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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Control unit→ controller or chip
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 6-8, 15-18 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.
Claims 6, 15 and 18 recite the limitation "the medium flow channels" in line 4. This implies more than one medium flow channel. There is insufficient antecedent basis for more than one medium flow channels in these claims. Note that claim 2 does provide antecedent basis for multiple medium flow channels, however, none of claims 6, 15, and 18 depend from claim 2. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the medium flow channel includes a plurality of medium flow channels and each of the housing modules has at least one of the medium flow channels”.
Claims 7, 8, and 16-17 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111059628 to Li et al., hereinafter referred to as Li, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claims 1 and 20, Li discloses the claimed invention including:
An air conditioning system comprising an indoor unit (indoor machine), an outdoor unit (outdoor machine), a medium circulation pipe (see figures 1-3) and a control unit (control system);
the indoor unit and the outdoor unit being connected through the medium circulation pipe (see figure 2), and the outdoor unit being in signal communication with the control unit (inferred from the description of controlling valves and fans);
wherein the indoor unit comprises a radiant heat dissipation casing (shell body including side panel 52, see also see underlined portion of pages 5 and 6 of the English language translation) having a medium flow channel and a built-in heat exchanger (51) and a fan (6) mounted in the radiant heat dissipation casing, the fan is in signal communication with the control unit (see figure 1);
the radiant heat dissipation casing comprises an air inlet and an air outlet (at 10, see figure 1);
the radiant heat dissipation casing (52) and the built-in heat exchanger (51) are connected with the medium circulation pipe respectively, and the radiant heat dissipation casing is arranged in parallel with the built-in heat exchanger (see figure 2);
the indoor unit has a first operation mode, wherein both the radiant heat dissipation casing and the built-in heat exchanger are in a heat exchange operation state (comfortable heating 2 solution, see page 8);
the indoor unit has a second operation mode, wherein the built-in heat exchanger is in a heat exchange operation state and the radiant heat dissipation casing is in an inoperation state (solution 1: fast heating, see page 8);
the indoor unit has a third operation mode, wherein the radiant heat dissipation casing is in a heat exchange operation state and the built-in heat exchanger is in an inoperation state (2: comfortable heating 1 solution, see page 8).
In reference to claim 3, Li discloses the claimed invention including:
the medium circulation pipe comprises a main pipe connected with the outdoor unit, a first branch pipe connected between the main pipe and the built-in heat exchanger, and a second branch pipe connected between the main pipe and the radiant heat dissipation casing, see figure 2;
the first branch pipe and the second branch pipe are each provided with a control valve (71, 72, 73, 75), the control valve is in signal communication with the control unit.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of JP5544580 to Murakami, hereinafter referred to as Murakami, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 2, Li and Murakami disclose the claimed invention.
Li fails to disclose the radiant heat dissipation casing comprises a plurality of the medium flow channels therein.
Murakami teaches that in the art of radiant heat dissipation panels, that it is a known method to provide the panels (R3) with a plurality of the medium flow channels (12) therein, see figure 11. Murakami teaches that this method ensuring a sufficient area of the outer surface for heat exchange, see underlined portion of page 5 of the English language translation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Li by Murakami such that the radiant heat dissipation casing comprises a plurality of the medium flow channels therein, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of ensuring a sufficient area of the outer surface for heat exchange.
In reference to claim 4, Li and Murakami disclose the claimed invention.
Li fails to disclose the air conditioning system also comprises a temperature sensor for monitoring indoor temperature, the temperature sensor is in signal communication with the control unit.
Murakami teaches that it is a known method on the art of radiant heat air conditioners to provide the air conditioning system with a temperature sensor for monitoring indoor temperature, the temperature sensor is in signal communication with the control unit, see underlined portion of page 4 of the English language translation. This is strong evidence that modifying Li as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., provide feedback to the controller regarding the real time temperature of the room to be conditioned). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Li by Murakami such that the air conditioning system also comprises a temperature sensor for monitoring indoor temperature, the temperature sensor is in signal communication with the control unit, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of provide real time feedback regarding the temperature of the room to be conditioned.
In reference to claim 5, Li and Murakami disclose the claimed invention.
Although both Li and Murakami are silent regarding temperature threshold and the operation modes with respect to each temperature threshold, it is noted that claim 5 is an apparatus claim and the relationships between the temperature threshold and the operating modes is considered to be a functional recitation of the intended use of the apparatus since the functions are not tied to any structural elements, for example a controller configured to so perform. Further, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims over a reference which teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use, see MPEP 2114 II. Since the prior art apparatus of Li and Murakami teaches all of the structure limitations of the claim and is perfectly capable of meeting the functional limitations (e.g. by opening and closing the valves when the claimed temperatures are met) the claimed limitations are met even though the exact control method is not expressly disclosed by the prior art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of DE102009055443 to Guckert et al., hereinafter referred to as Guckert, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 19, Li and Guckert disclose the claimed invention.
Li fails to disclose an outer side of the medium flow channel is covered with a thermally conductive sound deadening medium. Guckert teaches that graphite (1) is a material known to be suitable for covering a heat exchanging flow channel (9), see figure 6. Note graphite is sound absorbing and thermally conductive. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Li such that an outer side of the medium flow channel is covered with a thermally conductive sound deadening medium, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-8, and 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763