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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the solid black shading in Figure 12A, Figure 12B. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. 37 CFR 1.84(m).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “238” has been used to designate both a communication line, see 0029 of Specification, and a pipe section, see 0051 of 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 203 in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence “An air conditioning unit is disclosed herein” is an implied phrase. The use of “may” also lacks clarity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a water transport system in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Water transport system 222, Figure 2, 0051 of Applicant Specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “a valve” in claim 3 in light of “a valve” in claim 1 renders the claim unclear.
In particular, it is unclear whether the valve in claim 1 is distinct from the valve in claim 3. Further, the recitation “the valve” is unclear to which valve is referenced, see line 6 of claim 3 and line 2 of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In the Applicant Specification, Applicant specification, valve 706 is configured to receive refrigerant from compressor 216, Figure 7, 0061, as claimed in claim 1; and valve 706 connects heat exchange coil piping via refrigerant line 710 to the heating element 712, Figure 7, 0060 as claimed in claim 3. For examination purposes, in light of Applicant Specification, the limitation of “a valve” in claim 3 has been interpreted as - - the valve - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “a valve” in claim 13 in light of “a valve” in claim 1 renders the claim unclear.
In particular, it is unclear whether the valve in claim 11 is distinct from the valve in claim 3 and it is unclear to which valve proceeding recitations of “the valve” are referring to. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In the Applicant Specification, Applicant specification, valve 706 is provided refrigerant from compressor 216, Figure 7, 0061, as claimed in claim 11; and valve 706 connects heat exchange coil piping via refrigerant line 710 to the heating element 712, Figure 7, 0060 as claimed in claim 13. For examination purposes, in light of Applicant Specification, the limitation of “a valve” in claim 13 has been interpreted as - - the valve - - for clarity.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A) in view of Neumann et al. (US20070137239A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kramer teaches an air conditioning unit [a refrigeration system where the invention relates to the application of refrigeration to cool spaces; col. 1, lines 5-21] comprising:
a compressor [compressor 102, Figure 1] configured to pump a refrigerant [where compressor 102 conveys compressed and high temperature refrigerant to condenser 120; col. 2, lines 8-14];
a valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1] configured to receive the refrigerant from the compressor [where vapor, driven by the compressor, passes through gas solenoid valve 143 when open; col. 3, line 7-16];
a heat exchanging coil [evaporator 154, Figure 1] configured to receive the refrigerant from the valve in a defrosting mode [where a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device during defrost, a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device and delivering hot gas directly from the liquid line; col. 1, lines 59-65] and melt ice formed on the heat exchanging coil into condensate [where hot gas flows via conduit 149 distributed to evaporator coil 154, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 23];
a drip pan [drain pan 155, Figure 1] arranged to receive the condensate from the heat exchanging coil [where evaporator drain pan 155 is located directly under the frost-laden evaporator coil; col. 3, lines 16-19];
a heating element [heating coil 147, Figure 1] disposed within the drip pan to heat the condensate received in the drip pan [where heating coil 147 is located in evaporator drain pan 155, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 16-19]; but
Kramer does not teach a condensate pump configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan.
However, Neumann teaches a refrigeration device equipped with means for evaporating condensed water accumulating in the device [0001] where a condensate pump [pump vaporizer 14 where suction connecting pipe 13 opens up into a pump chamber 16; 0022] configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan [evaporation tray 12; 0021], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing damage or leaks by providing a driving force to reliably drain water accumulating in the device [Neumann;0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to have a condensate pump configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan in view of the teachings of Neumann where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing damage or leaks by providing a driving force to reliably drain water accumulating in the device [Neumann;0005].
Regarding Claim 2, Kramer, as modified, and further teaches where the heating element [gas heating coil 147, Figure 1] comprises piping comprising refrigerant [where the vapor driven by the compressor leaves liquid line 138 to enter hot gas heating coil 147; col. 3, lines 12-16].
Regarding Claim 3, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches the air conditioning unit, further comprising:
heat exchanging coil piping [conduits 142, 145, 149, Figure 1] configured to provide the refrigerant as a compressed gas from the valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1] to the heat exchanging coil [where hot gas passes through the open gas solenoid valve 143 to heating coil 147 to flow via conduit 149 to evaporator coil 154, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 12-23 ]; and
the valve [hot gas solenoid valve 143, Figure 1] connecting the heat exchanging coil piping [conduit 142, Figure 1] with the piping of the heating element [Figure 1; col. 3, lines 12-23],
wherein the valve is configured to regulate an amount of the refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element from the refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping [where when fan motors are energized hot gas solenoid 143 is deenergized and where timer motor 186 causes the hot glass solenoid 143 to be energized when fan motor 124 stops; col. 2, line 64 – col. 3, line 4].
Regarding Claim 6, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and further teaches where the valve comprises a solenoid valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1].
Regarding Claim 7, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach: a water transport system, wherein the condensate pump is configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan via the water transport system.
However, Neumann teaches a refrigeration device equipped with means for evaporating condensed water accumulating in the device [0001] including a water transport system [suction connecting pipe 13, Figure 3] where a condensate pump [pump vaporizer 14 where suction connecting pipe 13 opens up into a pump chamber 16; 0022] is configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan [evaporation tray 12; 0021] via the water transport system [Figure 3, 0021], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing leaks by reliably eliminating large quantities of condensed water that accumulates in the device [Neumann, 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to have a water transport system, wherein the condensate pump is configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan via the water transport system.in view of the teachings of Nuemann where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing leaks by reliably eliminating large quantities of condensed water that accumulates in the device [Neumann, 0006].
Regarding Claim 8, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and further teaches a fan [fan 158, Figure 1] configured to blow air through the heat exchanging coil [where fan 158 draws air over the coil ; col. 2, line 8-15];
But Kramer does not teach a vaporizer, wherein the condensate pump is configured to pump the heated condensate to the vaporizer, and wherein the vaporizer is configured to convert the heated pumped condensate to vapor in air blown by the fan.
However, Neumann teaches a refrigeration device equipped with means for evaporating condensed water accumulating in the device [0001] including a vaporizer [pump vaporizer including vaporizer chamber 22, Figure 2;0022;0023], wherein the condensate pump [pump vaporizer 14 where suction connecting pipe 13 opens up into a pump chamber 16; 0022] is configured to pump the heated condensate to the vaporizer [0023], and wherein the vaporizer is configured to convert the heated pumped condensate [where evaporation tray 12 is heated by compressor 7, Figure 3; 0020] to vapor in air blown [where pump vaporiser 14 produces a fine mist; where the air moisture produced is flushed away by an air flow; 0021] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing leaks by reliably eliminating large quantities of condensed water that accumulates in the device [Neumann, 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to have a water transport system, wherein the condensate pump is configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan via the water transport system.in view of the teachings of Neumann where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing leaks by reliably eliminating large quantities of condensed water that accumulates in the device [Neumann, 0006].
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A) in view of Neumann et al. (US20070137239A1) and in further view of Hsu (US20070101745A1) .
Regarding Claim 9, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach wherein the vaporizer is disposed between the fan and the heat exchanging coil.
However, Hsu teaches a cooling device with an aerosol capable of nebulizing water [0001] where the vaporizer [nozzle 21, Figure 1; where aerosol 2 will nebulize water into fine droplets by the fan, Figure 1; 0013] is disposed between the fan [Fan 1, Figure 2;0013] and the heat exchanging coil [heat exchanger 3, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to have a water transport system, wherein the vaporizer is disposed between the fan and the heat exchanging coil in view of the teachings of Hsu where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Regarding Claim 10, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach wherein the heat exchanging coil is disposed between the fan and the vaporizer.
However, Hsu teaches a cooling device with an aerosol capable of nebulizing water [0001] where the heat exchanging coil [heat exchanger 3, Figure 3] is disposed between the fan [fan 1, Figure 1] and the vaporizer [nozzle 21, Figure 1; where aerosol 2 will nebulize water into fine droplets by the fan, Figure 1; 0013] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to wherein the heat exchanging coil is disposed between the fan and the vaporizer in view of the teachings of Hsu where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Claims 11-13 and 16-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A) in view of Neumann et al. (US20070137239A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kramer teaches a method of operating an air conditioning unit [a refrigeration system where the invention relates to the application of refrigeration to cool spaces; col. 1, lines 5-21], the method comprising:
pumping, via a compressor [compressor 102, Figure 1], a refrigerant [where compressor 102 conveys compressed and high temperature refrigerant to condenser 120; col. 2, lines 8-14];
providing, via a valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1], the refrigerant from the compressor to a heat exchanging coil in a defrosting mode [where a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device during defrost, a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device and delivering hot gas directly from the liquid line; col. 1, lines 59-65],
receiving, via the heat exchanging coil [evaporator 154, Figure 1], the refrigerant from the valve to melt frost or ice formed on the heat exchanging coil into condensate [where a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device during defrost, a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device and delivering hot gas directly from the liquid line; col. 1, lines 59-65];
receiving, via a drip pan [drain pan 155, Figure 1], the condensate from the heat exchanging coil [where evaporator drain pan 155 is located directly under the frost-laden evaporator coil; col. 3, lines 16-19];
heating [heating coil 147, Figure 1], via a heating element disposed within the drip pan , the condensate received in the drip pan [where heating coil 147 is located in evaporator drain pan 155, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 16-19]; and
Kramer does not teach pumping, via a condensate pump, the condensate from the drip pan.
However, Neumann teaches a refrigeration device equipped with means for evaporating condensed water accumulating in the device [0001] including pumping, via a condensate pump, [pump vaporizer 14 where suction connecting pipe 13 opens up into a pump chamber 16; 0022] the condensate from the drip pan [evaporation tray 12; 0021], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing damage or leaks by providing a driving force to reliably drain water accumulating in the device [Neumann;0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to have pumping, via a condensate pump, the condensate from the drip pan in view of the teachings of Neumann where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing damage or leaks by providing a driving force to reliably drain water accumulating in the device [Neumann;0005].
Regarding Claim 12, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and further teaches where the heating element [gas heating coil 147, Figure 1] comprises piping having refrigerant [where the vapor driven by the compressor leaves liquid line 138 to enter hot gas heating coil 147; col. 3, lines 12-16].
Regarding Claim 13, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention claim 12 and further teaches,
providing, via heat exchanging coil piping [conduits 142, 145, 149, Figure 1], the refrigerant from the valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1] as a compressed gas and to the heat exchanging coil [where hot gas passes through the open gas solenoid valve 143 to heating coil 147 to flow via conduit 149 to evaporator coil 154, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 12-23]; and
regulating, via the valve connecting the heat exchanging coil piping with the piping of the heating element [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1], an amount of the refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element from the refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping [where timer motor calls deenergizes and energizes hot gas solenoid 143, cycling between defrost and refrigeration, where thermostats, timers, or pressure switches may be used ; col.2, line 51-65; col.3, line 35- line 59]
Regarding Claim 16, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 and further teaches where the valve comprises a solenoid valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1].
Regarding Claim 17, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and does not teach pumping, via the condensate pump, the condensate from the drip pan comprises pumping the condensate from the drip pan via a water transport system.
However, Neumann teaches a refrigeration device equipped with means for evaporating condensed water accumulating in the device [0001] including pumping, via the condensate pump, [pump vaporizer 14 where suction connecting pipe 13 opens up into a pump chamber 16; 0022] the condensate from the drip pan [evaporation tray 12; 0021] comprises pumping the condensate from the drip pan via a water transport system [Figure 3, 0021] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing leaks by reliably eliminating large quantities of condensed water that accumulates in the device [Neumann, 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kramer to have a water transport system, wherein the condensate pump is configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan via the water transport system.in view of the teachings of Neumann where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing leaks by reliably eliminating large quantities of condensed water that accumulates in the device [Neumann, 0006].
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A) in view of Neumann et al. (US20070137239A1) and in further view of Hsu (US20070101745A1) .
Regarding Claim 18, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and further teaches blowing, via a fan [fan 158, Figure 1], air through the heat exchanging coil [where fan 158 draws air over the coil ; col. 2, line 8-15]; but does not teach pumping, via the condensate pump, the condensate to a vaporizer; and converting, via the vaporizer, the heated pumped condensate to vapor in the air blown by the fan.
However, Hsu teaches a cooling device with an aerosol capable of nebulizing water [0001] including pumping, via the condensate pump, [pump 231, Figure 2] the condensate to a vaporizer [nozzle 21, Figure 1; where aerosol 2 will nebulize water into fine droplets by the fan, Figure 1; 0013]; and converting, via the vaporizer, the heated pumped condensate to vapor in the air blown by the fan [Figure 1;0013] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have pumping, via the condensate pump, the condensate to a vaporizer; and converting, via the vaporizer, the heated pumped condensate to vapor in the air blown by the fan in view of the teachings of Hsu where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Regarding Claim 19 Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and does not teach where the vaporizer is disposed between the fan and the heat exchanging coil, and wherein the heat exchanging coil is disposed between the fan and the vaporizer.
However, Hsu teaches a cooling device with an aerosol capable of nebulizing water [0001] where the vaporizer [nozzle 21, Figure 1; where aerosol 2 will nebulize water into fine droplets by the fan, Figure 1; 0013] is disposed between the fan [fan 1, Figure 2] and the heat exchanging coil [heat exchanger 3, Figure 1], and wherein the heat exchanging coil is disposed between the fan and the vaporizer [embodiment of Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the vaporizer is disposed between the fan and the heat exchanging coil, and wherein the heat exchanging coil is disposed between the fan and the vaporizer in view of the teachings of Hsu where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving efficiency by repurposing condensate for cooling internal components [Hsu, 0013]
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A) in view of Neumann et al. (US20070137239A1) and in further view of Broadbent (US20160054043A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and does not teach a controller configured to (i) instruct the valve to shuttle the refrigerant as a compressed gas to the heat exchanging coil in the defrosting mode, (ii) instruct the condensate pump to operate and (iii) instruct the valve to regulate the amount of the hot refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element from the hot refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping.
However, Broadbent teaches a method to empty liquid water from a water reservoir of an ice making machine comprising a refrigeration system [0005] where the controller [controller 80, Figure 2;0030] is configured to instruct the valve [hot gas valve, Figure 1] to shuttle the refrigerant as a compressed gas to the heat exchanging coil in the defrosting mode [where controller 80 communicates with hot gas valve 24, Figure 2, 0031; where hot gas valve 24 is used to direct warm refrigerant from compressor 15 directly to evaporator 21; 0026] (ii) instruct the condensate pump [water pump 62 in sump 70 below freeze plate 22, Figure 1] to operate [0031], and (iii) instruct the valve to regulate the amount of the hot refrigerant [0031] to enter into the piping of the heating element [ice formation device 20, Figure 1] from the hot refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping [refrigerant lines 28a, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a more reliable system by automating and coordinating the operation of the refrigeration system
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where a controller is configured to (i) instruct the valve to shuttle the refrigerant as a compressed gas to the heat exchanging coil in the defrosting mode, (ii) instruct the condensate pump to operate and (iii) instruct the valve to regulate the amount of the hot refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element from the hot refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping in view of the teachings of Broadbent where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a more reliable system by automating and coordinating the operation of the refrigeration system
Regarding Claim 14, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13, and does not teach instructing, via a controller, the valve to shuttle the refrigerant in a defrosting mode;
instructing, via the controller, the condensate pump to operate; and
instructing, via the controller, the valve to regulate the amount of the refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element from the refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping.
However, Broadbent teaches a method to empty liquid water from a water reservoir of an ice making machine comprising a refrigeration system [0005] where the controller [controller 80, Figure 2;0030] instructing, via a controller, [controller 80, Figure 2;0030] the valve [hot gas valve, Figure 1] to shuttle the refrigerant in a defrosting mode [where controller 80 communicates with hot gas valve 24, Figure 2, 0031; where hot gas valve 24 is used to direct warm refrigerant from compressor 15 directly to evaporator 21; 0026]; instructing, via the controller, the condensate pump to operate [water pump 62 in sump 70 below freeze plate 22, Figure 1 and Figure 2;0031]; and instructing, via the controller, the valve [0031] to regulate the amount of the refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element [ice formation device 20, Figure 1] from the refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping [refrigerant lines 28a, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a more reliable system by automating and coordinating the operation of the refrigeration system
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where a controller instructing, via a controller, the valve to shuttle the refrigerant in a defrosting mode; instructing, via the controller, the condensate pump to operate; and instructing, via the controller, the valve to regulate the amount of the refrigerant to enter into the piping of the heating element from the refrigerant in the heat exchanging coil piping in view of the teachings of Broadbent where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a more reliable system by automating and coordinating the operation of the refrigeration system
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A), Neumann et al. (US20070137239A1) and Broadbent (US20160054043A1) and in further view of Obara et al. (JPH0933091A).
Regarding Claim 5, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and does not teach where the controller is configured to instruct the condensate pump to operate
(i) for a first predetermined period of time and
(ii) a second predetermined period of time after instructing the compressor to pump the refrigerant in the defrosting mode.
However, Obara teaches a drain pump control device for an air conditioner [0001] where the controller [control device 104, Figure 4 and Figure 2] is configured to instruct the condensate pump to operate [drain pump 103, Figure 4; 0005] (i) for a first predetermined period of time [where the drain pump 103 is operated for a predetermined time t1, Figure 3;0007] and (ii) a second predetermined period of time [t2, Figure 3] after instructing the compressor to pump the refrigerant in the defrosting mode [where t1 is the operation of the compressor 5 for simultaneous operation with the pump, Figure 3;0011;0019; where the drain pump 3 is stopped at time c, after a predetermined time T2 after the compressor 5 has stopped, Figure 3; 0020] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leakage by ensuring condensed water drains even when the amount of condensed water becomes large by changing in operating time [Obara;0023]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Kramer to have where the controller is configured to instruct the condensate pump to operate (i) for a first predetermined period of time and (ii) a second predetermined period of time after instructing the compressor to pump the refrigerant in the defrosting mode in view of the teachings of Obara where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leakage by ensuring condensed water drains even when the amount of condensed water becomes large by changing in operating time [Obara;0023]
Regarding Claim 15, Kramer, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14, and does not teach instructing, via the controller, the condensate pump to operate for a first predetermined period of time and after a second predetermined period of time after instructing the compressor to pump the refrigerant in the defrosting mode.
However, Obara teaches a drain pump control device for an air conditioner [0001] including instructing, via the controller [control device 104, Figure 4 and Figure 2], the condensate pump [drain pump 103, Figure 4; 0005] to operate for a first predetermined period of time [where the drain pump 103 is operated for a predetermined time t1, Figure 3;0007] and after a second predetermined period [t2, Figure 3] of time after instructing the compressor [compressor 5, Figure 4] to pump the refrigerant in the defrosting mode [where the drain pump 3 is stopped at time c, after a predetermined time T2 after the compressor 5 has stopped, Figure 3; 0020; where t1 is the operation of the compressor 5 for simultaneous operation with the pump, Figure 3;0011;0019] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leakage by ensuring condensed water drains even when the amount of condensed water becomes large by changing in operating time [Obara;0023]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Kramer to have instructing, via the controller, the condensate pump to operate for a first predetermined period of time and after a second predetermined period of time after instructing the compressor to pump the refrigerant in the defrosting mode in view of the teachings of Obara where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leakage by ensuring condensed water drains even when the amount of condensed water becomes large by changing in operating time [Obara;0023]
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (US4095438A) in view of Riello ( EP0268776B1).
Regarding Claim 20, Kramer teaches an air conditioning unit [a refrigeration system where the invention relates to the application of refrigeration to cool spaces; col. 1, lines 5-21] comprising:
a compressor [compressor 102, Figure 1] configured to pump a refrigerant [where compressor 102 conveys compressed and high temperature refrigerant to condenser 120; col. 2, lines 8-14];
a valve [hot gas solenoid 143, Figure 1] configured to receive the refrigerant from the compressor [where vapor, driven by the compressor, passes through gas solenoid valve 143 when open; col. 3, line 7-16];
a heat exchanging coil [evaporator 154, Figure 1] configured to receive the refrigerant from the valve to melt ice formed on the heat exchanging coil [where a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device during defrost, a hot gas line is provided bypassing the expansion device and delivering hot gas directly from the liquid line; col. 1, lines 59-65];
a drip pan [drain pan 155, Figure 1] arranged to receive condensate from the heat exchanging coil [where evaporator drain pan 155 is located directly under the frost-laden evaporator coil; col. 3, lines 16-19];
a heating element [heating coil 147, Figure 1] disposed within the drip pan to heat the condensate received in the drip pan [where heating coil 147 is located in evaporator drain pan 155, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 16-19]; but
Kramer does not teach a condensate pump configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan; a vaporizer configured to vaporize the condensate; and a fan configured to blow the vaporized condensate outside.
However, Riello teaches a system for draining condensate formed in air conditioners during their operation [col. 1, lines 1-6] a condensate pump [pump 5, Figure 1] configured to pump the condensate from the drip pan [condensate collection tray;col.3, lines 11-14]; a vaporizer [atomizing nozzle 8, Figure 1] configured to vaporize the condensate [col.3, lines 15-27]; and a fan [ventilator 6, Figure 1; 20-31] configured to blow the vaporized condensate outside [where the atomizing nozzle is arranged so as to lie in the trajectory of ventilator 6, Figure 1; col. 3, lines; where the outdoor unit comprises the condenser; col.3, lines 6-11 ] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing maintenance by avoiding hand drainage from the air conditioner [Riello, col. 2, lines 3-11].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the vaporizer is disposed between the fan and the heat exchanging coil, and wherein the heat exchanging coil is disposed between the fan and the vaporizer in view of the teachings of Riello where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing maintenance by avoiding hand drainage from the air conditioner [Riello, col. 2, lines 3-11].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763