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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (CN209145983) in view of Shaffer (US 2018/0259220) and Real et al. (US 2024/0401830).
Per claim 1, Xue teaches an air conditioner defining a vertical, a lateral, and a transverse direction, the air conditioner unit comprising: a cabinet (outer structure air conditioner as shown in figure 1) defining an outer portion (portion of cabinet surrounding the outdoor heat exchanger), an outdoor heat exchanger (see annotated figure below of figure 1) positioned within an outdoor portion (portion of air conditioner surrounding the outdoor heat exchanger); a condensate collection reservoir (region of 5 surrounding 1) positioned under the outdoor heat exchanger (see figure 1) for collecting condensate that drips off the outdoor heat exchanger; and a pump (1) fluidly coupled to the condensate collection reservoir (region of 5 surrounding 1) for selectively pumping the condensate out of the condensate collection reservoir (translation Abstract) , wherein the pump (1) comprises an intake conduit (7) positioned within the condensate collection reservoir (region of 5 surrounding 1) and a discharge conduit (2) for discharging the condensate but fails to explicitly teach the air conditioner unit comprising a bulkhead mounted within the cabinet to define an indoor portion and the outdoor portion, an indoor heat exchanger positioned within the indoor portion and wherein the intake conduit is positioned underneath the outdoor heat exchanger.
Regarding the bulkhead and the position of the indoor heat exchanger, Shaffer teaches an air conditioner unit comprising a bulkhead (46) mounted within a cabinet (20) to define an indoor portion (portion with 40) and an outdoor portion (portion with 30), and an indoor heat exchanger (40) positioned within the indoor portion (portion with 40) that collects condensate that drips off of an outdoor heat exchanger (para. 0030). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an air conditioner unit comprising a bulkhead mounted within a cabinet to define an indoor portion and an outdoor portion, and an indoor heat exchanger positioned within the indoor portion, as taught by Shaffer in the invention of Xue, in order to advantageously collect condensate that drips off an outdoor heat exchanger (para. 0030), thereby inhibiting condensate from leaking into unwanted regions of the air conditioner unit and causing water damage.
Regarding the intake conduit, Real teaches an air conditioner condensate removal system including an intake conduit (238) positioned underneath an outdoor heat exchanger (214) for preventing condensate from freezing in the condensate removal system (para. 0024). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an intake conduit positioned underneath an outdoor heat exchanger, as taught by Real in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously prevent condensate from freezing in a condensate removal system (para. 0024).
Per claim 2, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches wherein the pump (1) is placed inside the condensate collection reservoir (region of 5 surrounding 1) (see figure 1).
Per claim 4, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches a base pan (5), wherein the discharge conduit (2) extends out of the base pan (5).
Per claim 6. Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches wherein the pump (1) comprises a heater (4) for heating the condensate drawn from the condensate collection reservoir.
Per claim 7, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches wherein the heater (4) is thermally coupled to the intake conduit (7) of the pump (1) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly are considered to be “thermally coupled” to one another).
Per claim 10, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches wherein the pump (1) is a hot water recirculating pump (to clarify, when the heater is activated the water is considered a “hot water circulating pump”).
Per claim 11, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches a base pan (5), wherein the condensate collection reservoir (region of 5 surrounding 1) is defined by the base pan (5).
Per claim 13, claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 17, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 18, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 17. Further, claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (CN209145983) in view of Shaffer (US 2018/0259220) and Real et al. (US 2024/0401830) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Eicher et al. (US 2025/0207812).
Per claim 5, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Xue, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the discharge conduit directs the condensate onto the indoor heat exchanger.
However, Eicher teaches an air conditioner unit wherein a discharge conduit (706) directs condensate onto an indoor heat exchanger (“the pump 702 can be configured to transport the water from the outdoor base pan 132 to the indoor portion 102, where the condensate can be discharged onto the indoor coil 118”, para. 0059) for adding humidity to an indoor space (para. 0059). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a discharge conduit direct condensate onto an indoor heat exchanger, as taught by Eicher in the invention of Xue, as modified, in order to advantageously provided added humidity to an indoor space (para. 0059).
Per claim 16, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, claim 16 recites similar limitations as claims 4 and 5 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (CN209145983) in view of Shaffer (US 2018/0259220) and Real et al. (US 2024/0401830) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 2025/0290660).
Per claim 8, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches a temperature sensor (“the water pump part further comprises a temperature sensor”, pg. 4 of translation) and a control method configured to: obtain a temperature using the temperature sensor (“the water pump part further comprises a temperature sensor”, pg. 4 of translation); determine that the temperature falls below a predetermined temperature threshold (“the preset temperature t0”, pg. 5 of translation); and activate the heater while operating the pump in response to determining that the temperature falls below the predetermined temperature threshold (“the control method comprising: step a, setting the preset temperature t0 and the detected temperature t of the working state and the outdoor machine in the environment of outdoor machine step b, if the outdoor machine is in the heating mode, and t ≤ t0, then opening the first heating element 3 and second heating element 4, and the third heating element 6”, pg. 5 of translation) but fails to explicitly teach controller and the temperature sensor being an ambient temperature sensor.
Regarding the controller, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to use a controller to perform a control method for providing automatic control of a system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a controller in order to advantageously provide automatic control of the air conditioning system.
In the Office Action dated 1/14/2026, the Examiner took Official Notice that controllers old and well known in the refrigeration art to perform control methods. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Regarding the temperature sensor being an ambient temperature sensor, Taylor teaches an air conditioning condensate removal system using an ambient temperature sensor (“the one or more sensors may sense the temperature or other environmental conditions of the environment”, para. 0048) for preventing a clogging of a drain line (para. 0006). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an ambient temperature sensor, as taught by Taylor in the invention of Xue, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent clogging of a drain line (para. 0006).
Per claim 9, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches wherein the predetermined temperature threshold is 32°F (“said preset temperature t0 is 0 degrees centigrade”, pg. 2 of translation).
Per claim 19, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 17. Further, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 8 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 20, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 19. Further, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 9 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (CN209145983) in view of Shaffer (US 2018/0259220) and Real et al. (US 2024/0401830) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Chapin et al. (US 2022/0290876).
Per claim 12, Xue, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Xue, as modified, teaches the base pan (5) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the base pan defines one or more pan holes, and wherein the pump discharges the condensate through the one or more pan holes.
However, Chapin teaches a condensate removal system wherein a base pan (104/109) defines pan holes (128), and wherein a pump (140) discharged condensate through the pan holes (128) for draining condensate when gravity drainage is not possible (para. 0026). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a base pan defining pan holes, wherein a pump discharges condensate through the pan hole, as taught by Chapin in the invention of Xue, as modified, in order to advantageously drain condensate when gravity drainage is not possible (para. 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights