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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/27/26 has been entered. Claims 1,3-5, and 8-11 are pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/4/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants amended the claims to include a space between the plates.
Examiner asserts the space can be seen between the flanges of Nakamoto and the humidity sensor appears to have plates with spaces in between them.
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 3-5 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.
The term “similar” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes examiner will consider the axial positions of the plates in Nakamoto to be of similar axial positions.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3006839 to Nakamoto (Nakamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamoto teaches a blower that has an impeller that is rotatable around a rotation axis (5, Figure 3); a bell-mouth (7, Figures 2 and 4) having an inflow port that opens to a first side in an axial direction of the rotation axis, and that is located on the first side of the blower (31, Figure 3); an electric components box that is located on the first side of the bell-mouth (91, Figures 2-6), and that has at least a portion thereof disposed so as to face the inflow port in the axial direction (shown in Figures 2-4), and an air guide including an air guide plate that faces the inflow port in the axial direction (flanges with holes in Figure 5, the vertical attachment flanges for the flanges with holes in Figure 5, and/or 93), and a fixing portion that faces an interior side of the electric components box in a radial direction relative to the rotational axis (shown in Figures 4-5), wherein first and second surfaces of the air guide plate are substantially perpendicular to the axial direction (top and bottom surfaces of the flanges and/or top or bottom surfaces of 93); the first surface of the air guide plate is located closer to a bottom side of the electric components box facing away from the inflow port in the axial direction than a center of the electric components box in the axial direction (bottom and top surfaces as previously cited): and the first surface of the air guide plate is substantially flush with the bottom side of the electric components box (shown in Figure 5 where flanges with holes in Figure 5 and/or 93 appear substantially flush with the bottom surface of 91. It is noted that Applicant appears to be using breadth with the word substantially in especially compared with the disclosure and breadth is being used in the art as well).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamoto teaches a blower that has an impeller that is rotatable around a rotation axis (5, Figure 3); a bell-mouth (7, Figures 2 and 4) having an inflow port that opens to a first side in an axial direction of the rotation axis, and that is located on the first side of the blower (31, Figure 3); an electric components box that is located on the first side of the bell-mouth (91, Figures 2-6), and that has at least a portion thereof disposed so as to face the inflow port in the axial direction (shown in Figures 2-6), and an air guide including a first air guide plate having first and second surfaces that are parallel to the axial direction flanges with holes in Figure 5, the vertical attachment flanges for the flanges with holes in Figure 5, and/or 93), and a first fixing portion, attached to the first air guide plate, that faces an interior side of the electric components box in a radial direction relative to the rotational axis, wherein first and second surfaces of the first air guide plate are substantially perpendicular to an intersecting direction that is orthogonal to both the axial direction and the radial direction; the air guide further includes one or more additional air guide plates disposed at a similar axial position to the first air guide plate and disposed at intervals in the intersecting direction, with a space between first air guide plate and the one or more additional air guide plates being empty of structures such that air can flow between the first air guide plate and the one or more additional air guide plates (flanges with holes in Figure 5 and/or 93 have surfaces that are spaced apart and with nothing in between them. It is additionally noted that 93 appears to have a number of plates that are spaced apart with nothing in between them. The vertical flanges above the flanges with holes in Figure 5 also have nothing in between them).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamoto teaches wherein: the first air guide plate and the one or more additional of air guide plates are separately disposed in the intersecting direction from both ends of the intersecting direction in a portion out of the electric components box that overlaps with the inflow port as seen from the axial direction (shown in Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamoto teaches wherein: intervals between adjacent air guide plates are the same over an entirety of the axial direction (when only two of the previously identified air guide plates are selected as air guide plates the interval limitation is met).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamoto teaches wherein: the air guide is attached to the electric components box (shown in Figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamoto teaches wherein: the air guide is attached to the bell-mouth (the box is attached to the bell mouth and the air guide plate is attached to the box).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamoto teaches wherein: the bell-mouth has an outflow port that opens to a second side that is opposite to the first side in the axial direction, an inner edge of the outflow port is located on an inside in the radial direction more than an inner edge of the inflow port (interior of 53 is an outflow port, Figure 3), and at least a portion of the electric components box and the air guide overlap with the outflow port as seen from the axial direction (shown in Figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto in view of WO2019193755 to Kurihara et al. (Kurihara).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamoto teaches claim 1.
Nakamoto is silent on an outdoor unit.
Kurihara teaches an outdoor unit (Page 3 paragraph 1 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nakamoto with the teachings of Kurihara to provide an outdoor unit. Doing so would provide structure already likely present in Nakamoto and/or would allow heat to be expelled to the exterior of the conditioned environment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
