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 .
The claims received 1/21/2026 are entered. Claims 1-14, 16, 22, 25, 29 are cancelled and claim 35 is new.
Drawings
The drawings received 1/21/2026 are accepted.
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 (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 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) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US 10,739,034).
Regarding claim 35, Liu discloses an air-conditioning indoor unit comprising:
a housing (100), an air duct being formed in the housing, the housing including an underpan, a first side plate, and a second side plate, the underpan including a bottom plate, a front side plate, and a rear side plate, each of a first end of the front side plate and a first end of the rear side plate being provided with a notch (annotated figure below identifies each element), and
a size of the first side plate connecting the first end of the frontside plate and the first end of the rear side plate being smaller than a size of the second side plate connecting a second end of the front side plate and a second end of the rear side plate (second side plate includes additional structure and is larger);
an evaporator (140) arranged in the air duct; and
an electric control box (200) arranged at a side of the evaporator, at least a part of the electric control box being located in the air duct, and the electric control box being located on the notches of the front side plate and the rear side plate, and on the first side plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
785
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17-21, 23, 26-28, and 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomomura et al (US 10,816,226) in view of Liu et al (US 10,739,034).
Regarding claims 15 and 28, Tomomura discloses an air-conditioning indoor unit comprising:
a housing (100), an air duct being formed in the housing;
an evaporator (“indoor heat exchanger” 3:60) arranged in the air duct; and
an electric control box (13) arranged at a side of the evaporator, at least a part of the electric control box being located in the air duct, the electric control box including a box body, an electric control board (“electrical component box”), and an air switch (9) configured to control on or off of a power supply of the air-conditioning indoor unit, the box body including a main box (13) and a secondary box (figure 4 shows switch 9 in a secondary box relative to the main box 13), the evaporator and the secondary box being located at two differing sides, respectively, of the main box, the electric control board being arranged in the main box, and the air switch (9) being arranged in the secondary box.
Tomomura lacks that the evaporator and secondary box are arranged at two opposite sides of the main box in a lateral direction.
It has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
In this instance providing the secondary box of Tomomura at the side of main box 13, rather than below, would not have modified operation of the device. Moreover, moving the secondary box to the side of main box 13 allows the main box to be shifted lower thus improving clearance at the top of the unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the secondary box at an opposite side of the main box relative to the evaporator in order to improve topside clearance of the unit. Moreover the relocation would not have modified operation of the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
921
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further regarding “evaporator” and “electric control board”. Tomomura does not explicitly use the terms evaporator or board. However, within the context of the art an internal heat exchanger of an air conditioner is performing evaporation of refrigerant and is thus an evaporator. Further electrical components are understood to be inclusive of a PCB controller. Alternatively, Liu discloses that evaporators and PCBs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with an evaporator in order to take advantage of the latent heat capacity of phase change of refrigerant and to utilize a PCB for low cost control structure.
Regarding claims 17 and 30, Tomomura as modified discloses the air-conditioning indoor unit of claim 15, but lacks a recess as claimed. Liu discloses wherein a part of the housing is recessed toward an inner side of the housing to form an installation space communicated with the air duct, and at least a part of the electric control box is arranged in the installation space (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
591
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with a recess as taught by Liu in order to increase compactness of the unit.
Regarding claims 18 and 31, Tomomura as modified by Liu further discloses an opening communicated with the air duct is provided at a side of the housing, and a part of sidewall of the housing located at the opening side is recessed to form the installation space (recess arrangement provided at modification at claim 17, annotated figure of Liu below).
PNG
media_image4.png
572
721
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 19 and 32, Tomomura as modified discloses the air-conditioning unit of claim 18 including an air outlet (1b) and fan (3:60-61) but lacks a water collection tray.
Liu discloses:
an air outlet frame provide with an air outlet (103);
a fan (142); and
a water collection tray (141);
wherein:
the air outlet frame and the fan (142) are arranged in the air duct;
the air outlet is communicated with the air duct and faces toward the opening, the fan (142) and the evaporator (140) are arranged at a same side of the air outlet frame, and the fan is located at a side of the evaporator away from the opening; and
the water collection tray (141) is arranged at the opening and faces toward the evaporator (140), and the water collection tray avoids a part of the opening, so that the part of the opening avoided by the water collection tray forms an air return port (101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with the water collection tray as taught by Liu in order to capture atmospheric condensate and prevent dripping.
Regarding claims 20 and 33, Tomomura as modified discloses the air-conditioning indoor unit of claim 15, but lacks a communication port as claimed. Liu discloses the air duct is provided with a communication port communicated with outside, and the electric control box is arranged on an outer surface of the housing (outer surface of end plate 114); and a sidewall at a side of the electric control box closes the communication port, or the part of the electric control box extends into the air duct from the communication port (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
696
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with the communication port as taught by Liu in order to allow air to circulate towards the control box.
Regarding claim 21 and 34, Tomomura discloses the electric control box (200) includes a box body and a box cover (5) openably and closably covered on the box body, the box body is connected to the housing, and the box cover is located out of the housing.
Regarding claim 23, Tomomura discloses the box cover including a main box cover (4 and 5) and a side of the secondary box is open (open to access at least switch 9). Tomomura lacks that the cover opens the main box. The examiner takes official notice that boxes containing control elements are known to have openable covers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with an openable cover at the side of the main box in order to allow access for maintenance.
Regarding claim 26, Tomomura disclose the air-conditioning indoor unit of claim 23, but lack wire ports.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that providing control boxes with wire ports is old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with wire ports in order to enable connection of the controller to system components. Further regarding a sidewall and bottom for locating the ports: it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that in order to extend out of the box the ports must be in one of the walls. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only six potential solutions to locating the ports: a top, bottom, or one of 4 side walls. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that locating the ports in the bottom or sidewalls would have not yielded unpredictable results, since port location would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the selection of the bottom and sidewall enable adaptation to particular installation constraints.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ports in the bottom and sidewalls, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to provide connection, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 27, Tomomura and Liu disclose a part of the housing is recessed toward an inner side of the housing to form an installation space communicated with the air duct, the main box is arranged in the installation space (shown at annotated figure at claim 17; the modification at claim 17 is imported here), and the secondary box is arranged out of the installation space and located at a side of the main box away from the evaporator (shown in figure 5 of Tomomura the secondary box is out of an installation space of the main box).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomomura et al (US 10,816,226), in view of Liu et al (US 10,739,034), and in further view of Hess et al (US 11,353,224).
Regarding claim 24, Tomomura, as modified, disclose the box cover further includes a secondary box cover (4 of Tomomura) provided with an avoidance port (port for interaction with switch 9), the secondary box cover is openably and closably covered at the opened portion of the secondary box. Liu lacks a control handle. Hess discloses an air conditioner including a control handle (30) of the air switch extends out of the secondary box cover from the avoidance port. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tomomura with a control handle in order to confirm clear lockout for the safety of a maintenance worker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 15-21 and 28-34 are no longer rejected as being anticipated by Liu.
As discussed at page 12, it is agreed that he secondary box of Tomomura is below the main box however the mere relocation of an element, in this instance, does not provide a patentable distinction for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato (US 10,663,180) indoor unit for air-conditioning apparatus.
Qin et al (US 2020/0200430) air conditioning unit.
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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799