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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2024 and 11/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “a blower in the housing configured to move air through the air inlet, and thereafter to the heat exchanger, to be discharged through the air outlet” in lines 4-5, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the term “to be discharged through the air outlet” is referring to.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “a blower in the housing configured to move air through the air inlet, and thereafter to the heat exchanger, wherein the air is discharged through the air outlet”.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “a first blade configured to adjust a direction of air moved by the blower and discharged from a first portion of the outlet, and disposed on a first side of the rotating shaft to receive power from the first motor” in lines 9-11, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the term “and disposed on a first side of the rotating shaft” is referring to.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “a first blade configured to adjust a direction of air moved by the blower and discharged from a first portion of the outlet, wherein the first blade is disposed on a first side of the rotating shaft to receive power from the first motor
A similar issue is found in 12-14 with the recitation “a second blade configured to adjust a direction of air moved by the blower and discharged from a second portion of the outlet, and disposed on a second side of the rotating shaft to receive power from the second motor”.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “a second blade configured to adjust a direction of air moved by the blower and discharged from a second portion of the outlet, wherein the second blade is disposed on a second side of the rotating shaft to receive power from the second motor”.
Claim(s) 2-19 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 12-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 113757796 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang discloses an air conditioner (Fig. 5, abstract) comprising:
a housing #100 having an air inlet #100b and an air outlet #100a ([0048]);
a heat exchanger #500 in the housing (Fig. 5, [0048]);
a blower #400 in the housing configured to move air through the air inlet, and thereafter to the heat exchanger, wherein the air is discharged through the air outlet (this is the inherent function of the blower in the instant case. Also see alternate rejection below);
a first motor #310 and a second motor #320 disposed in the housing ([0006], [0013], & [0046]);
a rotating shaft comprising a first shaft #311 connected to the first motor and a second shaft #321 connected to the second motor ([0055] & [0071]);
a first blade #210 configured to adjust a direction of air moved by the blower and discharged from a first portion of the outlet, wherein the first blade is disposed on a first side of the rotating shaft to receive power from the first motor ([0052]); and
a second blade #220 configured to adjust a direction of air moved by the blower and discharged from a second portion of the outlet, wherein the second blade is disposed on a second side of the rotating shaft to receive power from the second motor ([0052]),
wherein the first motor is disposed on a first side in an extending direction of the rotating shaft (best seen in Fig. 6), and the second motor is disposed on a second side in the extending direction of the rotating shaft (best seen in Fig. 6).
To the extent that applicant submits that #400 is not a blower; the examiner submits by official notice that it is known to provide a blower in the housing of an air conditioner to move air therethrough.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Zhang with a blower in the housing of the air conditioner to move air therethrough.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have static pressure necessary to circulate air around the surrounding environment of the air conditioner so as to provide a consistent and uniform cooling.
Regarding claim 12:
Zhang either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Zhang further discloses wherein the first blade and the second blade together are configured to cover the air outlet (see Fig. 1), and a first coupler and a second coupler are located in the air outlet (see Fig. 1-3: multiple structures are located at the outlet #100a. Any two of those structures thereon qualifies as a first coupler and a second coupler are located in the air outlet).
To the extent that applicant submits that Zhang does not disclose a first coupler and a second coupler located in the air outlet; the examiner submits that providing couplers (such as screws holes, clips, snap on connection, quick-connect couplers, etc…) at an air outlet of an air conditioner is well known in the art (official notice).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Zhang either alone or as modified with a first coupler and a second coupler located in the air outlet.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated replacement of part of the air conditioner. Other benefits include easy installation of parts.
Regarding claim 13:
Zhang either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Zhang further discloses a discharge flow path in the housing between the blower and the air outlet to guide movement of air from the blower to the air outlet ([0049]), wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are located in the discharge flow path (see at least Fig. 2 & 6).
Regarding claim 19:
Zhang either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Zhang further discloses a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the first motor to rotate the first blade and the second motor to rotate the second blade to close the air outlet (inherently present. See [0055], [0057]), the first blade #210 includes a first plurality of holes formed therethrough so that air discharged from the first portion is discharged through the first plurality of holes when the air outlet is closed (see Fig. 6-7), and the second blade #220 includes a second plurality of holes formed therethrough so that air discharged from the second portion is discharged through the second plurality of holes when the air outlet is closed (see Fig. 6-7; [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Zhang to provide a first coupler formed at one end of the first blade; a second coupler formed at one end of the second blade, wherein the first coupler and the second coupler are configured to couple together to form a shaft structure having a common rotation axis about which the first blade and the second blade are rotatable, wherein the first blade is on a first side of the shaft structure and the second blade is on a second side of the shaft structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (EP 4414623 A1), Zhou (CN 115235104 A), Moon (US 20180313569 A1), and Chae (US 20230035576 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763