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 Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/29/2024, 10/15/2025, 03/05/2026 & 06/11/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN214223263U to Mo.
A) As per Claim 1, Mo teaches an air conditioner indoor unit (Mo: Figure 1), comprising:
a housing (Mo: Figure 1, Item 1 with duct between Item 6 & 7 and chamber Item 11) having an air supply duct and is provided with an electric control chamber, wherein the electric control chamber is provided with a main control module (Mo: Figure 1, Item 12); and
a blower assembly comprising an electric motor, a blower, and a drive module (Mo: Figure 1, item 13 & motor with Items 7), wherein the blower is disposed in the air supply duct and configured to drive an airflow, the electric motor is in transmission connection with the blower, and the drive module is electrically connected to the electric motor.
B) As per Claim 2, Mo teaches that the drive module is disposed in the electric control chamber; the main control module and the drive module are separate members; and the drive module is mounted at the main control module (Mo: Figure 1, Items 12 & 13).
C) As per Claim 3, Mo teaches that the drive module is disposed vertically at the main control module; or the drive module and the main control module are parallel to each other (Mo: Figure 1, Items 12 & 13); or the drive module is inclined relative to the main control module at a predetermined angle.
D) As per Claim 20, Mo teaches that the drive module is disposed in the housing; and the drive module comprises a drive board and a cover body, the drive board being electrically connected to the blower assembly, and the cover body being disposed outside the drive board (Mo: Figure 1, Item 13).
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) 4-8, 12-13, 15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of CN215930023U to Liu.
A) As per Claim 4, Mo teaches that the drive module is disposed in the electric control chamber (Mo: Figure 1, Item 13).
Mo does not teach explicitly that the drive module and the main control module are integrated at one circuit board.
However, Liu teaches the drive module and the main control module are integrated at one circuit board (Liu: Figure 1, Items 130 & 140 on single board 110).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mo by having both modules on a single board, as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mo with these aforementioned teachings of Liu since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the single board of Liu for the separate but adjacent boards of Mo.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 5, Mo in view Liu teaches that the electric control chamber has vents (Mo: Figure 1, Item 19).
C) As per Claim 6, Mo in view Liu teaches that at least one of the vents is closer to the drive module than the main control module (Mo: Figure 1, Item 19).
D) As per Claim 7, Mo in view Liu teaches that the drive module is mounted at a corner of the circuit board (Liu: Figure 1, Item 140).
E) As per Claim 8, Mo in view Liu teaches that the drive module is provided with a radiator at a side of the drive module facing towards an outer side of the main control module (Mo: Figure 1, Item 16).
F) As per Claim 12, Mo in view Liu teaches that high heating elements in the main control module and the drive module are disposed on one side of the circuit board (Mo: Figure 1, Item 13); and low heating elements in the main control module and the drive module are disposed on another side of the circuit board (Mo: Figure 1, Item 12).
G) As per Claim 13, Mo in view Liu teaches a radiator connected to the circuit board, wherein the radiator is disposed inside the electric control chamber or at least partially disposed outside the electric control chamber (Mo: Figure 1, Item 16).
H) As per Claim 15, Mo in view Liu teaches that the radiator is disposed in the electric control chamber; the electric control chamber has a vent formed at a wall of the electric control chamber, the vent facing towards a fin gap of the radiator Mo: Figure 6, Items 19 & 20 with respective to radiator 16).
J) As per Claim 18, Mo in view Liu teaches that the radiator is parallel or perpendicular (Mo: Figure 1, Item 16) to the circuit board; or an angle formed between the radiator and the circuit board is smaller than 90°.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo.
A) As per Claims 9-11, Mo does not explicitly teach the drive module has a module pin; and the drive module is connected to the main control module by the module pin; the module pin is provided with a foil; the module pin has a step structure; the module pin has an end inserted on the main control module; and a step surface of the module pin is supported at the main control module.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having this specific connection structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the module pin connection would perform equally well with Mo. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a connection of the two modules of Mo as above because the type of module connection does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Claim(s) 14 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of Liu as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2015/0009626 A1 to Lan.
A) As per Claim 14, Mo in view of Liu teaches all the limitations except that the radiator is spaced apart from the circuit board; and the air conditioner indoor unit further comprises insulation support connected to the circuit board and the radiator, respectively.
However, Lan teaches a radiator is spaced apart from the circuit board; and the air conditioner indoor unit further comprises insulation support connected to the circuit board and the radiator, respectively (Lan: Figure 7, Item 39 is separate from Item 32 with insulation supports Item 40 within gap S).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mo in view of Liu by having the radiator spaced from the board with insulation supports, as taught by Lan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mo in view of Liu with these aforementioned teachings of Lan with the motivation of only allowing the heat from the chip/module to reach the radiator and not other components of the system.
B) As per Claim 17, Mo in view of Liu teaches all the limitations except that the radiator at least partially extends out of the electric control chamber towards the air supply duct and extends into the air supply duct; or the radiator at least partially extends out of the electric control chamber away from the air supply duct.
However, Lan teaches the radiator at least partially extends out of the electric control chamber towards the air supply duct and extends into the air supply duct; or the radiator at least partially extends out of the electric control chamber away from the air supply duct (Lan: Figure 7, Item 39).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mo in view of Liu by having the radiator stick out into the airflow passage, as taught by Lan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mo in view of Liu with these aforementioned teachings of Lan with the motivation of providing more airflow to cool the radiator.
Claim(s) 16 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of Liu as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2008/0239661 A1 to McClellan.
A) As per Claim 16, Mo in view of Liu teaches all the limitations except that the drive module is disposed horizontally; the drive module has a drive chip provided at an upper part of the drive module; and the radiator is disposed above the drive chip and covers the drive chip.
However, McClellan does not teach the drive module is disposed horizontally; the drive module has a drive chip provided at an upper part of the drive module; and the radiator is disposed above the drive chip and covers the drive chip (McClellan: Figure 5, Item 506 on board 304 with radiator 307 above).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mo in view of Liu by having the radiator and drive module disposed as taught by McClellan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mo in view of Liu with these aforementioned teachings of McClellan since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the radiator module placement of McClellan for the placement of Mo in view of Liu.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 19, Mo in view of Liu and McClellan teaches that the radiator completely covers the drive chip of the drive module; the radiator has a peripheral edge extending beyond the drive chip; and an air gap is formed between the peripheral edge of the radiator and the drive module (McClellan: Figure 5, Item 506 on board 304 with radiator 307 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights