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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11-17 recites “The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning” and should recite - - The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20240085035).
Claim 1 recites similar limitations as claim 10 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 15 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 16 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 10, Wang teaches a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system comprising:
a closed conduit circuit (inherent in “air conditioner outdoor unit”, para. 0071) for moving a refrigerant;
a compressor (inherent to an “outdoor unit”) fluidly coupled to the closed conduit circuit;
a condenser (inherent to an “outdoor unit”) fluidly coupled to the closed conduit circuit;
an expansion valve (inherent to an “outdoor unit”) fluidly coupled to the closed conduit circuit;
an evaporator (inherent to an “outdoor unit”) fluidly coupled to the closed conduit circuit; and
a compressor-condenser unit (200) comprising the compressor and the condenser (inherent to an “outdoor unit”),
the compressor-condenser unit further comprising:
a cabinet having
a plurality of walls (see figure 6 showing walls of the cabinet of the “outdoor unit”) including a top panel (plurality of 2),
a fan motor (inherent to the fan) coupled to the cabinet,
one or more fan blades (“The air guide ring 1 can be fitted with a fan, and fan blades of the fan can extend into the air guide channel 10 of the air guide ring 1”, para. 0037) coupled to the fan motor,
an orifice opening (space between 2 in figures 2 and 4) formed in the top panel (plurality of 2),
a condenser orifice ring (1) disposed within the orifice opening,
wherein the condenser orifice ring (1) is sized to receive the one or more fan blades (“The air guide ring 1 can be fitted with a fan, and fan blades of the fan can extend into the air guide channel 10 of the air guide ring 1”, para. 0037), and
the condenser orifice ring comprising:
an annular member (body of 1)having a height extending between an upstream edge and a downstream edge,
the annular member comprising
a wall (body of 2) having an interior surface (inner surface of 1) and an exterior surface (outer surface of 1),
wherein the wall flares outward at the upstream edge (see annotated figure below) and flares outward at the downstream edge (see annotated figure below),
wherein the flare of the wall at the upstream edge is between 5 and 20 degrees an first angle from a vertical (α1; “The included angle α1 between the tangent plane M1 at the point P1 on the inner wall surface of the first inlet end and the first plane M0 is 70° to 90°.”, para. 0105) (to clarify, α1 at an angle of 85 degrees would correspond an angle of 5 degrees from the reference frame of the instant application), and
wherein the flare of the wall at the downstream edge is between 15 and 30 degrees a second angle from the vertical (α6; “For example, α6 may be 95°, 100°, 110°, 120°, 130°, 140°, 150°, 160°, 170°, 180°, etc”, para. 0118) (to clarify, an angle of 110 would correspond to an angle of 20 degrees from the reference frame of the instant application).
Per claim 15, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Wang teaches a plurality of strengthening ribs formed on the exterior surface of the annular member (see figure 1), the plurality of strengthening ribs facing outward (see figure 1).
Per claim 16, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Wang teaches wherein the upstream edge of the wall has a curled initial portion (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20240085035) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20180224135).
Claim 2 recites similar limitations as claim 11 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 11, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Wang teaches wherein the wall of the annular member has a middle-portion (2’) that comprises a height of the annular member (see figure 2) and wherein the middle-portion (2’) substantially parallels the vertical (see figure 2) but fails to explicitly teach the middle-portion that comprises between 2-5 percent of the height of the annular member.
However, Yamamoto teaches that a middle-portion of a wall of an annular member (4A; see various middle portion lengths in figures 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 8A, 8B, 11, 12) has a determinative effect on the performance of a fan (“low draft resistance and low noise”, para. 0007). Therefore the percentage of the height that the middle-portion of the annular member encompasses is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the percentage of the annular portion that the middle-portion comprises is adjusted the performance of the fan will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the wall of the annular member having a middle-portion that comprises a height of the annular member was disclosed in the prior art by Nakashima, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the percentage of the height of the annular member encompassed by the middle portion by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide middle-portion of the wall of the annular member disclosed by Wang, as between 2-5 percent of the height of the annular member.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20240085035) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170343016).
Claim 3 recites similar limitations as claim 12 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 12, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Nakashima, as modified, teaches the downstream edge of the wall and the annular member on the top panel but fails to explicitly teach a plurality of positioning tabs coupled to the downstream edge of the wall for securing the annular member to the top panel with the annular member in a desired position.
However, Kim teaches a blower system of an air conditioner including a plurality of positioning tabs (see annotated figure below) coupled to a downstream edge of a wall (body of 70) for securing an annular member (70) to a panel with the annular member in a desired position (see figures 7 and 8) for securing rigidity for stably supporting a blower fan and a motor (para. 0009). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of positioning tabs coupled to a downstream edge of a wall for securing an annular member to a panel with the annular member in a desired position, as taught by Kim in the invention of Wang, in order to advantageously secure rigidity for stably supporting a blower fan and a motor (para. 0009).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When the plurality of positioning tabs coupled to the downstream edge of the wall for securing the annular member to the panel is combined with the top panel of Wang, the result is a plurality of positioning tabs coupled to the downstream edge of the wall for securing the annular member to the top panel with the annular member in a desired position, as claimed.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20240085035) in view of Ishijima (CN 1768237).
Claim 4 recites similar limitations as claim 13 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 13, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Wang teaches wherein the fan blade (“The air guide ring 1 can be fitted with a fan, and fan blades of the fan can extend into the air guide channel 10 of the air guide ring 1”, para. 0037) are coupled to the fan motor (inherent) such that the fan blade is suspended within an interior of the condenser orifice right from the downstream edge (“The air guide ring 1 can be fitted with a fan, and fan blades of the fan can extend into the air guide channel 10 of the air guide ring 1”, para. 0037) but fails to explicitly teach the fan blade being suspended between 70 and 80 percent of the height of the annular member from the downstream edge.
However, Ishijima teaches the position of the fan blade within the condenser orifice ring has a determinative effect on the performance of a fan (“axial position relationship between the edge part and the bell mouth of optimized blade to adjust the blade rear edge and, thus, can reduce the blower noise”, pg. 2 of translation). Therefore the percentage of the height the fan blade is suspended of the annular member from the downstream edge is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the percentage of the fan blade suspended within an interior of the condenser orifice from the downstream edge is adjusted the performance of the fan will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the fan blade being suspended within the interior of the condenser orifice from the downstream edge was disclosed in the prior art by Nakashima, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the percentage of the fan blade suspended within an interior of the condenser orifice from the downstream edge by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the fan blade suspended within the interior of the condenser orifice from the downstream edge disclosed by Wang, as between 70 and 80 percent of the height of the annular member from the downstream edge.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20240085035) in view of Li et al. (CN 116358056).
Claim 5 recites similar limitations as claim 14 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Nakashima, as modified, Nakashima, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a fan-connectivity notch formed in the downstream edge of the annular member and a lip extending from the annular member on the downstream edge.
However, Li teaches a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system including a fan-connectivity notch (153) formed in a downstream edge (region of 112 that 153 is formed in) of an annular member (112) and a lip (see annotated figure below) extending from the annular member (112) on the downstream edge (region of 112 that 153 is formed in) for preventing damage to a fan cable (pg. 5 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a fan-connectivity notch formed in a downstream edge of an annular member and a lip extending from the annular member on the downstream edge, as taught by Li in the invention of Wang, in order to advantageously prevent damage to a fan cable (pg. 5 of translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
333
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20240085035).
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 17 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 17, Wang meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Wang teaches wherein a predetermined gap is formed between the annular member and a distal end of the fan blades (inherent) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined gap is at least 0.2 inches.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” Therefore it would have been obvious to having a predetermined gap of at least 0.2 inches in order to advantageously provide ample clearance to prevent interferences between the fan blade and the condenser orifice ring.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20240085035) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20180224135), Kim et al. (US 20170343016), Ishijima (CN 1768237), and Li et al. (CN 116358056).
Claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 11-17 and is rejected in a similar manner
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Muramatsu et al. (US 20190360705) teaches a condenser orifice ring.
Nakashima et al. (US 20190010960) teaches a condenser orifice ring.
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