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 .
The claims received 6/25/2026 are entered. Claims 4 and 14 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a refrigerant detection device” (of claim 21; note that claim 1 provides structure to the device) includes the generic/nonce term “device” coupled with the function of “refrigerant detection”. A return to the specification provides [0040] “30: refrigerant detection device; 31: body; 32: first installation plate; 33: second installation plate; 321: first sub installation plate; 322: second sub installation plate; 323: first installation hole; 331: third sub installation plate; 332: fourth sub installation plate; 333: second installation hole;.” Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al (US 12,117,191), in view of Tsuji et al (US 12,072,129), and in view of Shin et al (US 12,422,156).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Epperson discloses an indoor unit of an HVAC apparatus comprising:
a shell (202) including a plurality of shell plates that enclose to form an accommodation chamber having an installation area, the plurality of shell plates including a shell bottom plate and a shell side plate;
a heat exchange assembly (206), arranged in the accommodation chamber; and
a refrigerant detection device (210), arranged in the installation area and configured to detect refrigerant that leaks from the heat exchange assembly;
wherein a first distance between the refrigerant detection device and the shell bottom plate is smaller than or equal to 1/3 of a height of the shell, and a second distance between the refrigerant detection device and a shell side plate is smaller than or equal to 1/3 of a width of the shell (shown in figures 2 and 3).
Epperson discloses the refrigerant detection device includes: a body (210) but lacks installation plates as claimed. Tsuji discloses a refrigerant leakage detector having a first installation plate and a second installation plate that protrude out of the body, are connected to each other, and intersect with each other (see annotated figure below) and each include an installation hole (shown in figure 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Epperson with the installation plate as taught by Tsuji in order to protect the sensor from the surrounding environment.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Epperson discloses installation holes (408) but lacks that they are perpendicular. Shin discloses an installation body (300) within an HVAC unit wherein first and second installation holes (301 of figure 10) are perpendicular to each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Epperson with perpendicular installation holes as taught by Shin in order to adapt the body for installation into a plurality of systems thereby increasing product use flexibility.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Epperson discloses the first distance or the second distance is smaller than or equal to 110mm (13:36-14:52).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Epperson discloses a water receiving tray (208), at least partially arranged at the shell bottom plate or the shell side plate.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Epperson and Tsuji further discloses the body includes a side plate member and a bottom plate member that are connected to each other and intersect with each other; the first installation plate protrudes out of the side plate member and is coplanar with the side plate member; and the second installation plate protrudes out of the bottom plate member and is coplanar with the bottom plate member (features identified in annotated figure above).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al (US 12,117,191), in view of Tsuji et al (US 12,072,129), in view of Shin et al (US 12,422,156), and in view of Eskew et al (US 11,428,435).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Epperson discloses the heat exchange assembly (208) includes a heat exchanger. Epperson lacks that the refrigerant detection device is fixedly connected to the heat exchanger through the first installation plate or the second installation plate. Eskew discloses are refrigerant detection device is fixedly connected to the heat exchanger through an installation plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have mounted the sensor to the heat exchanger as taught by Eskew in order to detect leaked refrigerant, in particular refrigerant tends to leak from brazed joints of the system, like are found at heat exchanger turns. Increasing proximity leaks may be detected more effectively.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Epperson, as modified, discloses the heat exchanger includes a first side plate and a second side plate that intersect with each other and are connected to each other; and the refrigerant detection device is fixedly connected to the first side plate or the second side plate (Eskew shows the device connected to side plate 122 which intersects with side plates 112 and 114).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Epperson, as modified, discloses a connection bracket connected to the heat exchanger; wherein the first installation plate or the second installation plate is fixedly connected to the connection bracket (130 of Eskew is a bracket mounted to the heat exchanger, Tsuji provides an installation plate).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Epperson, as modified, discloses the connection bracket includes a first connection plate and a second connection plate that are connected to each other and intersect with each other; the first connection plate is fixedly connected to the first installation plate or the second installation plate; and the second connection plate is fixedly connected to the heat exchanger (130 of Eskew provides a plurality of plates that intersect and connect to the heat exchanger).
PNG
media_image2.png
667
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Epperson, as modified, discloses a first positioning side plate is provided on a side of the first connection plate that is away from the second connection plate, and the first positioning side plate and the first connection plate are connected to each other and intersect with each other; and/or a second positioning side plate is provided on a side of the second connection plate that is away from the first connection plate, and the second positioning side plate and the second connection plate are connected to each other and intersect with each other (104 of Eskew provides a plurality of plates that intersect and connect to the heat exchanger).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al (US 12,117,191) in view of Petele et al (US 12,196,432).
Regarding claim 21, Epperson discloses an indoor unit of an HVAC apparatus comprising:
a shell (202) including a plurality of shell plates that enclose to form an accommodation chamber having an installation area, the plurality of shell plates including a shell bottom plate and a shell side plate;
a heat exchange assembly (206), arranged in the accommodation chamber and including a heat exchanger, the heat exchanger being V-shaped and including a first side plate and a second side plate, a first end of the first side plate and a first end of the second side plate intersecting with each other to form an acute angle; and
a refrigerant detection device (21), arranged in the installation area and configured to detect refrigerant that leaks from the heat exchange assembly;
wherein a first distance between the refrigerant detection device and the shell bottom plate is smaller than or equal to 1/3 of a height of the shell, and a second distance between the refrigerant detection device and a shell side plate is smaller than or equal to 1/3 of a width of the shell (shown in figures 2 and 3 as well as discussed at 13:36-14:52).
Epperson lacks the refrigerant detection device being directly fixedly connected to the second side plate (of the heat exchange assembly).
Petele discloses a refrigerant detection device for an HVAC unit wherein the refrigerant detection device (60; 8:9-16 discusses 74 being integral with 60 thus together are the detection device) being directly fixedly connected to a second side plate, and located at a position closer to a second end of the second side plate than the first end of the second side plate, the second end of the second side plate being opposite to the first end of the second side plate (the heat exchanger 30 is formed of a first side plate, 44, and a second side plate 42; the detection unit 60 is closer to the second end of 42 than the first end as shown in figure 2A; the second end being distal from where the first and second side plates, 44 and 42, meet).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112(f), applicant purports that the term itself connotes sufficient structure. In regard to claim 1 the instant amendment has added structure to the term. In regard to claim 21 the limitation is read under §112(f) as stated above.
In regard to installation plates having holes perpendicular to one another. Shin is provided to teach said feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Birnkrant (US 12,379,308) leak sensor mounting
Brown et al (US 2026/0085853) leak sensor mounting
Petele et al (US 2023/0117306) leak sensor bracket
Kojima (US 12,130,044) leak sensor location
Obara et al (US 10,634,404) leak sensor lean sensor bracket
De (US 11,674,727) leak sensor for reoriented unit
West et al (US 12,276,575) leak sensor bracket
Alphonso (US 12,078,380) leak sensor bracket
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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights