SNotice 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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 6/6/26 response to the Office Action dated 2/19/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 are amended.
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, and 23-28 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth objections and 112(b) rejections so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the prior art claim rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 10, lines 2-3, “a intersection angle” should read “an intersection angle” (emphasis added).
Any subsequent recitations of “a intersection” throughout the claims should also be corrected. See Claims 12, 15, 17, and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 14-15, 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.
Claim 2 recites a fan wheel on line 2. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, previously introduced a fan wheel on line 6. It is unclear whether the instance of this limitation in the dependent claim is meant to introduce a new structure (in which case the naming convention should be altered to distinguish the structures) or refer back to the same structure earlier introduced (in which case the article should be changed to “the”). For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that they are the same fan wheel.
Claim 14 recites a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct on lines 2-3. Claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, previously introduced a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct on line 7. It is unclear whether the instance of this limitation in the dependent claim is meant to introduce a new structure (in which case the naming convention should be altered to distinguish the structures) or refer back to the same structure earlier introduced (in which case the article should be changed to “the”). For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that they are the same first side edge.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same or substantially the same reason. See lines 3-4.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claims 15 and 17 are indefinite by virtue of their dependency from claim 14.
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.
NOTE: Citations are to Kawabe unless otherwise noted.
Claims 1-4, 7, 14, 21, and 24-28 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 Wang et al. (CN 105402821 A, hereinafter Wang ‘821).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Wang ‘821.
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),
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).
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.
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 4.5 millimeters and less than or equal to 8 millimeters.
Wang ‘821 discloses an air conditioning unit (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Wang ‘821 further discloses it is known for a minimum distance (Fig. 1 and Par. 0022, minimum gap δ1) between a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (Fig. 1 and Par. 0022, worm gear 4) and an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel (Fig. 1 and Par. 0022, outer edge of the cross-flow fan 3) is greater than or equal to 4.5 millimeters and less than 8 millimeters (Par. 0022, “the minimum gap δ1 between the worm gear 4 and the outer edge of the cross-flow fan 3 is 3.5mm to 8mm”).
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 ‘821 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 4.5 millimeters and less than or equal to 8 millimeters and thereby optimize the structure of the air duct to reduce the size of the indoor unit and also increase its airflow and reduce noise (As suggested by Par. 0022 of Wang ‘821: “This design not only reduces the size of the indoor unit but also increases its airflow and reduces noise”) for increased user comfort.
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 7, Kawabe, as modified above, 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 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.
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 ‘821 further discloses it is known for a intersection angle between a first connection line (Fig. 1, line connecting B to O of cross-flow fan 3) between a base point (Fig. 1, O of cross-flow fan 3) and the first junction point (Fig. 1, B) and a horizontal line forward from the base point (Fig. 1, horizontal line forward from O) is greater than or equal to 60 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees (Fig. 1 and Par. 0024, “the angle θ3 between the two ends of the second arc plate 1321 and the center of the cross-flow fan 3 is 70° to 80°; the angle θ4 between the two ends of the third arc plate 1322 and the center of the cross-flow fan 3 is 30° to 35°.” The claimed intersection angle is equal to the sum of θ3 and θ4. The range of the sum of θ3 and θ4 is 100° to 115°, which reads on the claimed limitation).
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 intersection angle of Kawabe, as modified above, with the same of Wang ‘821 in order to have a intersection angle between a first connection line between the base point and the first junction point and a horizontal line forward from the base point is greater than or equal to 60 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees and thereby optimize the structure of the air duct to increase air intake and exhaust volume and reduce noise (As suggested by Par. 0024 of Wang ‘821: “This setup optimizes the air duct, increasing the air intake and exhaust volume of the indoor unit and reducing its noise.”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Wang ‘821 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 ‘821, 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 intersection angle between the first and second connection lines as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 14, Kawabe discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, 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 21, Kawabe, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, 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, as modified above, 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 ‘821 further discloses it is known for an arc-shaped segment (Fig. 2, first arc plate 53) of a second side edge of a projection (Fig. 1, volute tongue 5) of an outlet duct (Figs. 1-2, outlet portion of air duct and Par. 0019, “An air duct is provided inside the housing 1”) to be concentric with an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel (Fig. 1, outer contour of cross-flow fan 3 and Par. 0028, “the volute tongue 5 includes a second straight plate 51, a rounded corner section 52, and a first arc plate 53 concentric with the cross-flow fan 3”), wherein a distance (Fig. 2, δ3) 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. 0028, “the gap δ3 between the first arc plate 53 and the outer edge of the cross-flow fan 3 is 5mm to 10mm”).
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, as modified above, with the same of Wang; ‘821 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 indoor unit to reduce noise (As suggested by Par. 0007 of Wang ‘821: “avoid the resonant noise generated by the cross-flow fan, thereby reducing the noise of the air conditioner indoor unit”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Wang ‘821 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 ‘821, 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: 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 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).
Regarding claim 28, Kawabe, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 24, with a 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, as modified above, does not disclose the bottom surface is a horizontal surface.
Wang ‘821 further discloses it is known for a bottom surface of a housing to be a horizontal surface (Figs. 1-2, bottom surface of housing 1 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, as modified above, to be horizontal in view of the teachings of Wang ‘821.
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 5664428 A, hereafter Sugiyama) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105402821 A, hereinafter Wang ‘821) and further in view of Nawa et al. (JP 53059247 A, hereafter Nawa).
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),
wherein the air duct comprises an inlet air duct (Fig. 3, air inlet port 9 to fan device 7) and an outlet air duct (Fig. 3, fan device 7 to air outlet port 11); the wall-mounted air conditioner further comprises a fan wheel (Fig. 3, fan device 7) in the air duct; and the fan wheel is at a junction of the inlet air duct and the outlet air duct (Fig. 3).
However, Sugiyama 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 4.5 millimeters and less than or equal to 8 millimeters.
Wang ‘821 discloses an air conditioning unit (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Wang ‘821 further discloses it is known for a minimum distance (Fig. 1 and Par. 0022, minimum gap δ1) between a first side edge of a projection of the outlet air duct (Fig. 1 and Par. 0022, worm gear 4) and an outer contour of a projection of the fan wheel (Fig. 1 and Par. 0022, outer edge of the cross-flow fan 3) is greater than or equal to 4.5 millimeters and less than 8 millimeters (Par. 0022, “the minimum gap δ1 between the worm gear 4 and the outer edge of the cross-flow fan 3 is 3.5mm to 8mm”).
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 Sugiyama with the minimum distance taught by Wang ‘821 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 4.5 millimeters and less than or equal to 8 millimeters and thereby optimize the structure of the air duct to reduce the size of the indoor unit and also increase its airflow and reduce noise (As suggested by Par. 0022 of Wang ‘821: “This design not only reduces the size of the indoor unit but also increases its airflow and reduces noise”) for increased user comfort.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees that Wang ‘821 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 ‘821, 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 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 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 Wang et al. (CN 105402821 A, hereinafter Wang ‘821) and further 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, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, 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 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 (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, as modified above, 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 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 (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 intersection of angle of Kawabe, as modified above, with the same of Nawa in order to have a 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 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 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, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, 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 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 (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, as modified above, 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 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 (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 intersection of angle of Kawabe, as modified above, with the same of Nawa in order to have a 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 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 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 and 17 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, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 14, wherein a 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 (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, as modified above, 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 (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 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, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 14, wherein a 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 (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, as modified above, 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 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 (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 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.
Claims 19 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. (CN 105402821 A, hereinafter Wang ‘821) and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2019001114 A1, hereafter Wang ‘114).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Wang ‘114.
Regarding claim 19, Kawabe, as modified above, discloses the wall-mounted air conditioner according to claim 1, 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 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 (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 ‘114 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 ‘114 further discloses it is known for a 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 (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 intersection angle of Kawabe, as modified above, with the same of Wang ‘114 in order to have a 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, and thereby optimize the structure of the air duct to increase air volume (As suggested by Par. 0035 of Wang ‘114: “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 ‘114 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 ‘114, 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 intersection angle between the first and second connection lines as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 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
Prosecution Insights