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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure (emphasis by examiner).
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not describe the structure and organization which are required for the practice of the invention, referring to the structure of the invention only as optional features and positions (e.g. “An air conditioner may include…”, “The piping module may include…”, and “The strainer may be disposed…”). 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).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 5, the word “pipe” in the phrase “pipe connector” should be replaced with “piping” as the term “piping connector” is used in previous claims (e.g. in line 6 of claim 4).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
In lines 9-10 of claim 1, it is taught that “a second pipe [is] disposed in parallel with the case”, this case being previously taught only in that it contains the first fan and heat exchange coil and that the piping module is disposed on an outside of the case”. There is no teaching or suggestion as to what is meant by the second pipe being “parallel with the case” as a case is understood, as a three-dimensional object, to have multiple dimensions extending in different directions so that a case does not have any single defining direction or axis that the second pipe can be said to be or not be parallel to. For this reason, the scope required by the teachings of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the second pipe has been interpreted as being parallel to at least one surface, edge, or axis of the case rather than to the case taken in its entirety.
Claim 16 includes the same language as is presented in claim 1 and is rejected as being indefinite and interpreted for examination in the same manner set forth with regard to claim 1.
In lines 3-4 of claim 6, the filter is taught to be “disposed in a direction toward the case”. The claim does not identify a starting point for identifying “toward the case” so that the phrase “a direction toward the case” does not identify any direction or location at which the filter is limited to be disposed. Further, if “disposed in a direction toward the case” is taken as requiring that the filter have some functionality related to this direction (such as being moved in this direction for installation or filtering flow passing through in this direction, for example), such a functionality and the structure required by its recitation is not clearly identified by the teachings of the claim. For these reasons, the teaching does not clearly identify the limitations required by the claim and the claim is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 2-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
244
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
356
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Publication No. 10-1436592 B1 to Kang et al. in view of US Publication No. 2008/0251467 A1 to Wanni. An English translation of Kang has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Korean-language original document.
Kang teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, an air conditioner (100), comprising:
a main body including a case (main body 110 including the case shown in fig. 2), a first fan (air supply fan SF) that is disposed inside of the case (as shown in fig. 2) and supplies air to an indoor space (through supply mechanism 112), and a heat exchange coil (cold/hot water coil CC) that is disposed inside of the case (as shown) and controls a temperature of flowing air (as taught in ¶ 28); and
a piping module (including the pipes 130, 140, and 150 shown to attach to the main body 110 in the figures) disposed on an outside of the case and connected to the heat exchange coil, wherein the piping module includes:
a first pipe (the vertical portion of the cold/hot water discharge pipe 140 extending downward from the coil CC as shown in fig. 3) connected to one side of the heat exchange coil (CC) and extending away from the case (110, into the auxiliary enclosure 120 as shown in fig. 3);
a second pipe (the horizontal portion of the cold/hot water discharge pipe 140) connected to one side of the first pipe (at the 90º bend shown in fig. 3) and disposed in parallel with the case (parallel to the horizontal bottom surface of the housing 110 as shown in fig. 3); and
wherein the second pipe includes:
a main pipe (the horizontal pipe 140 itself).
PNG
media_image3.png
548
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kang does not teach the discharge pipe (140) of his invention including a strainer and a pair of main pipe valves or a bypass pipe disposed parallel to the discharge pipe to bypass the strainer and having a bypass valve. Wanni teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in ¶¶ 36-38 and 45, a strainer device (16) installed in a pipeline (between an inflow line 12 and an outflow line 14) of a water circuit (as taught in ¶ 45) between an inlet valve (28) and an outlet valve (30) and having a bypass line (18) for bypassing the strainer, the bypass line (18) including a bypass valve (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kang with the strainer installation and design taught by Wanni in order to allow for solids to be removed from the water circuit of the cooling system in order to maintain the effective and reliable operation of the working components of the system (e.g. pumps) and in order to allow the strainer to be bypasses so that it may be more easily isolated from the rest of the circuit for cleaning purposes as taught in Wanni’s ¶ 48 to preserve the effective operation of the strainer and of the system as a whole.
Kang as modified by Wanni and discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 1 of Wanni, shown above, the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the pair of main pipe valves (28 and 30 of Wanni) is disposed between two points at which the bypass pipe (18 of Wanni) is connected to the main pipe (as shown in Wanni’s fig. 1.)
Kang teaches limitations from claim 3 in fig. 3, shown above, the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein a first end portion connector connected to the heat exchange coil (CC) is disposed at an end portion of the first pipe (shown in fig. 3 connecting the vertical end of the pipe 140 to the coil CC).
Kang as modified by Wanni and discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 teaches limitations from claim 6 in fig. 1 of Wanni, the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the strainer (16 of Wanni) includes a strainer pipe (the outer housing of the strainer 16 shown in fig. 1) that forms a flow path (42) therein, and a filter (screen assembly 50) configured to collect foreign substances (as taught in ¶ 44) from a fluid flowing through the strainer pipe (as taught in ¶¶ 40-44 of Wanni).
Regarding the teaching that the filter “is disposed in a direction toward the case”, refer to the above rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Further, in the absence of particular structure or functionality required by this recitation, the direction, alignment or orientation of the filter appears to be a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) that the arrangement of parts in a system is “an obvious matter of design choice” which does not bear patentable weight where it does not modify the operation of the system.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Wanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,768,349 to Lin et al.
Kang teaches limitations from claim 4, in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the heat exchange coil (CC) includes:
a heat exchange coil body (the rectangular body of the coil CC shown in figs. 2 and 3) disposed inside of the case (110) and configured to exchange heat with air (as taught in ¶ 28);
a heat exchange coil extension pipe (the vertical portion of the discharge pipe 140) that extends from the heat exchange coil body (of the coil CC) and protrudes outside of the case (110, as shown).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kang does not teach the system including a piping connector on the extension pipe for connecting this pipe to the piping module as taught in claim 4, or these connectors being disposed “disposed at a predetermined distance from the case” as taught in claim 5. Lin teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown below, and in col. 2, line 47-col. 3, line 11, a cooling device having a housing (10) in which a heat exchanger (20) is disposed for exchanging heat with air (via a fan 30). Lin teaches this housing (10) including holes (112 and 113) for allowing connecting pipes (23 and 24) formed as a coolant inlet and outlet to pass in order to connect at their ends to external coolant pipes (R) as taught in claim 4, these pipes having a fixed physical length so that the connectors at their ends are “disposed at a predetermined distance from the case” as taught in claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify in order to simplify the installation and maintenance of the heat exchanger by allowing the heat exchanger to be connected and disconnected from outside the housing of the cooling system.
PNG
media_image4.png
470
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
440
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Wanni as applied to claims 7 and 8 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2003/0150226 A1 to Jensen.
PNG
media_image6.png
360
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kang teaches a water-circuit refrigeration system having a main housing in which is disposed a water-to-air heat exchanger (CC) connected to an arrangement of pipes disposed externally, this arrangement including both an inlet pip (130) and a discharge pipe (140) which includes a portion extending downward from the heat exchanger (CC) and a horizontal portion running parallel to an airflow direction through the housing and heat exchanger. Wanni teaches a strainer and bypass arrangement for a water pipe including a number of valves for opening and closing both the main water pipe and the bypass. Neither Kang nor Wanni teaches the system including a flow control valve disposed in the main pip between the main pipe valves as taught in claim 7, this valve being downstream of the strainer as taught in claim 8. Jensen teaches an air cooling system (dotted-line box 128 shown in fig. 2) in which water is provided from a supply line (135) into the unit and to a cooler (also numbered 128 but labeled “COOLER”), the water passing through a water-treating unit (137, taught in ¶ 29 to include a filter) and then through a control valve (139) adjusted by a controller (136) and disposed downstream of the treatment unit and the filter thereof as taught in claim 8. In modifying the system of Kang and Wanni as described above with the control valve 139 of Jensen, this valve would be disposed, as taught by Jensen, at the outlet of the filter/strainer and would thus be disposed between the main pipe valves as taught in claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kang and Wanni further with the water control valve of Jensen in order to ensure that the flow of water through both the heat exchanger and the filter/strainer to ensure optimized cooling of air at the heat exchanger and flow and filtering of fluid at the strainer in order to ensure effective and reliable operations of the system tailored to instant operating conditions.
Kang as modified by Wanni and discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 teaches limitations from claim 9 in figs. 2 and 3 of Kang and fig. 1 of Wanni, shown above, the air conditioner of claim 7, wherein the main pipe (140 of Kang and the pipe extending from the inlet 12 to the outlet 14 of Wanni) includes a first connection pipe connected to the first pipe (at the 90º bend in the pipe 140 shown in fig. 1 of Kang, connecting to the inlet 12 of Wanni) and connected to a first side of the bypass pipe (18, at the left side thereof in fig. 1 of Wanni), a second connection pipe (at the outlet 14 of Wanni) connected to a second side of the bypass pipe (at the right side of the pipe 18 as shown in fig. 1 of Wanni), and at least one middle pipe (the pipes along which the valves 28 and 30 and the strainer device 16 of Wanni are disposed) disposed between the first connection pipe and the second connection pipe (as shown in fig. 1 of Wanni), and wherein the middle pipe fixes an arrangement of the strainer (16 as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding the teaching of the flow control valve also being fixed by this middle pipe, refer to the above rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Wanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2005/0201872 A1 to Decourioux et al.
PNG
media_image7.png
458
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 12, Kang teaches a water-circuit refrigeration system having a main housing in which is disposed a water-to-air heat exchanger (CC) connected to an arrangement of pipes disposed externally, this arrangement including both an inlet pip (130) and a discharge pipe (140) which includes a portion extending downward from the heat exchanger (CC) and a horizontal portion running parallel to an airflow direction through the housing and heat exchanger. Kang does not teach the system comprising a frame fixed to one side of the case and configured to fix an arrangement of the piping module as taught in claim 10, this frame including a fixed frame fixed to the case, a connection frame spaced from the fixed frame, and a spacing frame separating the connection frame from the fixed frame as taught in claim 11 with the spacing frame being a height-adjustable structure. Decourioux teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration system having a plurality of cases (of compressors 12) from which extend a number of refrigerant pipes (14). Decourioux teaches in ¶¶ 15 and 22 that the compressor cases (12) are fixed at a bottom side thereof to a frame comprising a base member (18) and that the pipes (14) are fixed to an upper end (at surface 30) of a plurality of supports (16), the length of which serve as the spacing frames taught by the instant claims as taught in claims 10 and 11. Decourioux teaches in ¶ 22 particularly that the supports 16 include a plurality of surfaces (at least 28 and 30) arranged in a stepped fashion and providing a plurality of different mounting locations at different heights for the attachment of the pipes 14, thus providing a height-adjustable structure as taught in claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kang with the pipe-fixing frame taught by Decourioux in order to ensure that the pipes of the system of Kang are firmly mounted to avoid movement or damage which could cause damage or reduce the effectiveness of the system’s operation, including movement caused by vibration during the operation of the system as taught in ¶¶ 7 and 19 of Decourioux.
Kang as modified by Wanni and Decourioux and discussed in the above rejection of claim 10 teaches limitations from claim 13 in figs. 2 and 3 of Kang and fig. 1 of Decourioux, shown above, the air conditioner of claim 11, wherein the at least one connection frame includes a pair of connection frames (the supports 16, of which two are shown in fig. 1, with ¶ 19 of Decourioux teaching that the exact location and number of supports may be selected based on the configuration of the system) spaced apart from each other (as shown in Decourioux’s fig. 1).
Regarding the teaching that the pair of connection frames intersect both the main pipe and bypass pipe, Decourioux teaches in fig. 1 that the supports 16 connect to and support multiple pipes (22 and 24) at different heights. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed in modifying the system of Kang with the teachings of Wanni and Decourioux to support both the main pipe and the bypass pipe in order to allow both of these pipes to benefit from the support in the manner taught by Decourioux and discussed above (including preventing damage from vibrations of the system as per ¶¶ 7 and 19 of Decourioux).
Kang as modified by Wanni and Decourioux and discussed in the above rejection of claim 10 teaches limitations from claim 14 in figs. 2 and 3 of Kang and fig. 1 of Decourioux, shown above, the air conditioner of claim 10, further comprising at least one clamp (the band fasteners 26 of Decourioux) configured to fix the piping module to the frame (connecting the pipes 14 to the supports 16 as taught in ¶ 21 of Decourioux).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Wanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,446,703 to Gilbertson.
PNG
media_image8.png
298
426
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Kang teaches a water-circuit refrigeration system having a main housing in which is disposed a water-to-air heat exchanger (CC) connected to an arrangement of pipes disposed externally, this arrangement including both an inlet pip (130) and a discharge pipe (140) which includes a portion extending downward from the heat exchanger (CC) and a horizontal portion running parallel to an airflow direction through the housing and heat exchanger. Wanni teaches a strainer and bypass arrangement for a water pipe including a number of valves for opening and closing both the main water pipe and the bypass. Neither Kang nor Wanni teaches the system including a third pipe pent to extend from the second pipe in a direction opposite that of the first pipe. Gilbertson teaches in fig. 5, shown above, and in col. 8, lines 58-col. 9, line 23, a water-circulating air conditioning system in which water is provided by a pump (113) to a number of refrigeration units (120 and 130) from which the water then flow out through outlet pipes (120A and 130A). Gilbertson particularly shows in fig. 5 a first section extending upward from the outlet pipes (120A and 130A) to connect to the refrigeration units (120 and 130, respectively) as well as a common water pipe (116) bent to extend downward from these pipes, equivalent to the claimed third pipe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kang with the pipes and the arrangement thereof of Gilbertson in order to allow water flowing from the heat exchanger to other components of the system to continue cooling operations and to flow under the influence of gravity, reducing the energy requirement for this flow of water.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Wanni and Decourioux.
Regarding the limitations of claim 16, refer to the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the air conditioner and piping module and claim 10 regarding the frame.
Regarding the limitations of claim 17, refer to the above rejection of claim 11.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, refer to the above rejection of claim 12.
Regarding the limitations of claim 19, refer to the above rejection of claim 13.
Regarding the limitations of claim 20, refer to the above rejection of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763