DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 2/22/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US2018/0054089) in view Cho (US2014/0097697).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a control device [fig 6] comprising:
a first control board [610] connected with an AC power source [405] and equipped with a first control unit [210; 0041-0045; 0071; fig 6]; and
a second control board [620] provided separately and different from the first control board [610] and equipped with a second control unit [625; 0070-0073; fig 6]; wherein
the first control board [610] includes an AC-DC converter [605] configured to generate DC voltage from AC voltage, and DC output configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the board and also supply the DC voltage to outside the board [0071-0076], and the second control board [620] is supplied with the DC voltage from the DC output [0071-0076].
Lee does not teach where the first control board includes a noise filter, and DC output wiring configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the board and also supply the DC voltage to outside the board.
However, Cho teaches a wire-wireless combined power transmission apparatus [0001] having where the apparatus includes a noise filter [100; 0030-0035; where a noise filter is provided between an AC power source and an converter], and DC output wiring [at least the assembly of output filer 550, wired power supply unit 900, connector 910] configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the apparatus and also supply the DC voltage to outside the apparatus [0030-0036; 0043-0057; figs 1 & 2; where DC output wiring can be implemented into the system of Lee utilizing a substitution analysis] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide structure that removes electromagnetic interference from the system and where one skilled in the art can recognize that a wired power transmission structure offers a level of reliability over a wireless power transmission structure [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have where the first control board includes a noise filter, and DC output wiring configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the board and also supply the DC voltage to outside the board in view of the teachings of Cho where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide structure that removes electromagnetic interference from the system and where one skilled in the art can recognize that a wired power transmission structure offers a level of reliability over a wireless power transmission structure.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Lee teaches wherein the second control unit controls a function of ventilation, humidification, or washing [0013; 0015; 0016; fig 11].
Regarding Claim 8, Lee, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Lee teaches an air conditioner comprising the control device [0013; 0015; 0016; fig 11].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US2018/0054089) Cho (US2014/0097697) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamakaji et al. (WO2020174563A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the invention of claim 1 above and but does not teach where the first control board and the second control board are accommodated in a common case.
However, Yamakaji teaches an electrical device and an air conditioner [000] having where a first control board [28] and a second control board [29] are accommodated in a common case [21; see 0060; fig 12] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure having compact construction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have where the first control board and the second control board are accommodated in a common case in view of the teachings of Yamakaji where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure having compact construction.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US2018/0054089) Cho (US2014/0097697) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okuyama et al. (JP2016211779A).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the second control board includes a switching power source to be supplied with the DC voltage, and the switching power source has an output side provided with a second switch.
However, Okuyama teaches an air conditioner having first and second control boards [101; 102; 0001; 0026; fig 7] having wherein the second control board [102] includes a switching power source [102k] to be supplied with DC voltage [see at least 0031 where AC voltage is converted into DC voltage], and the switching power source has an output side provided with a second switch [switching IC 1012K or 1022K; 0050-0052; fig 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. where one skilled in the art would recognize the advantages of compact construction 0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have wherein the second control board includes a switching power source to be supplied with the DC voltage, and the switching power source has an output side provided with a second switch in view of the teachings of Okuyama where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system having compact construction.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US2018/0054089) and Cho (US2014/0097697) in view of Hirata et al. (US6727952).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches a control device [fig 6] comprising:
a first control board [610] connected with an AC power source [405] and equipped with a first control unit [210; 0041-0045; 0071; fig 6]; and
a second control board [620] provided separately and different from the first control board [610] and equipped with a second control unit [625; 0070-0073; fig 6]; wherein
the first control board [610] includes an AC-DC converter [605] configured to generate DC voltage from AC voltage, and DC output configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the board and also supply the DC voltage to outside the board [0071-0076], and the second control board [620] is supplied with the DC voltage from the DC output [0071-0076];
wherein the second control board includes a communication circuit configured to execute communication between the first control unit and the second control unit by means of a current signal [0072-0073; fig 6; see also 0105-0112; fig 10A; where at least coil 619 provides the respective input and outputs]; and
the communication circuit includes an input unit configured to provide an input signal from the first control board to the second control unit, an output unit connected in series to the input unit and configured to output an output signal from the second control unit to the first control board [0105-0112; fig 10A; where at least coil 619 provides the respective input and outputs]
Lee does not teach where the first control board includes a noise filter, and DC output wiring configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the board and also supply the DC voltage to outside the board. and a bypass circuit provided in parallel with the output unit and including a first switch, and where the second control unit closes the first switch when coming into a sleep mode and opens the first switch when cancelling the sleep mode.
However, Cho teaches a wire-wireless combined power transmission apparatus [0001] having where the apparatus includes a noise filter [100; 0030-0035; where a noise filter is provided between an AC power source and an converter], and DC output wiring [at least the assembly of output filer 550, wired power supply unit 900, connector 910] configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the apparatus and also supply the DC voltage to outside the apparatus [0030-0036; 0043-0057; figs 1 & 2; where DC output wiring can be implemented into the system of Lee utilizing a substitution analysis] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide structure that removes electromagnetic interference from the system and where one skilled in the art can recognize that a wired power transmission structure offers a level of reliability over a wireless power transmission structure [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have where the first control board includes a noise filter, and DC output wiring configured to allow the DC voltage to be used in the board and also supply the DC voltage to outside the board in view of the teachings of Cho where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide structure that removes electromagnetic interference from the system and where one skilled in the art can recognize that a wired power transmission structure offers a level of reliability over a wireless power transmission structure.
Also Hirata teaches an electronic device that implements a sleep-mode [fig 1] having a bypass circuit [at least the assembly of control unit (microcomputer) 3, control signal line C, switch 7] provided in parallel with an output unit [at least one of 11, 12] and including a first switch [7], and where the [second] control unit closes the first switch when coming into a sleep mode and opens the first switch when cancelling the sleep mode [col 4, line 41-col 5, line 34; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. minimizes power consumption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have a bypass circuit provided in parallel with the output unit and including a first switch, and where the second control unit closes the first switch when coming into a sleep mode and opens the first switch when cancelling the sleep mode in view of the teachings of Hirata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. minimizes power consumption.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above and Hirata teaches wherein, when the first switch is closed, electric resistance is less than electric resistance of the output unit [col 4, line 41-col 5, line 34; fig 1].
See also MPEP 2114 which states in part that an "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this instance the prior art teaches all of the recited claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Lee teaches wherein the second control unit controls a function of ventilation, humidification, or washing [0013; 0015; 0016; fig 11].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US2018/0054089), Cho (US2014/0097697) and Hirata et al. (US6727952) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US2006/0115366).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above but does not teach wherein the first switch is a semiconductor switch, and resistance is connected in series on a positive potential side from a control terminal.
However, Kwon teaches a power supply unit [11; 0005] having wherein a first switch [Tr] is a semiconductor switch, and resistance is connected in series on a positive potential side from a control terminal [0005; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides structure that controls the on-off operation of a component based upon a control signal and thereby improves the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have wherein the first switch is a semiconductor switch, and resistance is connected in series on a positive potential side from a control terminal in view of the teachings of Kwon where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides structure that controls the on-off operation of a component based upon a control signal and thereby improves the system.
See also MPEP 2114 which states in part that an "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this instance the prior art teaches all of the recited claim limitations.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US2018/0054089), Cho (US2014/0097697) and Hirata et al. (US6727952) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamakaji et al. (WO2020174563A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches the invention of claim 1 above and but does not teach where the first control board and the second control board are accommodated in a common case.
However, Yamakaji teaches an electrical device and an air conditioner [000] having where a first control board [28] and a second control board [29] are accommodated in a common case [21; see 0060; fig 12] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure having compact construction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Lee to have where the first control board and the second control board are accommodated in a common case in view of the teachings of Yamakaji where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure having compact construction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763