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 12/5/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14 and 16-18 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains the title of the invention. Applicant’s amendment to provided clarity does not cure the requirement that the abstract must appear under the heading “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9-11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mai et al. (CN214949420U) in view of Oura et al. (JPH08268671A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Mai teaches an air conditioner unit [fig 4] comprising:
an indoor heat exchanger [60; 0028];
an outdoor heat exchanger [70; 0028];
a base pan [10] below the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger [0034; see fig 4]; and
a controller [0049], the controller configured for:
detecting, with a level sensor [0036], a level of condensate in the base pan above a predetermined threshold level [0034-0048];
running a slinger motor [31] of the air conditioner unit in response to detecting the level of condensate above the predetermined threshold level [0034-0048; 0050].
Mai does not explicitly teach wherein the level sensor is a float switch and operating the air conditioner unit in a fan only mode in response to detecting the level of condensate above the predetermined threshold level.
However, Oura teaches a cooling apparatus having control device [10], a base pan [15] and a level sensor [11; fig 2] and where a level sensor is a float switch [0026] and where the control device operates the cooling apparatus in a fan only mode in response to detecting the level of condensate above a predetermined threshold level [0034] 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 more reliable draining process [0038].
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 Mai to operate the air conditioner unit in a fan only mode in response to detecting the level of condensate above the predetermined threshold level in view of the teachings of Oura 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 more reliable draining process.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 1, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
For clarity, the claimed float sensor and the electrode type water level sensor disclosed by Mai performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Therefore, one skilled in the art would recognize that the prior art element is an equivalent.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Mai, as modified, teaches the invention above and Oura teaches wherein operating the air conditioner unit in a fan only mode comprises deactivating a compressor of a sealed system of the air conditioner unit [0034].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 2, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Mai, as modified, teaches the invention above and Mai teaches wherein the level of condensate in the base pan is a second level and the predetermined threshold level is a second predetermined threshold level [where the second predetermined level is measured by pin 52 and pin 55], further comprising
detecting a first level of condensate in the base pan above a first predetermined threshold level [where the first predetermined level is measured by pin 52 and pin 54] before detecting the level of condensate in the base pan above the second level, the first predetermined threshold level less than the second predetermined threshold level, and reducing a speed of a variable speed compressor [20] of the air conditioner unit in response to detecting the first level of condensate in the base pan above the first predetermined threshold level [0044-0047; 0058].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 4, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Mai, as modified, teaches the invention above and Mai teaches wherein the level sensor is a second level sensor [pin 52 and pin 55], and wherein the first level of condensate in the base pan above the first predetermined threshold is detected with a first level sensor [pin 52 and pin 54; 0044-0047; 0058].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 5, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Mai, as modified, teaches the invention above and Oura teaches wherein operating the air conditioner unit in the fan only mode comprises overriding a user input [0034; where the first float switch overrides the call for cooling until the water level drops].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 8, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Mai, as modified, teaches the invention above and Oura teaches wherein the level of condensate in the base pan [at least the assembly of pan 15 and pan 16] is a first level, further comprising detecting a second level of condensate in the base pan greater than the first level of condensate in the base pan after operating the air conditioner unit in the fan only mode in response to detecting the level of condensate above the predetermined threshold level, and deactivating the air conditioner unit in response to detecting the second level of condensate in the base pan [0034-0035].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 9, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mai et al. (CN214949420U) and Oura et al. (JPH08268671A) as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Fritze (US2005/0103721).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Mai, as modified, teaches the invention above but does not teach wherein the float switch of the level sensor is a multi-position switch and the first level of condensate in the base pan above the first predetermined threshold is detected with the level sensor.
However, Fritze teaches a refrigerator having a water filtration system with a storage tank [106; 0003; 0028; fig 1] wherein a level sensor [144] is a multi-position float switch and the first level of condensate in the base pan above the first predetermined threshold is detected with the level sensor [0028] 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. communicating a water level in the storage tank [0028].
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 Mai to have wherein the level sensor is a multi-position float switch and the first level of condensate in the base pan above the first predetermined threshold is detected with the level sensor in view of the teachings of Fritze 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. communicating a water level in the storage tank.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 7, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Mai, as modified, above.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7 and 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to objections to the abstract are not persuasive with respect to the requirement that the abstract must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading "Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure." The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. See objection to the abstract above.
On pages 8-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 10 that the combination of Mai et al. (CN214949420U) and Oura et al. (JPH08268671A) is improper because Mai teaches away from using a float switch. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is reminded that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. In this instance, Mai discloses a float switch and states that for efficiency reasons the use of the float switch is not the preferred embodiment. However, this does not eliminate that fact that the use of a float switch was contemplated by the prior art. Additionally, the use of the level sensor disclosed by Mai and a float switch are deemed to be functional equivalents. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
See MPEP 2123
See MPEP 2183
See MPEP 2184
For at least the reasons above, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14 and 16-18 remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spanger (US2009/0064698), cited to teach the interchangeability of the float sensor and an electrode type sensor. See Spanger at [0053-0062].
Kitayama et al. (US2016/0138209), cited to teach the interchangeability of the float sensor and an electrode type sensor. See Kitayama at [0096].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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