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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, Species BB, claims 1-3,7-12, 14, 20-29 in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges” and “a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “promixal” which is presumed to be a typographical error and interpreted to be -- proximal --. . 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3,7-12, 14, 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 1 and 25 recite “side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the side walls and the contaminant traps are “removably coupled to the base plate”. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. There is no way of determining what structure is required to have the side walls and the contaminant traps removed from the base plate. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the side walls and contaminant traps are capable of being removably coupled.
Claim 20 recites “a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the contaminant traps are “removably coupled to the base plate”. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. There is no way of determining what structure is required to have the contaminant traps removed from the base plate. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the contaminant traps are capable of being removably coupled.
Claims 3,7-12, 14, 20-24, 26-29 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3,7-8, 10-12, 14, 20-22, 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan (US 20140109602) in view of Lin (US 20200324239).
Regarding claim 1, Cerdan teaches a condensate tray assembly (30, 32, 34, 12, 10) for filtering condensate from a heat pump (58, which is part of an air conditioner (i.e. heat pump)), comprising: a base plate (30, 32, 34) comprising a proximal end (see annotated Fig. below), a distal end (annotated Fig. below), a left side edge (annotated Fig. below), and a right side edge (annotated Fig. below), the proximal end configured to be elevated relative to the distal end (annotated Fig. below) such that the condensate from the heat pump flows from the proximal end of the base plate toward the distal end of the base plate (arrow flow, fig. 10); side walls (walls of 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cerdan teaches the invention as describe above but fails to explicitly teach side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg and an outflow leg, wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray.
However, Lin teaches side walls (12) removably coupled (fig. 1) to the base plate (area holding 3) near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps (3) removably coupled (filter elements can slide out, paragraph 0002) to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg (water into 3, Fig. 3) and an outflow leg (water out of 3, Fig. 3), wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray (dirt or contaminates, paragraph 0013) to efficiently collect dirt and contaminants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condensate tray assembly of Cerdan to include side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg and an outflow leg, wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray in view of the teachings of Lin to efficiently collect dirt and contaminants.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Lin system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Lin, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed removability solves any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may by” the claimed structure (see paragraph 0019), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the removability of the side walls and containment traps as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claims 2, 21 and 26, the combined teachings teach the condensate tray assembly is configured to be slidably engageable (unnumbered brackets support 3 for slidably of Lin) with a condensate tray slot (opening of unnumbered brackets of Lin) of the heat pump, wherein the condensate tray slot comprises an opening (opening of unnumbered bracket supporting 3 of Lin) to an external surface of the heat pump (facing 12 of Lin).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the condensate tray assembly is configured to be operably engageable with the condensate tray slot to filter the condensate and operably disengageable from the condensate tray slot to remove collected contaminants would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Lin system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Lin, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed engagement solves any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may be” the claimed structure (see paragraph 0049), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the engagement of the condensate tray assembly as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claims 3, 22 and 26, the combined teachings teach the condensate tray assembly is configured to be operably engageable with the condensate tray slot to filter the condensate and operably (fig. 3 of Lin) disengageable from the condensate tray slot to remove collected contaminants (fig. 3, paragraph 0002 of Lin).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the condensate tray assembly is configured to be operably engageable with the condensate tray slot to filter the condensate and operably disengageable from the condensate tray slot to remove collected contaminants would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Lin system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Lin, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed engagement solves any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may be” the claimed structure (see paragraph 0049), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the engagement of the condensate tray assembly as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claims 4 and 27, the combined teachings teach the side walls are taller than the contaminant traps (fig. 3 of Lin).
Regarding claims 5 and 28, the combined teachings teach the condensate flows toward the distal end without overflowing the side walls when the contaminant traps reach a predetermined level of contamination (fig. 3 of Lin).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the contaminant traps further comprise one or more pleated screens (screen, paragraph 0011 of Lin).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the pleated screens further comprise filter media (Hepa or carbon, paragraph 0011 of Lin).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach one or more of the contaminant traps are perpendicular to the side walls (fig. 3 of Lin).
Regarding claims 14 and 24, the combined teachings teach the heat pump comprises a condensate pan (78 of Cerdan) fluidly coupled to the condensate tray assembly (fig. 10 of Cerdan), the condensate pan configured to receive the condensate formed by the heat pump and transfer the condensate to the proximal end of the base plate (flow in fig. 10 of Cerdan).
Regarding claim 20, Cerdan teaches a condensate tray assembly (30, 32, 34, 12, 10) for filtering condensate from a heat pump (58, which is part of an air conditioner (i.e. heat pump)), comprising: a base plate (30, 32, 34) comprising a proximal end (see annotated Fig. below), a distal end (annotated Fig. below), a left side edge (annotated Fig. below), and a right side edge (annotated Fig. below), the proximal end configured to be elevated relative to the distal end (annotated Fig. below) such that the condensate from the heat pump flows from the proximal end of the base plate toward the distal end of the base plate (arrow flow, fig. 10); side walls (walls of 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cerdan teaches the invention as describe above but fails to explicitly teach a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg and an outflow leg, wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray.
However, Lin teaches a plurality of contaminant traps (3) removably coupled (filter elements can slide out, paragraph 0002) to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg (water into 3, Fig. 3) and an outflow leg (water out of 3, Fig. 3), wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray (dirt or contaminates, paragraph 0013); and the condensate tray assembly is configured to be slidably engageable (unnumbered brackets support 3 for slidably) with a condensate tray slot (opening of unnumbered brackets) of the heat pump to efficiently collect dirt and contaminants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condensate tray assembly of Cerdan to include side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg and an outflow leg, wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across; and the condensate tray the condensate tray assembly is configured to be slidably engageable with a condensate tray slot in view of the teachings of Lin to efficiently collect dirt and contaminants.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate and wherein the condensate tray assembly is configured to be slidably engaged with a condensate tray slot of the heat pump would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Lin system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Lin, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed removability or engagement solves any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may by” the claimed types or others (see paragraph 0019, 0049), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the removability and engagement of the containment traps and condensate tray assembly as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 25, Cerdan teaches a condensate tray assembly (30, 32, 34, 12, 10) for filtering condensate from a heat pump (58, which is part of an air conditioner (i.e. heat pump)), comprising: a base plate (30, 32, 34) comprising a proximal end (see annotated Fig. below), a distal end (annotated Fig. below), a left side edge (annotated Fig. below), and a right side edge (annotated Fig. below), the proximal end configured to be elevated relative to the distal end (annotated Fig. below) such that the condensate from the heat pump flows from the proximal end of the base plate toward the distal end of the base plate (arrow flow, fig. 10); side walls (walls of 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cerdan teaches the invention as describe above but fails to explicitly teach side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg and an outflow leg, wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray.
However, Lin teaches side walls (12) removably coupled (fig. 1) to the base plate (area holding 3) near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps (3) removably coupled (filter elements can slide out, paragraph 0002) to the base plate and perpendicular to the side walls (fig. 3), each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg (water into 3, Fig. 3) and an outflow leg (water out of 3, Fig. 3), wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray (dirt or contaminates, paragraph 0013) to efficiently collect dirt and contaminants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condensate tray assembly of Cerdan to include side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate and perpendicular to the side walls, each said contaminant trap comprising an inflow leg and an outflow leg, wherein the contaminant traps are aligned against the condensate flow to facilitate collection of contaminants present in the condensate as the flow of condensate traverses across the condensate tray in view of the teachings of Lin to efficiently collect dirt and contaminants.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing side walls removably coupled to the base plate near the side edges; and a plurality of contaminant traps removably coupled to the base plate would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Lin system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Lin, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed removability solves any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may by” the claimed structure (see paragraph 0019), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the removability of the side walls and containment traps as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Claim(s) 9, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan (US 20140109602) in view of Lin (US 20200324239) as applied to claims 1, 20 and 25 in view of Hancock (US 20180347850).
Regarding claims 9, 23 and 29, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a settling groove is formed between a pair of neighboring contaminant traps between the outflow leg of a first neighboring contaminant trap and the inflow leg of a second neighboring contaminant trap.
However, Hancock teaches a settling groove (260, 280) is formed between a pair of neighboring contaminant traps (255, 275) between the outflow leg of a first neighboring contaminant trap (flows from 275 to 255, paragraph 0049-0049) and the inflow leg of a second neighboring contaminant trap (flows from 275 to 255, paragraph 0049-0049) to promote the flow of condensate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the condensate tray assembly of the combined teachings to include a settling groove is formed between a pair of neighboring contaminant traps between the outflow leg of a first neighboring contaminant trap and the inflow leg of a second neighboring contaminant trap in view of the teachings of Hancock to promote the flow of condensate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights