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 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 1-8 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “spontaneous potential” in claims 1 and 3 is used by the claim to mean “electrode potential,” while the accepted meaning is esoteric to the geology and geological exploration fields. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claims 2-8 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchikami et al. (US 2021/0095871) in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 08-086474: cited by Applicant with English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchikami et al. discloses an outdoor unit of an air conditioner (see at least paragraph [0019]), comprising:
a housing, made of first metal, having a box shape (see at least structure #20; paragraphs [0026]; [0027]);
a heat exchanger disposed in the housing and fixed to the housing via a non-conductive material, at least part of the heat exchanger being made of second metal, the second metal being different in spontaneous potential from the first metal (see at least heat exchanger #40; insulating members #50; paragraphs [0038]-[0039]: Examiner notes that the material of the heat exchanger and that of the housing are different and thus have different potentials); and
a conductive material, the conductive material being disposed in the housing (see at least conductive material #60; paragraph [0064]), wherein
the conductive material is fixed to the housing and electrically connected to the housing, and is electrically connected to the heat exchanger (see at least [0064]).
Fuchikami et al. does not disclose that the conductive material is made of nonmetal.
Sakuma et al. teaches another outdoor unit where a heat exchanger and housing components are joined via a conductive material that is a non-metal (see at least heat exchanger #7 and housing components (i.e. plate #9 and clamp #8) joined on base #100 which is made of carbon-fiber impregnated resin (see paragraph [0029]): Examiner notes that this material corresponds to that identified by Applicant as non-metal conductor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the outdoor unit of Fuchikami et al. with the conductive material is made of nonmetal, as taught by Sakuma et al., to improve the outdoor unit of Fuchikami et al. by eliminating the concern of galvanic corrosion from joining of dissimilar metals.
Regarding claim 2, Fuchikami et al. further discloses wherein the housing includes:
a housing floor panel (see at least bottom panel #202);
a housing top panel disposed above the housing floor panel (see at least Annotated Figure, below);
a housing front panel configured to couple the housing floor panel with the housing top panel (see at least Annotated Figure, below);
a housing rear panel (see at least Annotated Figure, below); and
housing side panels (see at least Annotated Figure, below),
wherein the conductive material is fixed to at least one of the housing floor panel, the housing top panel, the housing front panel, the housing rear panel, and the housing side panels (see at least paragraph [0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Fuchikami et al. further discloses wherein a spontaneous potential of the first metal is higher than a spontaneous potential of the second metal (see at least paragraphs [0026]; [0038]: Examiner notes that the two materials correspond to those disclosed by Applicant and thus are presumed to meet the claimed potentials).
Regarding claim 4, Fuchikami et al. further discloses wherein the first metal is iron or iron alloy (see at least paragraph [0026]), and
the second metal is aluminum or aluminum alloy (see at least paragraph [0038]).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchikami et al. in view of Sakuma et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, or 4 above, and further in view of Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art.
Regarding claims 5-8, Fuchikami et al. in view of Sakuma et al. is silent regarding wherein the heat exchanger is a parallel-flow heat exchanger.
However, use of a parallel-flow heat exchanger in an outdoor unit is old and well-known in the art, as noted by Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art (see at least Applicant’s disclosure paragraph [0075]: “Conventional heat exchangers include a serpentine heat exchanger and a parallel-flow heat exchanger made of aluminum.”).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the outdoor unit of Fuchikami et al. in view of Sakuma et al. with wherein the heat exchanger is a parallel-flow heat exchanger, since, as noted by Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of using a known and well-understood heat exchanger type to yield predictable performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763