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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/25/2024, 11/04/2024, 05/21/2025 & 06/16/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 8, 12 & 18-19 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.
A) Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plurality of flow limiting portions" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 has been construed to be dependent on Claim 2, instead of Claim 1.
B) Claim 12 recites the limitation "the specific inclination angle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 has been construed to be dependent on Claim 11, instead of Claim 1.
C) Claims 18-19 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 11,054,152 B2 to Cho.
A) As per Claim 1, Cho teaches an air conditioner (Cho: Figure 5) comprising:
a main body including a heat exchanger (Cho: Figure 5, Item 20) and a blower fan (Cho: Figure 5, Item 30);
a panel frame (Cho: Figure 5, Item 13) assembled to the main body;
a grille panel (Cho: Figure 5, Item 14) positioned on one side of the panel frame;
a blade (Cho: Figure 5, Item 120) arranged to be spaced apart from the grille panel by a specified distance and to be rotatable relative to the panel frame;
an intermediate panel (Cho: Figure 5, portion of Item 13 above Item 120) positioned between the grille panel and the blade;
a plurality of first holes (Cho: Figure 5, Items 221 & 313) arranged in the intermediate panel and configured to discharge air delivered from the blower fan; and
a plurality of second holes (Cho: Figure 5, Item 121) arranged in the blade and configured to discharge air delivered from the blower fan.
B) As per Claim 11, Cho teaches that each of the plurality of second holes extends to have a specified inclination angle with respect to a direction of gravity in a windless mode in which the blade blocks an air outlet (Cho: Figure 5, Item 121).
C) As per Claim 14, Cho teaches that two ends of the blade are supported on the panel frame, and an intermediate blade region positioned between the two ends of the blade is bent to have a specified curvature along the direction of gravity (Cho: Figure 5, Item 120; all blades would naturally blend at least slightly under gravity when installed).
Claim(s) 1-3 & 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN114076357A to Liu.
A) As per Claim 1, Liu teaches an air conditioner (Liu: Figure 10) comprising:
a main body including a heat exchanger (Liu: Figure 10, Item 160) and a blower fan (Liu: Figure 10, Item 170);
a panel frame (Liu: Figure 10, Item 113) assembled to the main body;
a grille panel (Liu: Figure 10, Item 104) positioned on one side of the panel frame;
a blade (Liu: Figure 10, Item 180) arranged to be spaced apart from the grille panel by a specified distance and to be rotatable relative to the panel frame;
an intermediate panel (Liu: Figure 10, portion of Item 113 including 102 & 103) positioned between the grille panel and the blade;
a plurality of first holes (Liu: Figure 10, Items 102 & 103) arranged in the intermediate panel and configured to discharge air delivered from the blower fan; and
a plurality of second holes (Liu: Figure 10, holes in Item 180) arranged in the blade and configured to discharge air delivered from the blower fan.
B) As per Claim 2, Liu teaches a first flow path positioned between the main body and the intermediate panel, extending along one direction, and configured to move first air discharged from the main body therethrough (Liu: Figure 10, Items 132-133); and
a plurality of flow limiting portions (Liu: Figure 10, Items 300 & 400) arranged in the first flow path and spaced apart from each other by a specified distance along the one direction.
C) As per Claim 3, Liu teaches a cross-sectional area of the first flow path decreases along the one direction, and each of the plurality of flow limiting portions extends to have a specified height along another direction perpendicular to the one direction, and respective heights of the plurality of flow limiting portions decrease along the one direction (Liu: Figure 10, passage 132-133 narrows as the first downstream in the duct the air flows such that the Item 400 is smaller than 300 at least slightly).
D) As per Claim 7, Liu teaches that each of a plurality of flow limiting portions is arranged to have a specified inclination angle with respect to the main body (Liu: Figure 10, Items 300 & 400).
E) As per Claim 8, Liu teaches that each of the plurality of flow limiting portions is configured to be rotatable at a specified inclination angle relative to the main body (Liu: Figure 10, Items 300 & 400).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-13, 15 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
A) As per Claim 9, Cho teaches all the limitations except explicitly that each of the plurality of first holes has a diameter of at least 0.1 millimeters (mm) but not more than 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the holes 0.1-10mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (small holes), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that hole size is a result effective variable because the size of the holes determines how fast and what volume of air is moving through the holes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the holes 0.1-10mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
B) As per Claim 10, Cho teaches all the limitations except explicitly that each of the plurality of second holes has a diameter of at least 0.1 millimeters (mm) but not more than 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the holes 0.1-10mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (small holes), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that hole size is a result effective variable because the size of the holes determines how fast and what volume of air is moving through the holes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the holes 0.1-10mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
C) As per Claim 12, Cho teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the specified inclination angle of each of the plurality of second holes is at least 0 degrees but not more than 24 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the hole angle 0-24 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (angled holes), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that hole angle is a result effective variable because the angle of the holes determines the outflow direction into the room. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the hole angle 0-24 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
D) As per Claim 13, Cho teaches all the limitations except that the blade is rotatable at an angle of at least 0 degrees but not more than 87 degrees relative to the panel frame.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make blade opening angle 0-87 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (blade opens to a particular angle), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that opening angle of the blade is a result effective variable because it determines the direction of the airflow and the size of the opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the opening angle 0-87 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
E) As per Claim 15, Cho teaches in a windless mode in which the blade blocks the air outlet provided in the panel frame, an intermediate region of the panel frame between the two ends of the panel frame is arranged to face the intermediate blade region positioned between the two ends of the blade (Cho: Figures 7 or 8).
Cho does not explicitly teach that the intermediate region of the panel frame has a curved shape having a radius of curvature of at least 25,000 mm but not more than 50,000 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the rigidity of the intermediate region such that the radius curvature of 25-50m, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (slight natural curve due to gravity in blade), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that rigidity is a result effective variable because the more rigid, the less deflection, but the more material needed for the blade itself. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the rigidity of the intermediate region such that the radius curvature of 25-50m, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
F) As per Claim 20, Cho teaches that each of the plurality of second holes extends to have a specified inclination angle with respect to a direction of gravity in a windless mode in which the blade blocks an air outlet (Cho: Figure 8, Items 221).
Claim(s) 4-6 & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
A) As per Claims 4, 16 & 18, Liu teaches that the plurality of flow limiting portions comprise a first flow limiting portion and a second flow limiting portion arranged adjacent to each other along the one direction (Liu: Figure 10, Items 300 & 400).
Liu does not explicitly teach a first height of the first flow limiting portion extending along the other direction and a second height of the second flow limiting portion are configured such that a flow rate of the first air passing through the second flow limiting portion is less than 50 % of a flow rate of the first air passing through the first flow limiting portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the heights of the two limiting portions such that a flow rate of the first air passing through the second flow limiting portion is less than 50 % of a flow rate of the first air passing through the first flow limiting portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (less airflow through the second limiting portion compared to first limiting portion), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio of the airflow through the two portions is a result effective variable because any air that does not pass through the second limiting portion is sent out of the holes between the two limiting portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the heights of the two limiting portions such that a flow rate of the first air passing through the second flow limiting portion is less than 50 % of a flow rate of the first air passing through the first flow limiting portion, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
B) As per Claim 5, Liu teaches a ratio, of the second height of the second flow limiting portion to a first height of the first flow limiting portion is in a range of 50% to 100% (Liu: Figure 10, passage 132-133 narrows as the first downstream in the duct the air flows such that the Item 400 is smaller than 300 at least slightly).
B) As per Claims 6, 17 & 19, Liu teaches the plurality of flow limiting portions are arranged adjacent to each other along the one direction (Liu: Figure 10, Items 300 & 400).
Liu does not explicitly teach that a number of the plurality of flow limiting portions is configured so that a flow rate of the first air passing through a flow limiting portion at a most distant position along the one direction is at least 10 % but not more than 15 % of a flow rate of the first air flowing into the first flow path.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the flow rate through last limiting portion 10-15% of the air through the first flow path, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (less airflow through last limiting portion), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that ratio of the airflow through the two portions is a result effective variable because any air that does not pass through the second limiting portion is sent out of the holes between the two limiting portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flow rate through last limiting portion 10-15% of the air through the first flow path, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights