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 1 and claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/22026.
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 filter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes the figures show the filter mounting member 150 but not the filter
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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“suction part” in claim 1 which corresponds to reference numeral 193 which appears to be a suction inlet in the front panel in figure 2
“discharge part” in claim 1 which corresponds to reference numeral 195 which appears to be a discharge outlet in the front panel in figure 2
“filter mounting part” in claim 14 which corresponds to a frame or grill in the specification at page 7 lines 13-14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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) 1-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maekawa et al. (JP 2000-291973).
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa discloses a ceiling air conditioner (Examiner notes that Maekawa’s air conditioner is capable of being attached to a ceiling or attached near a ceiling and is therefore being interpreted as a ceiling air conditioner) comprising:
A cross-flow fan (Maekawa 8) extending in a first direction;
A case (Maekawa 5, referred to as an underframe by Maekawa) defining an internal space in which the cross-flow fan is mounted (see Maekawa figure 5a);
A front panel (Maekawa 4) coupled to the case and having a suction part (Maekawa 1) through which indoor air is suctioned and a discharge part (Maekawa 2) through which air is discharged toward a room;
A heat exchanger (Maekawa 7) configured to exchange heat with air suctioned into the case and to partition the internal space into a suction flow path (see annotated figure) and a discharge flow path (see annotated figure);
A rear guide (Maekawa 9) installed between the discharge part and the heat exchanger (see Maekawa figure 5a) and configured to guide air which has passed through the heat exchanger to the discharge part (see Maekawa figure 5a); and
Protrusions (Maekawa 21) including at least one protrusion surface (see annotated figure) and disposed on both side surfaces (Maekawa [0043]) defining the discharge part, the protrusions being configured to change a length of the discharge flow path in the first direction based on an air discharge direction (“the projection 21 has a first step 21a and a second step 21b with respect to the inner surface of the side wall 9a. Reference numerals 16b and 16c indicate the lengths of the steps 21a and 21b in the rotation axis direction of the cross flow fan 8, respectively” Maekawa [0043], examiner notes Maekawa’s rotation axis direction of the cross flow fan is applicant’s claimed first direction in which the cross-flow fan extends).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maekawa figures 5a, 5b, and 5c (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Maekawa as applied to claim 1 discloses the protrusions are configured to reduce the length of the discharge flow path in the first direction based on the air discharge direction (“Since the protrusion 21 has such a two-step difference, the width of the ventilation passage 3 in the rotation axis direction of the crossflow fan 8 is narrowed in two steps.” Maekawa [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Maekawa as applied to claim 2 further discloses the protrusions are configured to reduce the length of the discharge flow path in the first direction stepwise based on the air discharge direction (“the projection 21 has a first step 21a and a second step 21b with respect to the inner surface of the side wall 9a. Reference numerals 16b and 16c indicate the lengths of the steps 21a and 21b in the rotation axis direction of the cross flow fan 8, respectively” Maekawa [0043] and figure 5c).
Regarding claim 4, Maekawa as applied to claim 3 further discloses the protrusions comprise at least two surfaces stepped in the first direction (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
193
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Maekawa figure 5c (annotated)
Regarding claim 5, Maekawa as applied to claim 4 discloses the protrusions comprise a first protrusion surface (see annotated figure) and a second protrusion surface (see annotated figure) protruding a predetermined height further in the first direction than the first protrusion surface (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
262
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Maekawa figure 5c (annotated)
Regarding claim 6, Maekawa as applied to claim 5 discloses the first protrusion surface and second protrusion surface are formed in parallel (see Maekawa figure 5c).
Regarding claim 8, Maekawa as applied to claim 5 discloses the protrusions (Maekawa 21) are formed on a side surface (“A protrusion 21 is formed on the side wall 9a in the downstream region of the cross flow fan 8 over the entire width of the ventilation passage 3”, Maekawa [0043]) which is formed on both sides of the air conditioner (“Side walls 9a are formed on both sides of the rear guider 9 and the cross flow fan 8 in the rotation axis direction of the cross flow fan 8” Maekawa [0025]), and a gap between the first protrusion surfaces is greater than the gap between the second protrusion surfaces (Gap between the first surfaces will be the overall width minus the thickness of the first protrusion surfaces, 16b, and the gap between the second protrusion surfaces will be the overall width minus thickness of the first protrusion surfaces, 16b minus the width of the second protrusion surfaces, 16c, therefore the gap between the first protrusion surfaces must be greater than a gap between the second protrusion surfaces).
Regarding claim 10, Maekawa as applied to claim 1 discloses the protrusions are integrally formed on both side surfaces (see Maekawa figure 5c, depicting protrusions 21a and 21b integrally formed on wall 9b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa et al. (JP 2000-291973) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Maekawa as applied to claim 1 discloses the protrusions are integrally formed on both side surfaces (see Maekawa figure 5c, depicting protrusions 21a and 21b integrally formed on wall 9b).
However, a court has held that making parts separable is obvious if it would be considered desirable to do so. (see MPEP § 2144.04 V C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Maekawa’s air conditioner by making the protrusions into a separate member that is attachable to the side wall to simplify manufacturing of the air conditioner.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa et al. (JP 2000-291973) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2021-0108249).
Regarding claim 11, Maekawa as applied to claim 1 teaches a rear guide (Maekawa 9) that extends roundly away from the cross flow fan to guide air discharged from the cross-flow fan to the discharging part (see Maekawa figure 5a).
Maekawa is silent regarding the rear guide having a first guide part guiding airflow that has passed through the heat exchanger towards the suction side of the cross-flow fan.
However, Choi teaches an air conditioner (Choi A) comprising a heat exchanger (Choi 4), a cross flow fan (Choi 20) and a flow guide (Choi 30) that comprises a first guide part (Choi 31 and 33) for guiding air which has passed through the heat exchanger towards the suction side of the cross-flow fan (Choi [0046]); and a second guide part (Choi 34, 35, and 35A) extending roundly from the first guide part (see Choi figure 2) to guide air discharged from the cross-flow fan to the discharge part (Choi [0047]-[0048]). Choi’s flow guide design is intended to create a uniform airflow distribution to suppress vortex generation and reduce undesired blower noise (Choi [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Maekawa’s air conditioner to incorporate Choi’s teachings of a rear guide comprising a first guide part guiding airflow into the cross-flow fan and a second guide part to guide airflow from the fan to the discharge part to produce a predictable result of creating more uniform airflow through the fan and thereby reduce vortex generation and suppress undesired fan noise.
Regarding claim 12, Maekawa and Choi as applied to claim 11 teach the second guide part (Choi 34, 35, and 35A) includes a guide protrusion (Choi 35A) protruding toward the cross-flow fan and extending long in a longitudinal direction of the cross-flow fan (see Choi figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Maekawa and Choi as applied to claim 11 further teach there is a guide jaw (see annotated figure) that protrudes toward the suction side of the cross-flow fan provided between the first guide part and the second guide part.
PNG
media_image4.png
528
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Choi figure 4 (annotated)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa et al. (JP 2000-291973) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (KR 10-2009-0022103).
Regarding claim 14, Maekawa as applied to claim 1 teaches a filter (Maekawa 6) disposed on a suction side of the heat exchanger (see Maekawa figure 5a), and a filter mounting part (Examiner notes that Maekawa does not discuss a filter mounting part but one must exist in order for Maekawa’s filter to remain properly mounted within the housing).
Maekawa is silent regarding the use of a control box and a printed circuit board.
However, Yang teaches an air conditioner comprising a main body (Yang 2) with a control box (Yang 70) disposed in the suction flow path (see Yang figure 12 showing the control box 70 adjacent to the suction inlet 110) and having a built in printed circuit board (Yang 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Maekawa’s air conditioner to incorporate Yang’s teaching of a control box contained within the air conditioning housing in the suction path to house a printed circuit board to produce a predictable result of allowing electronic control of the air conditioner while shielding the delicate printed circuit board.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights