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
Claim 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 20, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim limitation “locking members” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “members” coupled with functional language “to elastically lock the door to a position where the corresponding opening among the plurality of openings is closed.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 7 and 10 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
locking members → an elastic arm provided on a sidewall of the door and a protruding piece provided at an end of the elastic arm to protrude from the elastic arm.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “the air” should read, “the air flow” for continuity in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-11 and 13 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.
With respect to claim 10, in line 1, the claim requires “at least one of the doors among the plurality of doors”. It is unclear how this door relates to the previously recited “at least one of the plurality of doors” of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “at least another one of the doors among the plurality of doors”.
With respect to claim 13, in line 10, the claim requires “at least one of the plurality of doors”. It is unclear how this door relates to the previously recited “at least one of the plurality of doors” of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “any one or more of the doors among the plurality of doors”.
Claim 11 is also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20090001867 to Kim hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘867, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Kim ‘867 as modified discloses the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses an indoor unit (see figure 1) for air conditioners, the indoor unit comprising:
a main body (1) including a blower fan (5) configured to generate air flow, and a heat exchanger (7) configured to exchange heat with the air;
a panel frame (2) assembled to the main body (1) and including an air inlet (corresponding to 3a when assembled) forming an air supply passage to the main body and an air outlet (corresponding to 3a when assembled) forming a discharge passage for air discharged from the main body;
an opening (14) formed in the panel frame 92); and
a door (20) configured to open and/or close the opening (14),
wherein an electrical part (40) comprising circuitry (43) is arranged on the door (20), see figure 4.
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose the opening being a plurality of openings and the plurality of openings having a plurality of doors. However, providing a plurality of openings each comprising a door would do nothing new and unexpected as doing so would do nothing more than what was predictable in the art (i.e. provide selective access to a component or the interior of the indoor unit). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 such that the opening (14) included a plurality of openings and the plurality of openings had a plurality of doors and allow selective access to multiple components of the indoor unit, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
In reference to claim 2, Kim ‘867 as modified discloses the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses the electrical part (40) is disposed on an inner side of the at least one (20) of the plurality of doors, see figure 3.
In reference to claim 3, Kim ‘867 as modified discloses the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses a cover (10) coupled to the at least one of the plurality of doors and covering the electrical part (40).
In reference to claim 5, Kim ‘867 as modified discloses the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses at least one of the plurality of doors is coupled to the panel frame to be pivotable (about screw S) to a position that opens and closes the corresponding opening among the plurality of openings. Note that if a screw is loosened but not entirely removed, the door (20) would be pivotable about the screw. Since the claim only requires the capability of being pivotable, the door of Kim ‘867 is considered to reasonably read on the claim limitation since the system possesses the capability of so performing.
In reference to claim 6, Kim ‘867 as modified discloses the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses the door (20) is pivotably supported on the panel frame (2) such that the door is configured to be opened to the outside, which is an opposite side of the main body with respect to the panel frame. Note that provided a long enough screw, the door would open to the outside of the panel frame. Since the claim only requires the capability of being opened to the outside, the system of Kim ‘867 is reasonably considered to read on the claim limitation of being capable of so performing.
In reference to claim 10, Kim ‘867 as modified discloses the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses the door is coupled to the panel frame and configured to be detachable to the outside, which is the opposite side of the main body with respect to the panel frame. Accordingly, when modifying Kim ‘867 as applied in claim 1 supra such that the doors were duplicated, the duplicated doors would also logically have the same configuration such that the limitations of claim 10 would be met by the duplication.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘867 in view of KR2000-0016831 to Park (provided by Applicant with the IDS filed August 12, 2025), hereinafter referred to as Park, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 4, Kim ‘867 and Park disclose the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose a plurality of hanger parts comprising a hanger provided on the main body and configured to be coupled with anchor bolts to install the main body on a ceiling, wherein the plurality of openings include a plurality of hanger openings aligned with the plurality of hanger parts.
Park teaches that in the art of air conditioner front panels, that it is a known method to provide a plurality of hanger parts comprising a hanger (60a) provided on the main body (60) and configured to be coupled with anchor bolts (70) to install the main body on a ceiling, wherein a plurality of openings (53) include a plurality of hanger openings aligned with the plurality of hanger parts, see figure 4. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim ‘867 as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., adjust the equilibrium state of air conditioner on the ceiling without removing the front panel in a state where the ceiling type air conditioner is installed, see abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 by Park such that the main body included a plurality of hanger parts comprising a hanger provided on the main body and configured to be coupled with anchor bolts to install the main body on a ceiling, wherein the plurality of openings include a plurality of hanger openings aligned with the plurality of hanger parts, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of (allowing a user to adjust the equilibrium state of air conditioner on the ceiling without removing the front panel in a state where the ceiling type air conditioner is installed).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘867 in view of KR 10-2008-0052973 to Kim (provided by Applicant with the IDS filed May 7, 2024), hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘973, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claims 7 and 11, Kim ‘867 and Kim ‘973 disclose the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose elastic locking members comprising an elastic material provided on the panel frame and configured to elastically lock the door to a position where the corresponding opening among the plurality of openings is closed.
Kim ‘973 teaches that in the art of indoor air conditioner panels, that it is a known method to provide elastic locking members (466) comprising an elastic material (inferred from the disclosure of being bendable, see underlined portion of page 14 of the English language translation) provided on the panel frame and configured to elastically lock the door to a position where the corresponding opening among the plurality of openings is closed. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim ‘867 as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., easy release of the door to open it during maintenance or service). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 by Kim ‘973 such that the doors include elastic locking members comprising an elastic material provided on the panel frame and configured to elastically lock the door to a position where the corresponding opening among the plurality of openings is closed, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of providing an easy opening and closing mechanism for the access doors.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘867 in view of JP34081696 to Kawada, hereinafter referred to as Kawada (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 8, Kim ‘867 and Kawada disclose the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose a first hinge provided on the panel frame; a second hinge provided on the door and pivotably coupled to the first hinge; and a hinge cover coupled to the door and configured to cover the first hinge and second hinge.
Kawada teaches that in the art of air conditioner access panels (5), that it is a known method to provide the access panel (5) with a first hinge (6) provided on the panel frame; a second hinge (6) provided on the door and pivotably coupled to the first hinge; and a hinge cover (7) coupled to the door (5) and configured to cover the first hinge and second hinge, see figure 2. Kawada teaches that this method allows for easy rotation of the door while allowing for easy removal of the door without using tools. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim ‘867 as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., allow for easy removal of the door without the use of tools). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 by Kawada such that the air conditioner included a first hinge provided on the panel frame; a second hinge provided on the door and pivotably coupled to the first hinge; and a hinge cover coupled to the door and configured to cover the first hinge and second hinge, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing for easy removal of the door for access to the air conditioner components.
In reference to claim 9, Kim ‘867 and Kawada disclose the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose a hinge hole provided on the panel frame; and a hinge shaft rotatably inserted into the hinge hole and provided with an elastically deformable separation prevention elastic piece configured to be elastically deformable in a radial direction at an end of the hinge shaft protruding from the hinge hole.
Kawada teaches that in the art of air conditioner access panels (5), that it is a known method to provide the access panel (5) with a hinge hole (4) provided on the panel frame; and a hinge shaft (6) rotatably inserted into the hinge hole and provided with an elastically deformable (6a) separation prevention elastic piece configured to be elastically deformable in a radial direction at an end of the hinge shaft protruding from the hinge hole, see abstract. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim ‘867 as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., easy mounting and unmounting of the door). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 by Kawada such that the air conditioner included a hinge hole provided on the panel frame; and a hinge shaft rotatably inserted into the hinge hole and provided with an elastically deformable separation prevention elastic piece configured to be elastically deformable in a radial direction at an end of the hinge shaft protruding from the hinge hole, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of easily mounting and unmounting of the door.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘867 in view of WO2022035042 to Jo et al., hereinafter referred to as Jo (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 12, Kim ‘867 and Jo disclose the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose a blade provided on the air outlet and configured to control a vertical direction of the discharged air; and a blade drive motor configured to drive the blade, the plurality of openings includes at least one motor opening, the plurality of doors include at least one motor housing detachably coupled to the panel frame and configured to open and close the at least one motor opening, and the blade drive motor is coupled to the at least one motor housing.
Jo teaches that in the art of indoor units of air conditioners, that it is a known method to provide a blade (820) provided on the air outlet (142) and configured to control a vertical direction of the discharged air; and a blade drive motor (840) configured to drive the blade (820), the plurality of openings (142) includes at least one motor opening, as seen in figure 7, the plurality of doors (800) include at least one motor housing detachably coupled to the panel frame (see figure 9) and configured to open and close the at least one motor opening, and the blade drive motor is coupled to the at least one motor housing, see figures 6-8. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim ‘867 as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., provide for access to a control vane motor to control the direction of discharge air). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 by Jo such that a blade was provided on the air outlet and configured to control a vertical direction of the discharged air; and a blade drive motor configured to drive the blade, the plurality of openings includes at least one motor opening, the plurality of doors include at least one motor housing detachably coupled to the panel frame and configured to open and close the at least one motor opening, and the blade drive motor is coupled to the at least one motor housing, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing for controlling the direction of discharge air and provide access to the motor which performs the directional control.
In reference to claim 13, Kim ‘867 and Jo disclose the claimed invention.
Kim ‘867 discloses a grille panel (3) detachably coupled to an outer portion of the panel frame (2) and configured to cover the air inlet and provided with a grille hole (3b) communicating with the air inlet;
an intermediate panel (4) covering the outer portion of the panel frame excluding the grille panel, and wherein each of the grille panel (3) and the intermediate panel (4) are configured to cover at least one of the plurality of doors (20).
Kim ‘867 fails to disclose a blade provided on the air outlet and configured to control a vertical direction of the discharged air the intermediate panel not covering the blade.
Jo teaches that in the art of indoor units of air conditioners, that it is a known method to provide a blade (820) provided on the air outlet (discharge) and configured to control a vertical direction of the discharged air a intermediate panel (410) not covering the blade (at 142), see figure 7. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim ‘867 as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., control a flow direction of air discharged from the unit). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim ‘867 Jo such that a blade was provided on the air outlet configured to control a vertical direction of the discharged air, the intermediate panel not covering the blade, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of controlling the direction of the air discharged from the unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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 at 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 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763