation is desired.
Claim 15, lines 2-4 recite “fourth intersection angle” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that claim 15 only requires one intersection angle. Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant 1) amend claim 15 to recite “intersection angle” instead of “fourth intersection angle” or 2) modify the claim dependencies to resolve the issues noted above if a different interpretation is desired.
Claim 17, lines 2-4 recite “fifth intersection angle” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that claim 17 only requires one intersection angle. Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant 1) amend claim 17 to recite “intersection angle” instead of “fifth intersection angle” or 2) modify the claim dependencies to resolve the issues noted above if a different interpretation is desired.
Claim 19, lines 10-12 recite “sixth intersection angle” which renders the claim indefinite for the same or substantially the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that claim 19 only requires one intersection angle. Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant 1) amend claim 19 to recite “intersection angle” instead of “sixth intersection angle” or 2) modify the claim dependencies to resolve the issues noted above if a different interpretation is desired.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
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 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (US 5664428 A, hereafter Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a wall-mounted air conditioner (Abstract), comprising: a housing (Fig. 7, housing 1C) and a heat exchanger (Fig. 7, heat exchanger 6), wherein the housing has an air duct therein (Fig. 7, fan chamber 17), the air duct comprises an air inlet (Fig. 7, first air inlet port 9) and an air outlet (Fig. 7, air outlet port 11), and at least a part of the air inlet is on a front surface of the housing (Fig. 7 and Abstract, first air inlet port 9 is on the front surface of housing 1C that extends from the air outlet port 11 to the back of the housing facing the wall).
Regarding claim 23, Sugiyama discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the front surface of the housing (Fig. 7 and Abstract, front surface of housing 1C that extends from the air outlet port 11 to the back of the housing facing the wall) is directly connected to a rear surface of the housing (Fig. 7 and Abstract, back of the housing facing the wall).
Claims 1-4, 6, 14, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabe et al. (JPH10311552A, hereinafter Kawabe, as cited in the Applicant’s 06/05/2025 IDS).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Kawabe ‘552.
Regarding claim 1, Kawabe discloses a wall-mounted air conditioner (Par. 0001, “indoor unit of an air conditioner” and Par. 0006, “the unit is attached to a wall surface of a house”), comprising: a housing (Figs. 1-2, front panel 3, front case 4, and horizontal blade 11) and a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 6), wherein the housing has an air duct therein (annotated Fig. A, air duct. Air is sucked through front suction port 13 and upper suction port 14, flows through the channel or duct identified in annotated Fig. A, and is blown out from blowout port 15; therefore, the structure identified as an air duct in annotated Fig. A is an ‘air duct’. See Pars. 0003 and 0015), the air duct comprises an air inlet (Fig. 2, front suction port 13 and upper suction port 14) and an air outlet (Fig. 2, blowout port 15), and at least a part of the air inlet (Fig. 2, at least front suction port 13) is on a front surface of the housing (Fig. 2, front panel 3 and horizontal blade 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Air Duct)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Air Inlet)][AltContent: textbox (Air Outlet)][AltContent: connector]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 2, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, further comprising a fan wheel (Fig. 1, blower 8 and Par. 0012, “blower 8 including a cross-flow fan”) in the air duct (annotated Fig. A, air duct), wherein the heat exchanger (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 6) is disposed between the air inlet (Fig. 1, front suction port 13 and upper suction port 14) and the fan wheel (Fig. 1, blower 8).
Regarding claim 3, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein a distance between a top surface of the housing (Fig. 1, top surface of front case 4) and an indoor top wall is less than or equal to 20 cm (The limitation “a distance between a top surface of the housing and an indoor top wall is less than or equal to 20 cm an textile dryer” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The apparatus disclosed by Kawabe possesses every element in claims 1 and 3 and is capable of being less than or equal to 20 cm below an indoor top wall at least because of front suction port 13).
Regarding claim 4, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 6) is arranged in the air duct (annotated Fig. A, air duct) and corresponding to the air inlet (Fig. 1, front suction port 13 and upper suction port 14), wherein the air outlet (Fig. 1, blowout port 15) is below the air inlet (See annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 6, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the air duct (annotated Fig. A, air duct) comprises an inlet air duct (annotated Fig. A, air inlet, which encompasses the air duct above the dashed line) and an outlet air duct (annotated Fig. A, air outlet, which encompasses the air duct below the dashed line); the wall-mounted air conditioner further comprises a fan wheel (Fig. 1, blower 8 and Par. 0012, “blower 8 including a cross-flow fan”) in the air duct; and the fan wheel is at a junction of the inlet air duct and the outlet air duct (See annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 14, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6, wherein in a vertical plane perpendicular to a rotation axis of the fan wheel (annotated Fig. B, vertical plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of blower 8), a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. C; A) has a first straight segment (annotated Fig. B; A) adjacent to the air outlet (Fig. 1, blowout port 15), and a second side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. B; B) has a second straight segment (annotated Fig. B; C) adjacent to the air outlet (Fig. 1, blowout port 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First junction point)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Base point)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 24, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein an upper edge of the front surface of the housing (Fig. 2, upper edge of front panel 3) is connected to a rear surface of the housing (Fig. 2, rear surface of front case 4) through a top surface of the housing (Fig. 2, top surface of front case 4); and a lower edge of the front surface of the housing (Fig. 2, lower edge of front panel 3) and the rear surface of the housing are connected through a bottom surface of the housing (Figs. 1-2, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the lower edge of front panel 3 is at least connected to the rear surface of front case 4 through the bottom surface of the side wall of front case 4 shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 24, wherein: the top surface is a horizontal surface (Fig. 1, top surface of front case 4).
Regarding claim 26, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the front surface of the housing (Figs. 1-2, front panel 3 and horizontal blade 11) is a curved or bent surface protruding forwards (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein:
the front surface of the housing (Fig. 2, front panel 3 and horizontal blade 11) comprises an upper portion (Fig. 2, portion of front panel 3 with upper surface suction port 14), a lower portion (Fig. 2, horizontal blade 11), and an intermediate portion connecting the upper portion and the lower portion (Fig. 2, portion of front panel 3 with front suction port 13);
the intermediate portion is a vertical surface or an arc-shaped surface (Figs. 1-2, portion of front panel 3 with front suction port 13), the upper portion is an inclined surface that tilts backwards and upwards (Figs. 1-2), and the lower portion is an inclined surface that tilts backwards and downwards (Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claims 7, 9, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe et al. (JPH10311552A, hereinafter Kawabe, as cited in the Applicant’s 06/05/2025 IDS) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2019001114 A1, hereafter Wang).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Wang ‘114.
Regarding claim 7, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6, wherein:
in a vertical plane perpendicular to a length direction of the air duct (annotated Fig. C, vertical plane perpendicular to the length direction of the air duct), a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. C; A) intersects with a first side edge of a projection of the inlet air duct (annotated Fig. C; B) at a first junction point (annotated Fig. C, first junction point);
a rotation axis of the fan wheel (Fig. 2, rotation axis of blower 8) intersects with the vertical plane at a base point (annotated Fig. C, base point); and
a first intersection angle (annotated Fig. C; C) between a first connection line between the base point and the first junction point (annotated Fig. C; D) and a horizontal line forward from the base point (annotated Fig. C; E) is greater than or equal to 60 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees, wherein the first intersection angle is greater than or equal to 90 degrees and less than or equal to 110 degrees (See annotated Fig. C).
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Kawabe is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Figure B does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the relative ratio is close to the claimed range.
Wang discloses a duct assembly with a cross-flow impeller 50 and air duct 70 (Par. 0006 and Fig. 4) similar to the present invention and Wang further discloses it is known for a first intersection angle between a first connection line (Fig. 4, dashed line connecting root M to axis O of cross-flow impeller 50) between a base point (Fig. 4, axis O of cross-flow impeller 50) and the first junction point (Fig. 4, root M) and a line from the base point (Fig. 4, root N) is greater than or equal to 60 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees, wherein the first intersection angle is greater than or equal to 90 degrees and less than or equal to 110 degrees (Par. 0061).
Although the first intersection angle of Wang may not be with respect to a horizontal surface, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to change the reference frame to use a horizontal axis as the angle defining the axis of the fan wheel and air duct. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle between the axis of the fan wheel and the air duct can be optimized to improve performance of the air conditioner, were disclosed in the prior art by Wang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a first intersection angle between the first connection line and the horizontal surface in the range as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In this case, changing the angle between the axis of the fan wheel and the air duct would provide the predicable benefit of increasing the air volume of Kawabe’s device (As suggested by Par. 0065 of Wang).
Regarding claim 9, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6.
However, Kawabe does not disclose wherein a minimum distance between a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct and an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel is greater than or equal to 4 millimeters and less than or equal to 8 millimeters.
Wang discloses a duct assembly with a cross-flow impeller 50 and air duct 70 (Par. 0006 and Fig. 1) similar to the present invention and Wang further discloses it is known for a minimum distance (Fig. 4, minimum distance B) between a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (Fig. 4, inner side edge of first air deflector 13) and an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel (Fig. 4, outer contour of cross-flow impeller 50) is equal to 4 millimeters and less than 8 millimeters (Par. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawabe with the minimum distance taught by Wang in order to have a minimum distance between a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct and an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel is greater than or equal to 4 millimeters and less than or equal to 8 millimeters and thereby optimize the structure of the air duct to improve the internal flow field of the fan wheel and reduce noise (As suggested by Par. 0067 of Wang: “As shown in Figure 4, the minimum distance B between the first volute tongue 11 and the cross-flow impeller 50 is 2mm-4mm. In this way, the structure of the volute 10 and the air duct 70 are optimized, the leakage between the first volute tongue 11 and the cross-flow impeller 50 is reduced, the internal flow field of the cross-flow impeller 50 is improved, the state of the eccentric volute is improved, and the wind pressure is increased. At the same time, the reduction in leakage can also reduce the impact on the cross-flow impeller 50 and reduce noise.”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Wang teaches the claimed limitations, it’s the Examiner’s position that since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the distance between the outlet air duct and fan wheel can be optimized to improve performance, were disclosed in the prior art by Wang, then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a minimum distance between the outlet air duct and the fan wheel as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 19, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6, wherein:
in a vertical plane perpendicular to a length direction of the air duct (annotated Fig. C, vertical plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of blower 8), a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. C; A) intersects with a first side edge of a projection of the inlet air duct (annotated Fig. C; B) at a first junction point (annotated Figs. C and D, first junction point), and a second side edge of the projection of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. D; A) intersects with a second side edge of the projection of the inlet air duct (annotated Fig. D; B) at a second junction point (annotated Fig. D, second junction point);
a rotation axis of the fan wheel (Fig. 2, rotation axis of blower 8) intersects with the vertical plane at a base point (annotated Fig. C, base point); a line connecting the base point with the first junction point is a first connection line (annotated Fig. D; C), and
a line connecting the base point with the second junction point is a second connection line (annotated Fig. D; D); and
a sixth intersection angle (annotated Fig. D; E) between the first connection line and the second connection line is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 200 degrees, wherein the sixth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 155 degrees and less than or equal to 175 degrees (See annotated Fig. D).
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Kawabe is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Fig. D does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the relative ratio is close to the claimed range.
Wang discloses a duct assembly with a cross-flow impeller 50 and air duct 70 (Par. 0006 and Fig. 1) similar to the present invention and Wang further discloses it is known for a sixth intersection angle (Fig. 4, angle A) between a first connection line (Fig. 4, dashed line connecting root M to axis O of cross-flow impeller 50) and a second connection line (Fig. 4, dashed line connecting root N to axis O of cross-flow impeller 50) is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 200 degrees, wherein the sixth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 155 degrees and less than or equal to 175 degrees (Par. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sixth intersection angle of Kawabe with the same of Wang in order to have a sixth intersection angle between the first connection line and the second connection line is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 200 degrees, wherein the sixth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 155 degrees and less than or equal to 175 degrees and thereby optimize the structure of the air duct to increase air volume (As suggested by Par. 0035 of Wang: “optimizes the air duct structure by setting the angle between the line connecting the root M of the first volute tongue to the axis O of the cross flow impeller and the line connecting the root N of the second volute tongue to the axis O of the cross-flow impeller between 110° and 170°. This reduces leakage between the two volute tongues, improves the flow state of the leakage, and reduces the impact of the leakage on the cross-flow impeller. As a result, the air intake conditions of the inlet side blade channel of the cross-flow impeller and the internal flow field of the cross-flow impeller are effectively improved. The size of the eccentric volute inside the cross-flow impeller is reduced, and the shape and position of the eccentric volute are improved, making the eccentric volute smaller, rounder, and closer to the inner edge of the cross-flow impeller. This increases the effective flow area inside the cross-flow impeller and makes the internal flow field of the cross-flow impeller more stable, thereby increasing the air volume”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Wang teaches the claimed limitations, it’s the Examiner’s position that since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. an angle between the first and second connection lines can be optimized to improve performance, were disclosed in the prior art by Wang, then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a sixth intersection angle between the first and second connection lines as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second junction point)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base point)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First junction point)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 21, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6, wherein in a vertical plane perpendicular to a length direction of the air duct (annotated Fig. D, vertical plane perpendicular to the length direction of the air duct), a second side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. D; A) comprises an arc-shaped segment (annotated Fig. D; B).
However, Kawabe does not disclose the arc-shaped segment is concentric with an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel, wherein a distance between the arc-shaped segment and the outer contour of the projection of the fan wheel is greater than or equal to 4 millimeters and less than or equal to 9 millimeters.
Wang discloses a duct assembly with a cross-flow impeller 50 and air duct 70 (Par. 0006 and Fig. 1) similar to the present invention and Wang further discloses it is known for an arc-shaped segment (Fig. 4, volute tongue member 31) of a second side edge of a projection (Fig. 4, second air deflector 33) of an outlet duct (Fig. 4, outlet portion of air duct 70) to be concentric with an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel (Fig. 4, outer contour of cross-flow impeller 50), wherein a distance (Fig. 4, minimum distance C) between the arc-shaped segment and the outer contour of the projection of the fan wheel is greater than or equal to 4 millimeters and less than or equal to 9 millimeters (Par. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arc-shaped segment of a second side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct and the outer contour of the projection of the fan wheel of Kawabe with the same of Wang in order to have the arc-shaped segment is concentric with an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel, wherein a distance between the arc-shaped segment and the outer contour of the projection of the fan wheel is greater than or equal to 4 millimeters and less than or equal to 9 millimeters and thereby optimize the structure of the arc-shaped segment and air duct to reduce noise (As suggested by Par. 0068 of Wang: “As shown in Figure 4, the minimum distance C between the second volute tongue 31 and the cross-flow impeller 50 is 2mm-4mm. In this way, the structure of the volute tongue 30 and the air duct 70 are optimized, the leakage between the second volute tongue 31 and the cross-flow impeller 50 is reduced, the internal flow field of the cross-flow impeller 50 is improved, the state of the eccentric volute is improved, and the wind pressure is increased. At the same time, the reduction in leakage can also reduce the impact on the cross-flow impeller 50 and reduce noise.”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Wang teaches the claimed limitations, it’s the Examiner’s position that since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a distance between an arc-shaped segment of a second side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct and the outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel can be optimized to improve performance, were disclosed in the prior art by Wang, then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a distance between an arc-shaped segment of a second side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct and the outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology. Note part of the outline of the air duct is removed to better show the arc-shaped segment.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe et al. (JPH10311552A, hereinafter Kawabe, as cited in the Applicant’s 06/05/2025 IDS) in view of Nawa et al. (JP 53059247 A, hereafter Nawa).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Nawa ‘247.
Regarding claim 10, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6, wherein in a vertical plane perpendicular to a length direction of the air duct (annotated Fig. E, vertical plane perpendicular to the length direction of the air duct), a second intersection angle (annotated Fig. E; A) between a centerline of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. E; B) and a centerline of the inlet air duct (annotated Fig. E; C) is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees, wherein the second intersection angle is greater than or equal to 70 degrees and less than or equal to 75 degrees (See annotated Fig. E).
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Kawabe is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Fig. E does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the relative ratio is close to the claimed range.
Nawa discloses an air conditioner (“Title of the Invention”, line 1) similar to the present invention and Nawa further discloses it is known for a second intersection angle (annotated Fig. F; A. Note the scale in the bottom left corner) between a centerline of the outlet air duct (Fig. 1, center axis J-0) and a centerline of the inlet air duct (annotated Fig. F; B) is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees, wherein the second intersection angle is greater than or equal to 70 degrees and less than or equal to 75 degrees (See annotated Fig. F; B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second intersection of angle of Kawabe with the same of Nawa in order to have a second intersection angle between a centerline of the outlet air duct and a centerline of the inlet air duct is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 85 degrees, wherein the second intersection angle is greater than or equal to 70 degrees and less than or equal to 75 degrees and thereby control the direction air is blown out from the air conditioner (As suggested by the 2nd paragraph before start of “Brief Description of the Drawings” of Nawa: “the air can be blown out toward the wall side rather than vertically downward at the time of downward blowout, and can be blown out upward rather than horizontally at the time of forward blowout”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Nawa teaches the claimed limitations, it’s the Examiner’s position that since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle between the centerlines of the inlet and outlet air ducts can be optimized to improve performance, were disclosed in the prior art by Nawa, then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a second intersection angle between the centerlines of the inlet and outlet air ducts as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
Fig. E: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image3.png
630
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector]
Fig. F: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Nawa showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 12, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 6, wherein in a vertical plane perpendicular to a length direction of the air duct (annotated Fig. G; vertical plane perpendicular to the length direction of the air duct), a third intersection angle (annotated Fig. G; A) between a centerline of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. G; B) and a vertical upward direction (annotated Fig. G; C) is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 155 degrees, wherein the third intersection angle is greater than or equal to 140 degrees and less than or equal to 145 degrees (See annotated Fig. G).
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Kawabe is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Fig. G does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the relative ratio is close to the claimed range.
Nawa discloses an air conditioner (“Title of the Invention”, line 1) similar to the present invention and Nawa further discloses it is known for a third intersection angle (annotated Fig. H; A) between a centerline of the outlet air duct (Fig. 1, center axis J-0) and a vertical upward direction (annotated Fig. H; B) is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 155 degrees, wherein the third intersection angle is greater than or equal to 140 degrees and less than or equal to 145 degrees (See annotated Fig. H).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third intersection of angle of Kawabe with the same of Nawa in order to have a third intersection angle between a centerline of the outlet air duct and a vertical upward direction is greater than or equal to 120 degrees and less than or equal to 155 degrees, wherein the third intersection angle is greater than or equal to 140 degrees and less than or equal to 145 degrees and thereby control the direction air is blown out from the air conditioner (As suggested by the 2nd paragraph before start of “Brief Description of the Drawings” of Nawa: “the air can be blown out toward the wall side rather than vertically downward at the time of downward blowout, and can be blown out upward rather than horizontally at the time of forward blowout”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Nawa teaches the claimed limitations, it’s the Examiner’s position that since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle between the centerline of the outlet air duct and a vertical upward direction can be optimized to improve performance, were disclosed in the prior art by Nawa, then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a third intersection angle between the centerline of the outlet air duct and a vertical upward direction as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
Fig. G: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image3.png
630
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector]
Fig. H: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Nawa showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claims 15, 17, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe et al. (JPH10311552A, hereinafter Kawabe, as cited in the Applicant’s 06/05/2025 IDS) in view of Shiraichi et al. (JP 2007-170308 A, hereafter Shiraichi).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Shiraichi ‘308.
Regarding claim 15, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 14, wherein a fourth intersection angle (annotated Fig. I; A) between the second straight segment (annotated Fig. I; B) and a centerline of the outlet air duct (annotated Fig. I; C) is greater than 0 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees, wherein the fourth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 3 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees (See annotated Fig. I).
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Kawabe is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Fig. I does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the relative ratio is close to the claimed range.
Shiraichi discloses an air conditioner (“Solution”, lines 1-2) similar to the present invention and Shiraichi further discloses it is known for an intersection angle (Fig. 2, diffuser opening angle ŋ) between a second straight segment (Fig. 2, top sidewall surface 28a) and a first straight segment (Fig. 2, bottom sidewall surface 28b) of an outlet air duct (Fig. 1, air blowing duct 23) is greater than 0 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees, wherein the fourth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 3 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees (Par. 0053). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the angle formed by a centerline of the outlet air duct and a second straight segment would be half of the total outlet area and the opening angle taught by Shiraichi falls within the range claimed. Further, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle formed between the first and second straight segments can be optimized to improve performance of the air conditioner, were disclosed in the prior art by Shiraichi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a fourth intersection angle between a centerline of the outlet air duct and the second straight segment be in the range as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc]
Fig. I: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 17, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 14, wherein a fifth intersection angle (annotated Fig. J; A) between the first straight segment (annotated Fig. J; B) and the second straight segment (annotated Fig. J; C) is greater than or equal to 5 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees, wherein the fifth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees (See annotated Fig. J).
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Kawabe is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Fig. J does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the relative ratio is close to the claimed range.
Shiraichi discloses an air conditioner (“Solution”, lines 1-2) similar to the present invention and Shiraichi further discloses it is known for a fifth intersection angle (Fig. 2, diffuser opening angle ŋ) between a first straight segment (Fig. 2, bottom sidewall surface 28b) and a second straight segment (Fig. 2, top sidewall surface 28a) and of an outlet air duct (Fig. 1, air blowing duct 23) is greater than or equal to 5 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees, wherein the fifth intersection angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees (Par. 0053). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle formed by the first and second straight segments can be optimized to improve performance of the air conditioner, were disclosed in the prior art by Shiraichi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a fifth intersection angle between a centerline of the outlet air duct and the second straight segment be in the range as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. J: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kawabe showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 28, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 24, wherein the bottom surface (Figs. 1-2, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the lower edge of front panel 3 is at least connected to the rear surface of front case 4 through the bottom surface of the side wall of front case 4 shown in Fig. 1) is a horizontal surface.
However, Kawabe does not disclose the bottom surface is a horizontal surface.
Shiraichi discloses an air conditioner (“Solution”, lines 1-2) similar to the present invention and Shiraichi further discloses it is known for a bottom surface of a housing to be a horizontal surface (Fig. 1, bottom surface of exterior surface 21 (i.e., housing) is a horizontal surface).
The court has held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the shape of the bottom surface. On the contrary, the applicant states “The bottom surface 14 may be a horizontal surface… the bottom surface 14 may also be an inclined surface that tilts backwards and upwards”, which indicates the horizontal surface of the bottom surface is not critical because it could be inclined instead. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the bottom surface of Kawabe to be horizontal in view of the teachings of Shiraichi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ikeda et al. (US 6086324 A) discloses a wall-mounted air conditioner, comprising: a housing and a heat exchanger, wherein the housing has an air duct therein, the air duct comprises an air inlet and an air outlet, and at least a part of the air inlet is on a front surface of the housing.
Hamamoto et al. (US 5573059 A) discloses a wall-mounted air conditioner, comprising: a housing and a heat exchanger, wherein the housing has an air duct therein, the air duct comprises an air inlet and an air outlet, and at least a part of the air inlet is on a front surface of the housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762