DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 05/15/2026. Amended claims 1, 9 and 11 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pisaturo, III (US 2019/0063783, herein “Pisaturo”).
Regarding claim 1, Pisaturo discloses:
a system (100) (figs. 1-5B and 9B) [par. 0030-0031] comprising:
a first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) configured to receive a fluid (“refrigerant” of par. 0033);
a second heat exchanger (112) in fluid communication with the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) via an expansion valve (110) and configured to receive the fluid (“refrigerant” of par. 0032-0033) (fig. 1);
a compressor (114) in fluid communication with the first heat exchanger (108) and the second heat exchanger (112) (fig. 1) [par. 0032];
a fan configured to induce an airflow over the first heat exchanger (108) (fig. 1) [par. 0036];
a housing (116) configured to house the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036), the fan, and the compressor (114) within the housing (116) (fig. 1), the housing (116) having an opening (118) adjacent to the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) (figs. 1-2) [par. 0037]; and
a grill (120) sized and configured to cover the opening (118) [par. 0037] and having a first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) in a first direction (vertical direction) and a second set of parallel struts (136) in a second direction (horizontal direction) perpendicular to the first direction (vertical direction), the first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) and the second set of parallel struts (136) oriented along a first plane (seen in figs. 2-3A),
wherein a first (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) and second (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) strut of the first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) are adjacent and connected at a first end of the first strut and a second end of the second strut via a support structure (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, below),
wherein the support structure is formed from a first portion of the first strut that extends past the first end and a second portion of the second strut that extend past the second end (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, below),
wherein the support structure is oriented in a third direction perpendicular to the first plane such that the support structure extends away from the first exchanger (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, below)
PNG
media_image1.png
692
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The recitation "wherein the support structure is integrally formed from a first portion of the first strut that extends past the first end and a second portion of the second strut that extend past the second end" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Pisaturo, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “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.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the support structure configured to receive and support a maintenance device” limitation, the invention as taught by Pisaturo is deemed fully capable of performing such function.
Regarding claim 2, Pisaturo discloses:
the support structure being rectangular shaped having four corners (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, page 3).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation "the support structure being configured to be bent to transition from an initial position orientated along the first plane to a final position oriented in the third direction" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Pisaturo is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Pisaturo discloses:
the support structure being a tubular structure (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, page 3).
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “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.” Because Claim 4 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the support structure is configured to receive a hook of the maintenance device” limitation, the invention as taught by Pisaturo can be configured to receive a hook of the maintenance device.
Regarding claim 5, it is old and known in the art that air conditioning systems, like Pisaturo’s system 100, required regular maintenance inspections using manifold gauges. I would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate or use a refrigerant manifold gauge system when periodic maintenances of the systems are required.
Regarding claim 6, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “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.” Because Claim 6 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the support structure being configured to support the maintenance device without deformation of the support structure and without causing deformation of the grill” limitation, the support structure as taught by Pisaturo can be configured to support the maintenance device without deformation of the support structure and without causing deformation of the grill.
Regarding claim 7, Pisaturo discloses:
one or more struts of the first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) comprising an eyelet (290b) for coupling the strut (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) to the housing (116) [par. 0063].
Regarding claim 9, Pisaturo discloses:
wherein the system (100) is a heat pump or air conditioning system (fig. 1) [par. 0002].
Regarding claim 11, Pisaturo discloses:
an outdoor unit (108) of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (100) (figs. 1-5B and 9B) [par. 0031-0032],
the outdoor unit (108) comprising:
a first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) configured to receive a fluid (“refrigerant” of par. 0033);
a compressor (114) configured to circulate a fluid through the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) [par. 0032];
a fan configured to induce an airflow over the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) (fig. 1) [par. 0036];
a housing (116) configured to house the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036), the fan, and the compressor (114) within the housing (116) (fig. 1), the housing (116) having an opening (118) adjacent to the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) (figs. 1-2) [par. 0037]; and
a grill (120) sized and configured to cover the opening (118) [par. 0037] and having a first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) in a first direction (vertical direction) and a second set of parallel struts (136) in a second direction (horizontal direction) perpendicular to the first direction (vertical direction), the first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) and the second set of parallel struts (136) oriented along a first plane (seen in figs. 2-3A),
wherein a first (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) and second (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) strut of the first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) are adjacent and connected at a first end of the first strut and a second end of the second strut via a support structure (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, page 3),
wherein the support structure is formed from a first portion of the first strut that extends past the first end and a second portion of the second strut that extend past the second end (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, page 3),
wherein the support structure is oriented in a third direction perpendicular to the first plane such that the support structure extends away from the first exchanger (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, below)
The recitation "wherein the support structure is integrally formed from a first portion of the first strut that extends past the first end and a second portion of the second strut that extend past the second end" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Pisaturo, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “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.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the support structure configured to receive and support a maintenance device” limitation, the invention as taught by Pisaturo is deemed fully capable of performing such function.
Regarding claim 12, Pisaturo discloses:
the support structure being rectangular shaped having four corners (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, page 3).
Regarding claim 13, the recitation "the support structure being configured to be bent to transition from an initial position orientated along the first plane to a final position oriented in the third direction" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Pisaturo is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Pisaturo discloses:
the support structure being a tubular structure (see annotated fig. 3A-PISATURO, page 3).
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “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.” Because Claim 14 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the support structure is configured to receive a hook of the maintenance device” limitation, the invention as taught by Pisaturo can be configured to receive a hook of the maintenance device.
Regarding claim 15, it is old and known in the art that air conditioning systems, like Pisaturo’s system 100, required regular maintenance inspections using manifold gauges. I would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate or use a refrigerant manifold gauge system when periodic maintenances of the systems are required.
Regarding claim 16, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “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.” Because Claim 16 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the support structure being configured to support the maintenance device without deformation of the support structure and without causing deformation of the grill” limitation, the support structure as taught by Pisaturo can be configured to support the maintenance device without deformation of the support structure and without causing deformation of the grill.
Regarding claim 17, Pisaturo discloses:
one or more struts of the first set of parallel struts (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) comprising an eyelet (290b) for coupling the strut (138/144, figs. 1-5B; 238, fig. 9B) to the housing (116) [par. 0063].
Regarding claim 19, Pisaturo discloses:
the first heat exchanger (“coil” of par. 0036) being in fluid communication with a second heat exchanger (112) via an expansion valve (110) and the compressor (114) being in fluid communication with the second heat exchanger (112) (fig. 1) [par. 0032-0033].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claim 8, 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisaturo.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Pisaturo does not disclose:
one or more struts of the second set of parallel struts comprising an eyelet for coupling the strut to the housing.
However, Pisaturo alludes to the possibility of having the horizontal struts (136) abutting side wall (130) [par. 0056]. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success - to have the horizontal struts (136) comprising an eyelet (just as vertical struts 238, fig. 9B). Refer to MPEP 2143 (I) (E). In this instance, securing the horizontal struts (136) to the housing (116) in addition to the vertical struts (238; fig. 9B) will further optimize structural rigidity of the grill and it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to try to secure the horizontal structs (136) to the housing (116) in addition to the vertical struts (138) to further optimize structural rigidity of the grill.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Pisaturo does not disclose:
the support structure being triangular shaped having three corners.
However, Applicant does not disclose any criticality to have the support structure shaped as claimed and acknowledges that the support structure may have any shape [PGPub par. 0026]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the support structure being triangular shaped having three corners since Applicant has not disclosed that having the support structure arranged in this specific manner solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the grill would perform equally well having the support structure arranged in other manners. Further, it has been held that changing the shape of an old device is a matter of design choice which involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification, and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office Action mailed 02/19/2026, are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because they are made with respect to new limitations added by amendment. In response, applicant is directed to the rejection above which addresses these new limitations. For clarity, in page 9, Applicant argues that the “support structure” of Pisaturo extends toward the interior of the housing where the condenser is located. In response, the overly broad language of the newly amended limitations of claim 1 allows a broad interpretation of the claim which reference Pisaturo reads on. Under the instant interpretation of Pisaturo, the support structure extends away from the first heat exchanger. Please refer to the rejection above.
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 GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights