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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-2, 4-5, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US2016/0348934 A1) in view of Faddell et al, (US 2015/0156031 A1)), and further in view of Billman et al. (US 2016/0156031 A1).
As per claim 1, Bailey et al. disclose a single-package air conditioner unit comprising: a cabinet (housing 20) defining an outdoor portion 14 and an indoor portion 12; an outdoor heat exchanger 30 disposed in the outdoor portion; an indoor heat exchanger 40 disposed in the indoor portion; a compressor (para. 0025; etc.) in fluid communication with the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger to circulate a refrigerant between the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger; and a light assembly comprising an electrical light source (display 88; para. 0034; etc.). Bailey et al. do not teach the light assembly being attached to the cabinet and directed therebelow. Fadell et al. teach the concept of projecting display messages from a home appliance onto a floor (para. 0219, lines 17-20; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a light projection assembly directed below the air conditioner of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of alerting a user to critical safety or other conditions.
Bailey et al. also do not teach wherein the cabinet comprises a base pan supporting the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger, and wherein the light assembly is disposed below the base pan. Billman et al. teach a similar single-package air conditioner comprising base pan 56. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a base ban to the arrangement of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of providing a structural base for the overall structure. Further, placement of the light assembly below the base pan is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a practical placement of the projection system of Fadell et al. as applied to Bailey et al. for the purpose of effectively directing messages to the ground surface as already taught by Fadell et al. as already discussed.
As per claim 2, Bailey et al. do not teach wherein the light assembly is configured to project one or more illuminated messages on a ground surface below the single-package air conditioner unit. Fadell et al. teach wherein the light assembly is configured to project one or more illuminated messages on a ground surface below the appliance (para. 0219, lines 17-20; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly project messages on a ground surface below of the air conditioner of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of alerting a user to critical safety or other conditions.
As pr claim 4, Bailey et al. disclose the air conditioner further comprising: a controller 85 attached to the cabinet in operative communication with the lighting assembly, the controller being configured to activate the light assembly in response to a user-input signal received by the controller (para. 0034; etc.).
As per claim 5, Bailey et al. disclose the air conditioner further comprising: a control panel 87 attached to the cabinet in operative communication with the controller, the control panel comprising a user input 89, wherein the user-input signal is received from the user input (para. 0034; etc.).
As per claim 11, Bailey et al. disclose a single-package air conditioner unit comprising: a cabinet (housing 20) extending along a vertical direction between a top end and a bottom end (Fig. 1; etc.), the cabinet defining an outdoor portion 14 and an indoor portion 12; an outdoor heat exchanger 30 disposed in the outdoor portion; an indoor heat exchanger 40 disposed in the indoor portion; a compressor (para. 0025; etc.) in fluid communication with the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger to circulate a refrigerant between the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger; a light assembly comprising an electrical light source (display 88; para. 0034; etc.); and a controller 85 attached to the cabinet in operative communication with the lighting assembly direct a lighting operation to activate the lighting assembly (para. 0034; etc.). Bailey et al. do not teach the light assembly being attached to the cabinet and directed therebelow. Fadell et al. teach the concept of projecting display messages from a home appliance onto a floor (para. 0219, lines 17-20; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a light projection assembly directed below the air conditioner of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of alerting a user to critical safety or other conditions.
Again, Bailey et al. also do not teach wherein the cabinet comprises a base pan supporting the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger, and wherein the light assembly is disposed below the base pan. Billman et al. teach a similar single-package air conditioner comprising base pan 56. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a base ban to the arrangement of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of providing a structural base for the overall structure. Further, placement of the light assembly below the base pan is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a practical placement of the projection system of Fadell et al. as applied to Bailey et al. for the purpose of effectively directing messages to the ground surface as already taught by Fadell et al. as already discussed.
As per claims 14 and 15, see rejections of similar 4 and 5 above, respectively.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US2016/0348934 A1) in view of Faddell et al, (US 2015/0156031 A1), Billman et al. (US 2016/0156031 A1), and further in view of Longnecker et al. (US 2022/0003448 A1).
As per claims 6 and 16, Bailey et al. do not teach wherein the controller is in wireless communication with a remote device spaced apart from the cabinet, and wherein the user-input signal is received from the remote device. Longenecker et al. teach a single-package air conditioner wherein the controller is in wireless communication with a remote device spaced apart from the cabinet, and wherein the user-input signal is received from the remote device (paras. 0039-0046; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide wireless remote input with the arrangement of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of providing user convenience in controlling system operation from a remote location.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 1`7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US2016/0348934 A1) in view of Faddell et al, (US 2015/0156031 A1), Billman et al. (US 2016/0156031 A1), and further in view of Shiohama et al. (US 2020/0370780 A1).
As per claims 7 and 17, Bailey et al. do not teach the system further comprising: a motion sensor in operative communication with the controller, the motion sensor being configured to detect a movement action proximal to the cabinet, wherein the user-input signal is received from the motion sensor in response to detection of the movement action proximal to the cabinet. Shiohama et al. teach an air conditioning system comprising a motion sensor in operative communication with the controller, the motion sensor being configured to detect a movement action proximal to the cabinet, wherein the user-input signal (see corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above) is received from the motion sensor in response to detection of the movement action proximal to the AC unit (Fig. 7, step S12; para. 0105; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a motion sensor with the AC unit of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of controlling illumination based on the presence of an occupant detected by the motion sensor.
As per claims 8 and 18, Bailey et al. do not teach the system further comprising: a photoelectric light sensor in operative communication with the controller, the photoelectric light sensor being configured to detect an illumination threshold proximal to the cabinet, wherein the user-input signal is received from the photoelectric light sensor in response to an absence of detection of the illumination threshold proximal to the cabinet. Shiohama et al. teach an air conditioning system comprising a photoelectric light sensor in operative communication with the controller, the photoelectric light sensor being configured to detect an illumination threshold proximal to the AC unit, wherein the user-input signal is received from the photoelectric light sensor in response to an absence of detection of the illumination threshold proximal to AC unit (Fig. 7, step S11; para. 0104; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a motion sensor with the AC unit of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of controlling illumination based on the amount of light in the space.
As per claims 9 and 19, Bailey et al. do not teach the system further comprising: a controller attached to the cabinet in operative communication with the lighting assembly, the controller being configured to activate the light assembly according to a predetermined schedule. Shiohama et al. teach an air conditioning system comprising a controller attached to the AC unit in operative communication with the lighting assembly, the controller being configured to activate the light assembly according to a predetermined schedule (timing based controls at Fig. 7, step S16; para. 0109; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a motion with the AC unit of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of controlling illumination signals based on a passage of time since a change in illuminance.
As per claims 10 and 20, Bailey et al. do not teach the system further comprising: a controller attached to the cabinet in operative communication with the lighting assembly, the controller being configured to activate the light assembly based on a received occupancy signal. Shiohama et al. teach the system further comprising: a controller attached to the AC unit in operative communication with the lighting assembly, the controller being configured to activate the light assembly based on a received occupancy signal (Fig. 7, step S12; para. 0105; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a motion sensor with the AC unit of Bailey et al. for the same basic purpose of controlling illumination based on the presence of an occupant detected (and thus providing efficiency by not providing illumination when an occupant is not present).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has incorporated the subject matter of original claim 3 into independent claim 1 (and the similar the subject matter of original claim 12 into independent claim 11) and simply states that the limitation is not taught by the prior art as follows:
Claim 1 recites a cabinet that includes a base pan supporting the outdoor heat exchanger and the indoor heat exchanger, and wherein the light assembly is disposed directly beneath the base pan. As noted in the original disclosure, such features may advantageously and effectively block portions of the light emissions from the light assembly (e.g., from directly traveling to or being visible by a user). However, neither the recited light assembly disposed directly beneath a base pan nor its advantageous are indicated by the cited references, either alone or in combination. For at least this reason, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not obvious over the materials cited in the Office Action. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under § 103.
However, Applicant has failed to address the actual substance of the previous rejections as set forth regarding original claims 3 and 12. Accordingly, those rejections are maintained as proper, and incorporated into the rejections of current claims 1 and 11 as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763