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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no additional search burden to examine claim 22. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require different fields of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The scope of claim 22 does not directly commensurate with that of any one of claims 1-12.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 “a waterproof twist-lock connector” as claimed in claim 7 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “58” representing the waterproof twist-lock connector as per para [0050] of applicant specification. 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. 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.
Claim(s) 6-9 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 6 calls for the limitation “wherein the first HVAC unit has a terminal block, further including a communications & control wire harness preinstalled and coupled at one end to the terminal block”, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear which previously recited limitation the term “further including” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purpose, the limitation above will be interpreted as “wherein the first HVAC unit has a terminal block and a communications & control wire harness preinstalled and coupled at one end to the terminal block “.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingram (US 11125479 B1).
Regarding claim 1:
Ingram discloses a partially-assembled HVAC system (abstract) provided to be readily assembled by a user at an installation location, comprising:
a first HVAC unit #10 having a first high-pressure line stem and a first low-pressure line stem (see line stems leading to #140; Fig. 2B);
a second HVAC unit #20 having a second high-pressure line stem and a second low-pressure line stem (see line stems leading to #140; Fig. 3); and,
a refrigerant line set #505 including a high-pressure refrigerant line and a low-pressure refrigerant line (Fig. 1), the high-pressure refrigerant line having a first high-pressure line end and a second high-pressure line end, the low-pressure refrigerant line having a first low-pressure line end and a second low-pressure line end (see Fig. 1), wherein:
the second high-pressure line end is coupled to the second high-pressure line stem such that the high-pressure refrigerant line is fluidly connected to the second HVAC unit at a pre-installation location (col. 13, L 54-61),
the second low-pressure line end is coupled to the second low-pressure line stem such that the low-pressure refrigerant line is fluidly connected to the second HVAC unit at the pre-installation location (col. 13, L 54-61),
the low-pressure refrigerant line and the high-pressure refrigerant line being connected to the second HVAC unit (Fig. 1; col. 13, L 54-61), the low-pressure refrigerant line, the high-pressure refrigerant line, and the second HVAC unit being precharged with refrigerant at the pre-installation location (when the unit is assembled, refrigerant circulates through all the components of the system), wherein the first high pressure line end and the first low pressure line end may be coupled to the first HVAC unit by the user at the installation location (via #140, Fig. 2B, col. 13, L 62 – col. 14, L16).
Regarding claim 2:
Ingram further discloses a first high-pressure line connector #130 connected to the first high-pressure line end of the high-pressure line; a first high-pressure stem connector connected to the first high-pressure stem, the first high-pressure line connector and the first high-pressure stem connector being self-sealing and configured to be connected by the user during installation; a first low-pressure line connector connected to the first low-pressure line end of the low-pressure line; and a first low-pressure stem connector connected to the first low-pressure stem, the first low-pressure line connector and the first low-pressure stem connector being self-sealing and configured to be connected by the user during installation (see connectors #130 & #140; col. 13, L 62 – col. 14, L16, Fig. 1, 2B, and 3).
Regarding claim 3:
Ingram further discloses wherein the first high-pressure stem connector, the first low-pressure stem connector, the first high-pressure line connector, and the first low-pressure line connector are valves having an open position and a closed position (See at least Fig. 13 & 15: male and female quick-connect connectors #130 & #140 are valves with automatic "open" and "closed" positions. When connected, the valves are open to allow fluid to flow. When separated the valves are closed).
Regarding claim 5:
Ingram further discloses wherein the first HVAC unit is an indoor HVAC unit and the second HVAC unit is an outside HVAC unit, the first and second HVAC units forming a split HVAC system configured to operate as an air-conditioner and/or heat pump (see Fig. 1; col. 7, L 21-29).
Regarding claim 6:
Ingram further discloses wherein the first HVAC unit has a terminal block and a communications & control wire harness preinstalled and coupled at one end to the terminal block (see Fig. 4 & 2A; block receiving signal cable #40; col. 7, L25-34).
Regarding claim 12:
Ingram further discloses wherein the connectors are configured to be hand-tightened (col. 9, L 23-28).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram (US 11125479 B1).
Regarding claim 4:
Ingram discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the connectors are composed from steel or brass.
By official notice, the examiner submits that making connectors out of steel or brass is well-known in the art.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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 Ingram with the connectors composed from steel or brass.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided superior durability and high pressure/temperature resistance; thereby, enhancing the longevity of the system.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram (US 11125479 B1) in view of Puluc (US 20140273577 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Ingram discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the communications & control wire harness includes a waterproof twist-lock connector.
Nonetheless, Puluc teaches that it is well known to use wire harness including a waterproof twist-lock connector (abstract, [0025] & [0052]).
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 Ingram with the communications & control wire harness including a waterproof twist-lock connector; in a similar manner as taught by Puluc.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a secured and reliable connectivity in high-moisture environments; thereby, preventing accidental disconnection while protecting electrical connections from water, dust, and debris.
Regarding claim 8:
Ingram as modified discloses all the limitations, but does not specifically disclose a power cord connected to the second HVAC unit, the power cord configured to plug into a power outlet and to provide power to the second HVAC unit.
Nonetheless, it is known to provide a power cord plug into a power outlet to power HVAC unit (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 Ingram as modified with a power cord connected to the second HVAC unit, the power cord configured to plug into a power outlet and to provide power to the second HVAC unit.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated installation and operation of the unit.
Regarding claim 9:
Ingram as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ingram further disclose wherein the communications & control wire harness is preinstalled at the pre-installation location (see Fig. 3-4).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram (US 11125479 B1) in view of Debesa (US 8516840 B2).
Regarding claims 10-11:
Ingram discloses all the limitations, but does not specifically disclose a DC disconnect box configured to be connected to DC power source(s) and to allow the HVAC system to be manually switched from/between the DC power source(s) or to an off position; wherein the DC disconnect box may be connected to solar panel(s) and battery/batteries.
In the same field of endeavor, Debesa teaches a solar powered air conditioner (Fig. 1, abstract) comprising a DC disconnect box #20 configured to be connected to DC power source(s) and to allow the HVAC system to be manually switched from/between the DC power source(s) or to an off position; wherein the DC disconnect box may be connected to solar panel(s) #10 and battery/batteries #18.
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 Ingram with the claimed arrangement above as taught by Debesa.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have reduced power consumption form the HVAC system while utilizing inexhaustible renewable energy; thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving public health, and fostering energy independence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 7810489 B2), Curry (US 6134902 A), Makino (US 20210003330 A1), Aizawa (US 6199396 B1), Bradford (US 10775054 B2), Lingrey (US 20120318005 A1), Aizawa (US 6158229 A), Kobayashi (US 4641503 A), Kushner (US 4184661 A), and Nigro (US 2708833 A).
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
Prosecution Insights