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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a new combination of limitations which are addressed in the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment. Applicant is arguing about the amended limitations. With respect to Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 3, Examiner notes that not only does Applicant’s disclosure contemplate both shared and separate water supplies, but that the beneficial results about which Applicant argues are merely indicative of expected results of combining the water supply. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 5, Examiner notes that not only does Applicant’s disclosure contemplate a plurality of arrangements, including non-vertical, but that the beneficial results about which Applicant argues are merely indicative of expected results of vertical arrangement. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Regarding Examiner’s finding of OFFICIAL NOTICE regarding upstream/downstream fan placements, Examiner notes that Applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion, and thus it is now found to be Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
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.
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) 1-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al. (CN 113137676: corresponding English language document US 2022/0349614 cited as English translation: both cited by Applicant) in view of Hood et al. (US 4,380,910: previously cited) and Kim (KR 102282649: English Translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Sakano et al. discloses an air conditioner, comprising:
a sensible heat exchanger (see at least exchanger #22) including a supply air channel (see at least channel #41) and an exhaust air channel (see at least channel #51);
an exchanger water supply to supply water to the exhaust air channel of the sensible heat exchanger (see at least water supply part(s) #223);
a filter for exhaust air to pass through (see at least filter #31), the filter being located upstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of exhaust air flowing through the exhaust air channel of the sensible heat exchanger (see at least dotted lines of exhaust air stream, filter #31 is upstream of exchanger #22) and
a filter water supply (see at least water supply channel #81; paragraph [0034]).
Sakano et al. does not disclose to supply water to the exhaust-air evaporate filter.
Hood et al. teaches another air conditioner having filter water supply to both supply and exhaust air filters (see at least media pads #21 and #47, both receiving water having filter water supply #20/#46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air conditioner of Sakano et al. with filter water supply to supply water to the exhaust-air evaporate filter, as taught by Hood et al., to improve the air conditioner of Sakano et al. by reducing the temperature of the supply air by the humidified exhaust air (see Hood et al. column 2, line 63 through column 3, line 5).
Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. does not disclose the filter including both an exhaust-air evaporate filter being located upstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of exhaust air flowing through the exhaust air channel of the sensible heat exchange and an exhaust-air dust collecting filter located upstream of the exhaust-air evaporate filter in the flow direction of air.
Kim teaches another air conditioner with sensible heat exchanger comprising a plurality of filters in an exhaust air stream upstream of the sensible heat exchanger (see at least exhaust filtering unit #142: “At this time, the exhaust filtering unit 142 is configured by stacking a pre-filter, a medium filter, and a hepa filter along the direction in which the bet (內气) is exhausted.”: Examiner notes that pre-filter may be considered the dust filter and the medium and/or hepa filter may be considered the evaporate filter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air conditioner of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. with both an exhaust-air evaporate filter being located upstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of exhaust air flowing through the exhaust air channel of the sensible heat exchange and an exhaust-air dust collecting filter located upstream of the exhaust-air evaporate filter in the flow direction of air, as taught by Kim, to improve the air conditioner of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. by ensuring that bacteria, viruses, etc. are eliminated from the air, thus improving the quality/cleanliness of the exhaust air.
Regarding claim 2, Sakano et al. further discloses further comprising a supply-air evaporative filter for supply air to pass through (see at least vaporization filter #21), the supply-air evaporative filter being located downstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of supply air flowing through the supply air channel of the sensible heat exchanger (see at least solid lines indicating the supply air flow).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, While Sakano et al. further discloses the supply-air evaporative filter is located downstream of the filter water supply in the supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply (see at least water supply channel #81 above filter #21; paragraph [0034]), Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim does not disclose wherein the exhaust-air evaporate filter and the supply-air evaporative filter are to share the filter water supply and are arranged in parallel along a supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply; and the exhaust-air evaporative filter is located downstream of the supply-air evaporative filter in the supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the exhaust-air evaporate filter and the supply-air evaporative filter are to share the filter water supply and are arranged in parallel along a supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply; and the exhaust-air evaporative filter is located downstream of the supply-air evaporative filter in the supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply would result in a difference in function of the Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that the filters/water supply/water supplies may be arranged in a plurality of different configurations (see paragraphs [0056]-[0057]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim with wherein the exhaust-air evaporate filter and the supply-air evaporative filter are to share the filter water supply and are arranged in parallel along a supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply; and the exhaust-air evaporative filter is located downstream of the supply-air evaporative filter in the supply direction of water supplied from the filter water supply as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 5, Sakano et al. further discloses the filter water supply is located above the supply-air evaporative filter (see at least water supply channel #81 above filter #21; paragraph [0034]).
Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim does not disclose wherein
the supply-air evaporative filter is located above the exhaust-air evaporative filter.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the supply-air evaporative filter is located above the exhaust-air evaporative filter would result in a difference in function of the Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. Kim system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that the filters may be arranged in a plurality of different configurations (see paragraphs [0056]-[0057]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim with wherein the supply-air evaporative filter is located above the exhaust-air evaporative filter as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 6, Sakano et al. further discloses wherein the exchanger water supply is provided with respect to the sensible heat exchanger such that a supply direction of water supplied from the exchanger water supply to the exhaust air channel is opposite to the flow direction of exhaust air flowing through the exhaust air channel (see at least water supply part(s) flowing water down and exhaust stream flowing up).
Regarding claim 7, Sakano et al. further discloses further comprising an exhaust air outlet through which exhaust air is to be blown out of the air conditioner (see at least second outlet #5), wherein the exchanger water supply is located between the exhaust air outlet and the sensible heat exchanger (see at least second water supply #82).
Regarding claim 8, Sakano et al. as modified by Hood et al. and Kim to include an exhaust-air evaporative filter water supply further discloses further comprising:
a common drain pan to be shared by the sensible heat exchanger and the exhaust-air evaporative filter to collect water passing through the exhaust air channel of the sensible heat exchanger and water passing through the exhaust-air evaporative filter (see at least Sakano et al. tank #71); and
a water supply pump communicating with the common drain pan to supply water to the exchanger water supply and the filter water supply (see at least Sakano et al. pump #11).
Regarding claim 9, Sakano et al. further discloses further comprising a water supply tank communicating with the water supply pump, the water supply tank being detachable (see at least tank(s) #72; paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Sakano et al. as modified by Hood et al. and Kim further discloses further comprising:
an exchanger drain pan to collect water passing through the exhaust air channel of the sensible heat exchanger (see at least Sakano et al. pan #13); and
a filter drain pan to collect water passing through the exhaust-air evaporative filter (see at least Hood et al. pan #14),
wherein the exchanger drain pan and the filter drain pan communicate with the common drain pan (see at least Sakano channels #91/#92, where a filter drainage and exchanger drainage communicate with tank #71).
Regarding claim 12, Sakano et al. further discloses wherein the exchanger drain pan forms a part of an exhaust air flow passage for exhaust air to flow through (see at least pan #13, in fluid communication with the exhaust air stream indicated by the dashed lines)
Regarding claim 13, Sakano et al. further discloses wherein an amount of water supplied per unit time by the exchanger water supply is larger than an amount of water supplied per unit time by the filter water supply (see at least paragraph [0040]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Okano et al. (WO 2011/010382: previously cited with English translation).
Regarding claim 10, Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim does not disclose further comprising a first collection pump communicating with the common drain pan and the water supply tank to collect water collected in the common drain pan to the water supply tank.
Okano et al. teaches another air conditioning system further comprising a first collection pump communicating with the common drain pan and the water supply tank to collect water collected in the common drain pan to the water supply tank (see at least pump #7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim with further comprising a first collection pump communicating with the common drain pan and the water supply tank to collect water collected in the common drain pan to the water supply tank, as taught by Okano et al., to improve the system of Sakano et al in view of Hood et al. and Kim by allowing for forced conveyance of the water, thus improving the consistency of the water supply.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al. in view of Hood et al. and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE, now taken as Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art.
Regarding claim 14, Sakano et al. further discloses further comprising:
a supply fan to convey supply air (see at least fan #61); and
an exhaust fan to convey exhaust air (see at least fan #62),
wherein the exhaust fan is located downstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of exhaust air (see at least dotted air flow path).
Sakano et al. does not disclose wherein the supply fan is located upstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of supply air.
However, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE, now taken as Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art. that placing a fan upstream or downstream of a heat exchanger in the flow direction of an air stream is old and well-known to be an art-recognized equivalent.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Sakano et al. with wherein the supply fan is located upstream of the sensible heat exchanger in a flow direction of supply air, since it was old and well-known in the art that positioning a fan upstream or downstream of a heat exchanger with respect to a heat exchanger are art-recognized equivalent positionings. Such provision would provide the predictable benefit of limiting the moisture exposure to the fan.
Regarding claim 15, Sakano et al. further discloses wherein a volume of air moved by the supply fan is larger than a volume of air moved by the exhaust fan (see at least fan #61 is capable of so performing, for example when fan #62 is deactivated; see also “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure.
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 TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights