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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 06/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-4, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodruff (US Pat. 2,115,295) in view of Selg et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0318837).
Regarding claim 1, Woodruff discloses a fan assembly comprising: a refrigeration system comprising a heat exchanger (24); and an airflow generator (14) for generating an airflow over the heat exchanger, a main body (2) within which the refrigeration system and the airflow generator are located, the main body comprising an inlet (5) through which the airflow is drawn into the main body, wherein the heat exchanger surrounds a major portion of the airflow generator (Figs. 1-2).
Woodruff does not explicitly teach the main body being cylindrical in shape.
Selg teaches the concept of a fan assembly including a main body (1301, Fig. 13a-c; 1705, Fig. 17) being cylindrical in shape comprising an inlet (air vents, Fig. 17) through which the airflow is drawn radially into the main body (air shown entering radially in Fig. 4) that reduces the required floor space (paragraphs 49, 82) and also allows for a larger air intake frontal area that reduces pressure drop to reduce pumping power from the fans as well as reduces noise (paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fan assembly of Woodruff to have the main body being cylindrical in shape taught by Selg in order to reduce the required floor space, reduce pressure drop and noise of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger (24) is cylindrical in shape (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger (24) subtends a central angle of at least 270° (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fan assembly comprises a filter assembly (7) for filtering the airflow, and the filter assembly surrounds a part of the heat exchanger (page 1, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 15, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fan assembly comprises: an outlet (6) through which the airflow is emitted from the main body, wherein the inlet is located in a side of the main body and the outlet is located in a top of the main body (Fig. 1); and a nozzle (26) attached to the main body and receiving the airflow emitted from the main body, the nozzle comprising an outlet (top outlet of 26) through which the airflow is emitted from the fan assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the refrigeration system comprises a compressor (9, 10) and a further heat exchanger (15); and the further heat exchanger surrounds a portion of the compressor (15 surrounds major portion of compressor motor 10).
Regarding claim 18, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 17, wherein the fan assembly comprises a condensation collector (tray partition 13) for collecting condensate that forms on the heat exchanger (24), and the condensation collector comprises a tray located between the heat exchanger (24) and the further heat exchanger (15, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigeration system comprises a further heat exchanger (15), a compressor (9, 10) for moving a refrigerant between the heat exchanger and further heat exchanger, and a metering device (expansion valve 34) for reducing the pressure of the refrigerant.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodruff (US Pat. 2,115,295) in view of Selg et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0318837), further in view of Asbra et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0216458).
Regarding claim 16¸ Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the airflow generator is configured to generate an airflow having a flow rate of no less than 20 L/s.
Asbra teaches the concept of a portable air conditioner having a fan assembly including an airflow generator configured to generate an airflow having a flow rate of no less than 20 L/s (97 CFM; paragraph 11) to ensure proper air delivery to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fan assembly of Woodruff to have the airflow generator configured to generate an airflow having a flow rate of no less than 20 L/s taught by Asbra in order to generate a proper amount of airflow to be generated by the air conditioner.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodruff (US Pat. 2,115,295) in view of Selg et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0318837), further in view of Howard (US PG Pub. 2017/0108233).
Regarding claim 19¸ Woodruff as modified discloses the fan assembly as claimed in claim 18, but does not explicitly teach wherein the condensation collector comprises a bottle, the tray comprises a drain through which condensate collected by the tray drains into the bottle, and the bottle is located in a gap in the further heat exchanger.
Howard teaches condensation collector comprises a bottle (element 215), the tray (element 200) comprises a drain (element 205) through which condensate collected by the tray drains into the bottle (per para. 0033). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Woodruff to include the bottle of Howard located in a gap in the first heat exchanger (this is an obvious design choice based on the limited space with the compressor located as taught by Woodruff), in order to remove unwanted water when humidifying is unwanted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show " the fan assembly comprises an axial gap between an inlet of the airflow generator and a wall facing the inlet, and a ratio of the axial gap to a diameter of the inlet is no less than 1:2.3"; “the fan assembly comprises an axial gap between an inlet of the airflow generator and a wall facing the inlet, and a ratio of the axial gap to a height of the heat exchanger is no less than 1:4”; “the fan assembly comprises a radial gap between the airflow generator and the heat exchanger, and a ratio of the radial gap, at an inlet of the airflow generator, to a height of the heat exchanger is no less than 1:5”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn
Applicant's arguments, with respect to claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Woodruff does not teach a main body within which the refrigeration system and the airflow generator are located, the main body being cylindrical in shape comprising an inlet through which the airflow is drawn radially into the main body. This is not found persuasive in view of Selg as discussed in the rejection above. Therefore, Woodruff in view of Selg meets the limitations as claimed.
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 JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights