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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the first size of the drain pan corresponds to a first heat exchanger size, and wherein the second member is configured to removably couple to the first member in a second installed configuration to define a second size of the drain pan and the second size of the drain pan corresponds to a second heat exchanger size, wherein the second opening is disposed above the first opening, relative to a direction of gravity, wherein the drain pan comprises: a first member, wherein the first member comprises: a first base side comprising a first base side channel; a first arm extending from the first base side in a first direction, the first arm comprising a first arm channel; and a second arm extending from the first base side in the first direction, the second arm comprising a second arm channel” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1, hereinafter Lanning).
Regarding claim 1, Lanning teaches a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (HVAC system 106), comprising: a drain pan (modular drain pan assembly 102) configured to receive liquid condensate from a heat exchanger (paragraph 0036), wherein the drain pan (modular drain pan assembly 102) comprises: a first member (terminal end section 112); and a second member (drain end section 110), wherein the second member (drain end section 110) is configured to removably couple to the first member (to terminal end section 112, figure 5) in a first installed configuration (as described in paragraph 0035) to define a first size of the drain pan (length 120 of the modular drain pan 100 may be customized, as described in paragraph 0039) and the first size of the drain pan corresponds to a first heat exchanger size (heat exchanger may be any one of the heat exchangers 28, 30, 60, 62, as described in paragraph 0035), and wherein the second member (drain end section 110) is configured to removably couple to the first member (to terminal end section 112, figure 5) in a second installed configuration (as described in paragraph 0035) to define a second size of the drain pan (length 120 of the modular drain pan 100 may be customized, as described in paragraph 0039) and the second size of the drain pan corresponds to a second heat exchanger size (heat exchanger may be any one of the heat exchangers 28, 30, 60, 62, as described in paragraph 0035).
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 8, Lanning teaches wherein the first member (terminal end section 112) is configured to slide into the second member (drain end section 110) in the first installed configuration (as shown on figure 7) or the second installed configuration.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1, hereinafter Lanning) in view of Grigoryan (US 20220282467 A1, hereinafter Grigoryan).
Regarding claim 2, Lanning teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the first member comprises a first channel and the second member comprises a second channel, and the first channel and the second channel each are configured to capture and redirect the liquid condensate from the heat exchanger.
However, Grigoryan teaches wherein the first member (left tray 14) comprises a first channel (at least one flexible drain of the under-sink drip tray may also have at least one channel, paragraph 0006) and the second member (right tray 16) comprises a second channel (at least one flexible drain of the under-sink drip tray may also have at least one channel, paragraph 0006), and the first channel and the second channel each are configured to capture and redirect the liquid condensate from the heat exchanger (front sides (18) and (26) of the under-sink adjustable drip tray (10) each have a drain (54) with drain channel (58) that is channeled through and terminates at a hole (56) on the front sides (18) and (26) where the water can exit out of and from the under-sink adjustable drip tray, paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Lanning to include wherein the first member comprises a first channel and the second member comprises a second channel, and the first channel and the second channel each are configured to capture and redirect the liquid condensate from the heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Grigoryan in order to yield the predictable result of allowing water to exit out of and from the under-sink adjustable drip tray.
Further, it is understood, claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the first member (left tray 14 of Grigoryan) is a single, continuous piece (as shown on figure 2 of Grigoryan) and the second member (right tray 16 of Grigoryan) is a single, continuous piece (as shown on figure 2 of Grigoryan).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1, hereinafter Lanning) in view of Yates et al (US 20220349617 A1, hereinafter Yates).
Regarding claim 3, Lanning teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the drain pan defines an air flow path and is positioned relative to the heat exchanger such that the heat exchanger is configured to receive air flow through the air flow path.
However, Yates teaches wherein the drain pan (drain pan 106) defines an air flow path (duct opening 107) and is positioned relative to the heat exchanger such that the heat exchanger is configured to receive air flow through the air flow path (drain pan 106 may define a duct opening 107 fluidly coupled to a conditioned space of a structure or building (e.g., via ductwork), and the air flow 105 may be directed through the duct opening 107, such as via the space 111 between the slabs 109 of the heat exchanger 101, and toward the conditioned space, paragraph 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Lanning to include wherein the first member comprises a first channel and the second member comprises a second channel, and the first channel and the second channel each are configured to capture and redirect the liquid condensate from the heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Yates in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the airflow to be directed through the duct opening and toward the conditioned space.
Further, it is understood, claim 3 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the first member (body 113 of Yates), the second member, or both comprise a drain port (discharge opening 116 of Yates), wherein the drain port comprises: a first opening (left portion of opening 116, figure 6 of Yates) configured to expel the liquid condensate from the drain pan (paragraph 0049 of Yates); and a second opening (right portion of opening 116, figure 6 of Yates) configured to expel the liquid condensate from the drain pan (paragraph 0049 of Yates), wherein the second opening is disposed above the first opening (figure 6 of Yates), relative to a direction of gravity (figure 6 of Yates).
Further, it is understood, claim 7 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1, hereinafter Lanning) in view of Steele (US 10557644 B1, hereinafter Steele).
Regarding claim 9, Lanning teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the first member comprises a first base and the second member comprises a second base, wherein the first base is positioned above the second base, relative to a direction of gravity, in the first installed configuration or the second installed configuration.
However, Steele teaches wherein the first member (top pan 200) comprises a first base (top floor 210) and the second member (bottom pan 100) comprises a second base (bottom floor 110), wherein the first base is positioned above the second base (as shown on figure 3), relative to a direction of gravity, in the first installed configuration (figure 3) or the second installed configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Lanning to include wherein the first member comprises a first base and the second member comprises a second base, wherein the first base is positioned above the second base, relative to a direction of gravity, in the first installed configuration or the second installed configuration in view of the teachings of Steele in order to yield the predictable result of maintaining a reliable path for water that falls onto reservoir.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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 10-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein: the first member comprises one or more first locking holes; the second member comprises one or more second locking holes; a first set of the first locking holes and the second locking holes is configured to align in the first installed configuration; and a second set of the first locking holes and the second locking holes is configured to align in the second installed configuration”. The closest prior art, Lanning teaches a drain pan for a HVAC system includes a middle section defining a cavity extending from a first end of the middle section to a second end of the middle section, a first end section configured to partially extend into the cavity via the first end of the middle section, and a second end section configured to partially extend into the cavity via the second end of the middle section. The second end section includes a drain port.
Regarding claim 10, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “A drain pan for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, wherein the drain pan comprises: a first member, wherein the first member comprises: a first base side comprising a first base side channel; a first arm extending from the first base side in a first direction, the first arm comprising a first arm channel; and a second arm extending from the first base side in the first direction, the second arm comprising a second arm channel; and a second member, wherein the second member comprises: a second base side comprising a second base side channel; a third arm extending from the second base side in a second direction, the third arm comprising a third arm channel; and a fourth arm extending from the second base side in the second direction, the fourth arm comprising a fourth arm channel, wherein the first member is configured to couple to the second member such that the first base side channel, the first arm channel, the second arm channel, the second base side channel, the second arm channel, and the third arm channel form a drain pan reservoir in more than one installed configurations with corresponding sizes of the drain pan reservoir”. The closest prior art, Lanning teaches a drain pan for a HVAC system includes a middle section defining a cavity extending from a first end of the middle section to a second end of the middle section, a first end section configured to partially extend into the cavity via the first end of the middle section, and a second end section configured to partially extend into the cavity via the second end of the middle section. The second end section includes a drain port.
Regarding claim 18, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Lanning et al (US 20200208872 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a first member and a second member configured to: receive liquid condensate from a heat exchanger of the HVAC system; removably couple together to define a reservoir configured to collect the liquid condensate; removably couple to define an air flow path of the heat exchanger; and adjust, via relative positioning of the first member and the second member in a coupled configuration, an area of the air flow path based on a size of the heat exchanger”. The closest prior art, Lanning teaches a drain pan for a HVAC system includes a middle section defining a cavity extending from a first end of the middle section to a second end of the middle section, a first end section configured to partially extend into the cavity via the first end of the middle section, and a second end section configured to partially extend into the cavity via the second end of the middle section. The second end section includes a drain port.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique and methods of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claims 10 and 18 along with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights