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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10, line 2 recites “the printed circuit board includes a first printed circuit board.” It is unclear how a circuit board can “include” a circuit board. The Examiner suggest changing “includes” to “is.”
Claim 10, line 3 recites “the control box includes a first control box.” It is unclear how a control box can “include” a control box. Again, the Examiner suggest changing “includes” to “is.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devrath et al. (US 2021/0071882 A1).
As per claim 1, Devrath et al. disclose an outdoor unit 100 of an air conditioner, comprising: a housing (Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) including a heat exchange room (left portion comprising fans 110 as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) and a machine room (right portion as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.); a partition configured to partition the heat exchange room from the machine room (wall partition between the right and left portions as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) and including a partition opening (implicit for airflows shown in Figs. 1A-1`C); a fan 110 positioned in the heat exchange room; a control box 300 positioned in the machine room and configured to accommodate an electric component 306 including a printed circuit board (para. 0003); a heat sink 304 configured to discharge heat generated in the printed circuit board to outside of the control box and extending along a first direction (extending vertically as shown in Fig. 3); and a duct configured to discharge heat transferred from the heat sink to the heat exchange room, wherein at least a part of the heat sink is positioned inside the duct (duct comprising various air flows shown in Figs. 1A-1C; heat sink 304 is part of control box 300 which is positioned in the duct as shown in Figs. 1A-1C; etc.),
the duct comprises: a duct inlet 102 configured to introduce air into inside of the duct; a duct outlet connected to the partition opening and configured to discharge air to the heat exchange room (see air flows passing across partition to the heat exchange room in Figs. 1A-1C);
a first flow path extending from the duct inlet in the first direction along a first part of the heat sink, the first part of the heat sink being adjacent to the duct inlet (flow path shown in Fig. 1C); and a second flow path connecting the first flow path to the duct outlet, wherein a second part of the heat sink is positioned in the second flow path and extends from the first part of the heat sink in the first direction (flow path shown in Fig. 1B).
Devrath et al. do not teach wherein a width of the second flow path in a second direction (direction going into the paper) different from the first direction (vertical) is greater than a width of the first flow path in the second direction. However, the respective flow path widths are considered an obvious matter to try under KSR as comprising a finite number of alternatives (the width of the second flow path can be greater than, equal to, or less than the width of the first flow path), and simple mechanical expedients that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to determine through routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the amount of heat exchange for maintaining a desired temperature of the circuit board.
As per claim 2, Devrath et al. discloses wherein the second flow path extends along a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction, toward the duct outlet (Fig. 1B shows where the path turns to the left before exiting vent 106).
As per claim 3, Devrath et al. discloses wherein the first direction (vertical), the second direction (into the page), and the third direction (to the left) are orthogonal to each other (Fig. 1B; etc.).
As per claim 11, Devrath et al. disclose wherein the duct further comprises a cover wall covering the first part of the heat sink in the second direction (back cover wall enclosing control box (Fig. 1B)).
As per claim 13, Devrath et al. disclose wherein the duct further comprises an extension wall (right side wall of control box) extending from one end of the cover wall, opposite to the duct inlet, in the second direction, and the second flow path is positioned in the first direction with respect to the extension wall (Fig. 1B).
As per claim 14, Devrath et al. disclose wherein the duct further comprises a connection flow path connecting the second flow path to the duct outlet (part of second flow path leading across partition in Fig. 1B). Devrath et al. do not teach wherein a width of the connection flow path in the first direction is greater than a width of the second flow path in the first direction. Again, the respective flow path widths are considered an obvious matter to try under KSR as comprising a finite number of alternatives (the width of the second flow path can be greater than, equal to, or less than the width of the first flow path), and simple mechanical expedients that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to determine through routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the amount of heat exchange for maintaining a desired temperature of the circuit board.
As per claim 16, Devrath et al. disclose an outdoor unit of an air conditioner, comprising:
a heat exchange room (left portion comprising condenser fans 110 as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) including a heat exchanger (condenser implicitly related to condenser fans);
a machine room (right portion as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) partitioned from the heat exchange room (by partition wall shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.),
a control box 300 positioned in the machine room and configured to accommodate electronic components 306;
a heat sink 304 installed in the control box; and a duct (duct comprising various air flows shown in Figs. 1A-1C), wherein the duct comprises: a duct inlet 102 connected to the machine room; a duct outlet connected to the heat exchange room (see air flows passing across partition to the heat exchange room in Figs. 1A-1C), and a duct flow path positioned between the duct inlet and the duct outlet and passing through the heat sink, wherein the duct flow path comprises: a first flow path extending from the duct inlet in a first direction and passing through a part of the heat sink adjacent to the duct inlet (flow path shown in Fig. 1C); and a second flow path positioned in the first direction with respect to the first flow path and passing through another part of the heat sink (flow path shown in Fig. 1B), and wherein the second flow path extends toward the duct outlet along a third direction (Fig. 1B shows where the path turns to the left before exiting vent 106) different from the first direction (vertical) and a second direction (into page). Again, Devrath et al. do not teach wherein a width of the second flow path in a second direction different from the first direction is greater than a width of the first flow path in the second direction, and wherein the second flow path extends toward the duct outlet along a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction. Again, the respective flow path widths are considered an obvious matter to try under KSR as comprising a finite number of alternatives (the width of the second flow path can be greater than, equal to, or less than the width of the first flow path), and simple mechanical expedients that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to determine through routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the amount of heat exchange for maintaining a desired temperature of the circuit board.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devrath et al. (US 2021/0071882 A1) in view of Yaji et al. (US 2021/0055007 A1).
As per claim 15, Devrath et al. do not teach wherein the heat sink includes a plurality of heat transfer plates extending in the second direction from one side adjacent to the printed circuit board, the plurality of heat transfer plates are arranged to be spaced apart from each other along a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction, and the second flow path extends toward the duct outlet along the third direction. Yaji et al. teach the concept of a heat sink 51 for a printed circuit board 30 having a plurality of heat transfer plates (fins 51b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide heat transfer fins on the heat sink of Devrath et al. for the purpose providing increased surface area in order to improve heat exchange efficiency. Further, the exact juxtaposition of such heat transfer fins within the duct of Devrath et al. is considered a simple mechanical expedient of a particular arrangement of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing the air flow heat exchange of the heat sink.
As per claim 20, Devrath et al. disclose an outdoor unit 100 of an air conditioner, comprising: a housing (Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) including a heat exchange room (left portion comprising fans 110 as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) and a machine room (right portion as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.); a partition configured to partition the heat exchange room from the machine room (wall partition between the right and left portions as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1C; etc.) and including a partition opening (implicit for airflows shown in Figs. 1A-1`C); a fan 110 positioned in the heat exchange room; a control box 300 positioned in the machine room and configured to accommodate an electric component 306 including a printed circuit board (para. 0003); a duct positioned in the machine room and connected to the heat exchange room through the partition (duct comprising various air flows shown in Figs. 1A-1C), wherein the duct comprises: a duct inlet 102 through which air is configured to flow into inside of the duct; a duct outlet connected to the partition and configured to discharge air to the heat exchange room (see air flows passing across partition to the heat exchange room in Figs. 1A-1C), and a duct flow path passing through the heat sink between the duct inlet and the duct outlet, wherein the duct flow path comprises: a first flow path extending from the duct inlet in a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction, along a part of the heat sink, adjacent to the duct inlet (flow path shown in Fig. 1C); and a second flow path extending along the second direction such that air from the heat sink is configured to flow toward the duct outlet (flow path shown in Fig. 1B).
Devrath et al. do not teach wherein the heat sink includes a plurality of heat transfer plates extending in a first direction from one sides being adjacent to the printed circuit board and arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a second direction different from the first direction. Yaji et al. teach the concept of a heat sink 51 for a printed circuit board 30 having a plurality of heat transfer plates (fins 51b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide heat transfer fins on the heat sink of Devrath et al. for the purpose providing increased surface area in order to improve heat exchange efficiency. Further, the exact juxtaposition of such heat transfer fins within the duct of Devrath et al. is considered a simple mechanical expedient of a particular arrangement of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing the air flow heat exchange of the heat sink.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 12, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 4 (and claims 5-10 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or motivation to further modify the assembly of Devrath et al. wherein the duct further comprises a third flow path positioned in the first direction from one side of the heat sink opposite to the duct inlet.
As per claim 12, there is no teaching or motivation to further modify the assembly of Devrath et al. wherein the cover wall comprises an inclined portion extending to be farther away from the heat sink in the second direction while nearing the second flow path from the first flow path in the first direction.
As per claim 17 (and claim 18 which depends therefrom), there is no teaching or motivation to further modify the assembly of Devrath et al. wherein the duct flow path further comprises: a third flow path extending from at least a part of the second flow path in which the another part of the heat sink is positioned, in a direction that is opposite to the first flow path.
As per claim 19, there is no teaching or motivation to further modify the assembly of Devrath et al. wherein a width of the third flow path in the second direction increases toward the second flow path in the first direction. 19, The outdoor unit of claim 16, wherein the first flow path comprises: a first part adjacent to the duct inlet; and a second part positioned between the first part and the second flow path, wherein a width of the second part in the second direction increases toward the second flow path from the first part.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Park et al. (US 2025/0102161 A1) and Sun et al. (US 2025/0020343 A1) are related applications by the instant assignee.
Tobbe et al. (US 2024/0369255 A1) teach a duct arrangement for an air conditioner outdoor unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763