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 .
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 6/5/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19 and 20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
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 1-6, 8-17, 19 and 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, the recitation of “…wherein the base pan defines a condensate collection reservoir directly below the outdoor heat exchanger and one or more pan holes passing through the base pan within the condensate collection reservoir,” renders the claim unclear. It is unclear what is meant by ‘one or more pan holes passing through the base pan within the condensate collection reservoir’ when the disclosure and claim suggests that the condensate collection reservoir is a structure inside of a base pan.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein the base pan defines a condensate collection reservoir directly below the outdoor heat exchanger and one or more pan holes passing through the base pan
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.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20060005195A) in view of Pinter (US2955439).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Kim teaches an air conditioner unit defining a vertical, a lateral, and a transverse direction [fig 1], and a base pan assembly [at 60; fig 3] for the air conditioner unit; the air conditioner unit comprising:
a bulkhead [the vertical portion of 56] mounted within a cabinet to define an indoor portion [A] and an outdoor portion [B; 0032; 0033; figs 2 &3];
an indoor heat exchanger [70] positioned within the indoor portion [0033];
an outdoor heat exchanger [80] positioned within the outdoor portion [0033]; and a base pan [60] positioned under the outdoor heat exchanger for collecting condensate that drips off the outdoor heat exchanger [0033], and one or more pan holes [64] passing through the base pan [0033]; wherein the base pan further defines a perimeter of the base pan [0033; figs 2 & 3; where pan 60 has a perimeter as seen by inspection in fig 3].
Kim does not teach wherein the base pan defines a condensate collection reservoir directly below the outdoor heat exchanger and one or more pan holes passing through the base pan and the condensate collection reservoir and an elevated wall positioned on the interior of the base pan to define the condensate collection reservoir surrounding the one or more pan holes
Pinter teaches a heat pump [fig 1] having wherein the base pan [Drawing I] defines a condensate collection reservoir [14] directly below the outdoor heat exchanger and one or more pan holes [15] passing through the base pan and the condensate collection reservoir and an elevated wall positioned [as seen on fig 2] on the interior of the base pan to define the condensate collection reservoir surrounding the one or more pan holes [col 3, lines 34-72; figs 1 & 2] 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. provide a structure that receives water from the heat exchanger.
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 Kim to have wherein the base pan defines a condensate collection reservoir directly below the outdoor heat exchanger and one or more pan holes passing through the base pan and the condensate collection reservoir and an elevated wall positioned on the interior of the base pan to define the condensate collection reservoir surrounding the one or more pan holes in view of the teachings of Pinter 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. provide a structure that receives water from the heat exchanger.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing I
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 1 and 12 above and Kim teaches wherein the one or more pan holes are positioned in front of a fan shroud [86; see fig 3 where the seating portion [65] of the heat exchanger 80 is forward of the shroud [86] and where the pan hole is forward of said seating portion].
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 1 and 12 above and Kim teaches wherein the one or more pan holes are positioned such that the condensate flows unimpeded to one or more pan holes after falling from the outdoor heat exchanger [0033; 0035].
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 1 and 12 above and Kim teaches wherein the one or more pan holes are positioned between lateral sides of the outdoor heat exchanger along the lateral direction [see fig 3].
Regarding Claim 11, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kim teaches wherein the air conditioner unit is a single-package vertical unit (SPVU) or a package terminal air conditioner (PTAC) [see fig 1].
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 14, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20060005195A) and Pinter (US2955439) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Seto et al. (US2025/0122157).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 1 and 12 above but does not teach wherein the one or more pan holes are spaced apart from the outdoor heat exchanger by a hole spacing defined along the transverse direction, the hole spacing being less than 25 millimeters.
However, Seto teaches a heat source unit having a heat exchanger [7] and drain plate [2; 0019; 0020; fig 2] where one or more drain plate holes [20] are spaced apart from the outdoor heat exchanger by a hole spacing defined along the transverse direction [0020; 0021; see at least fig 3]. Whereas Seto does not teach the hole spacing being less than 25 millimeters, Seto does teach where the position and number of holes are formed in consideration of strength of the drain plate and the efficiency of draining the drain water [0021; 0022; where one skilled in the art would recognize that hole spacing dictates the number of holes provided]. Thus, the hole spacing is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is integrity of the drain plate and drainage efficiency.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum hole spacing by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the hole spacing being less than 25 millimeters in order to achieve optimum integrity of the drain plate and optimal drainage efficiency.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 3 and 14 above and Seto teaches wherein the hole spacing is less than 10 millimeters [0021; 0022; where Seto teaches where the position and number of holes are formed in consideration of strength of the drain plate and the efficiency of draining the drain water. Thus, the hole spacing is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is integrity of the drain plate and drainage efficiency.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum hole spacing by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the hole spacing is less than 10 millimeters in order to achieve optimum integrity of the drain plate and optimal drainage efficiency.
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 1 and 12 and Seto teaches wherein the one or more pan holes are defined between the outdoor heat exchanger and an outdoor fan along the transverse direction [0021; 0022; where Seto teaches where the position and number of holes are formed in consideration of strength of the drain plate and the efficiency of draining the drain water. Thus, the hole spacing is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is integrity of the drain plate and drainage efficiency.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum hole spacing by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the one or more pan holes are defined between the outdoor heat exchanger and an outdoor fan along the transverse direction in order to achieve optimum integrity of the drain plate and optimal drainage efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20060005195A) and Pinter (US2955439) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Quick (US2892324).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claims 1 and 12 above but does not teach a thermostatic drain valve operably coupled to the one or more pan holes.
However, Quick teaches a refrigeration system [fig 2] having a thermostatic drain valve [at least the assembly of thermostat 22a, valve 23a] operably coupled to the one or more pan holes [at outlet 31a; col 3, lines 17-63; fig 2] 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. provide an automatic drain system [col 4, lines 1-13].
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 Kim to have a thermostatic drain valve operably coupled to the one or more pan holes in view of the teachings of Quick 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. provide an automatic drain system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20060005195A) and Pinter (US2955439) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AL Watban (US2010/0281896).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the base pan is formed from plastic.
However, AL Watban teaches a refrigeration cooler system [fig 1] having wherein a base pan [11, 12] is formed from plastic [0063; 0064; fig 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. provide a base ban whose manufacture is flexible.
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 Kim to have a wherein the base pan is formed from plastic in view of the teachings of Al Watban 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. provide a base ban whose manufacture is flexible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights