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 .
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 “dust proof net” and “drying layer” 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.
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 8-10 and 19-20 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.
Claim 8 recites “a drive module”. It’s not clear as to if it refers to the same “drive module” in claim 1. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the drive module”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mo (CN214223263. See attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mo teaches an air conditioner indoor unit, comprising:
a housing (1, fig 1), provided with an air supply duct (8) and an electric control chamber ([0031] “electrical box”. An electrical box shown in lower right side of fig 1), wherein the electric control chamber is spaced apart from the air supply duct (see fig 1); and a blower assembly (4, fig 1) disposed in the air supply duct for driving an airflow, wherein: the electric control chamber is provided with a drive module (PCB drive control board 13, fig 1), wherein the drive module is connected to the blower assembly (PCB 13 is inherently connected electronically for driving the blower); and the electric control chamber includes a vent (19, fig 1 and 4) for heat dissipation of the drive module.
Regarding claim 2, Mo teaches wherein the electric control chamber is further provided with a main control module (12, fig 1), and wherein the drive module is electrically connected to the main control module (main control module 12 inherently is electrically connected to drive control board 13).
Regarding claim 4, Mo teaches the main control module and the drive module are separate elements ([0031] lines 5-6, “main control board 12 and the PCB drive control board 13 are installed side by side”); and the drive module is mounted at the main control module (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Mo teaches 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 (they are parallel to teach other as shown in fig 1); or the drive module is inclined relative to the main control module at a predetermined angle.
Regarding claim 7, Mo teaches the main control module and the drive module are separate elements; and the drive module and the main control module are separately disposed in the electric control chamber (see fig 1 and [0031] lines 5-6, “main control board 12 and the PCB drive control board 13 are installed side by side”).
Regarding claim 8, Mo teaches the electric control chamber is provided with the drive module and a main control module (12, fig 1); the electric control chamber has a first accommodation cavity (space for main control module) and a second accommodation cavity spaced (space for drive module) from each other; the main control module is disposed in the first accommodation cavity; the drive module is disposed in the second accommodation cavity; the drive module is electrically connected to the main control module (drive module inherently is connected to main module); and the drive module is electrically connected to the blower assembly (PCB 13 is inherently connected electronically for driving the blower).
Regarding claim 9, Mo teaches the second accommodation cavity is in communication with an outer space of the electric control chamber through the vent (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Mo teaches the electric control chamber is a flat chamber (see fig 1); the first accommodation cavity and the second accommodation cavity are arranged in a predetermined direction that is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the electric control chamber (the direction is horizontally in fig 1. The thickness direction is a direction protruding out of paper); the main control module is disposed in the first accommodation cavity horizontally (see fig 1); and the drive module is disposed in the second accommodation cavity horizontally (see fig 1) or vertically.
Regarding claim 12, Mo teaches the drive module is configured to face towards the vent (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Mo teaches the vent is formed at at least one of
a side of the electric control chamber facing towards an air return side of the housing,
a side of the electric control chamber facing towards an air supply side of the housing (the vent is at a supply side/outlet 7 of housing),
a side of the electric control chamber facing towards the air supply duct,
a side of the electric control chamber facing away from the air supply duct,
a top wall of the electric control chamber, and
a bottom wall of the electric control chamber.
Regarding claim 14, Mo teaches a radiator (16, fig 6) disposed inside the electric control chamber or at least partially located outside the electric control chamber, the radiator facing towards the vent (see fig 6).
Regarding claim 15, Mo teaches the vent is configured to face towards a fin gap (space between fins of radiator shown in fig 6) of the radiator.
Regarding claim 16, Mo teaches he electric control chamber includes a slit (air inlets 20, fig 5) that forms, together with the vent, a circulation passage for the airflow (20 is inlet while 19 is an outlet).
Regarding claim 17, Mo teaches a plurality of slits (inlets 20) is formed at a wall (cover 14, fig 5) of the electric control chamber.
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo (CN214223263. See attached translation) in view of Lan (US 9516786).
Regarding claim 3, Mo teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach the drive module and the main control module are integrated at one circuit board.
Lan teaches a main control module (32, fig 7) and a drive module (38, fig 7) are integrated at one circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mo as taught by Lan by providing an integrated circuit board that include a main control module and a power module in order to provide an compact control module that could fit design footprint in the system.
Regarding claim 6, Mo in view of Lan teaches the drive module is disposed at a corner of the main control module (see Lan fig 6).
Regarding claim 18, Mo teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach the drive module is connected to an edge of the main control module
Lan teaches a drive module (38, fig 7) is connected to an edge of the main control module (32, fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mo as taught by Lan by providing an integrated circuit board that include a main control module and a power module in order to provide an compact control module that could fit design footprint in the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo (CN214223263. See attached translation) in view of Kohama (US 20210080125).
Regarding claim 11, Mo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach a dustproof net and/or a drying layer is provided at the vent.
Kohama teaches a dustproof net (filter 220, fig 5) is provided at a vent (120, fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mo as taught by Kohama in order to clean dust or debris in the air and provide cleaner air for users.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo (CN214223263. See attached translation) in view of Horng (US 20110079374).
Regarding claim 19, Mo teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but fails to teach the electric control chamber includes a partition that defines the second accommodation cavity.
Horng teaches an electric control chamber (inside housing 1, fig 2) includes a partition (2, fig 1) that defines an accommodation cavity (space above or below partition 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mo as taught by Horng by incorporating a partition in the housing in order to guide airflow towards specific electronic components that might require more cooling than other components.
Regarding claim 20, Mo in view of Horng teaches the vent is formed at a part of a wall of the electric control chamber engaged with the partition (the vent is part of electric control chamber in Mo’s system while the partition is inside an electric control chamber. Therefore the combination teaches the claimed limitation.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights