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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant is arguing about features added to the claims in an amendment, which are addressed by the new and/or modified grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment, below.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that Applicant’s understanding of “material” and “plurality of materials” does not indicate that there must be one piece of material made of A, another piece made of material B, etc., but is instead used to refer to piece of material as can be understood from the specification with regard to materials 3a, 3b, etc.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant should include at least parenthetical reference in the specification linking the previous “spontaneous potential” with “electrode potential” in the amended claims.
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 9-10 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “wherein a first conductive material is disposed at an inner surface of a housing side panel and the heat exchanger, and a second conductive material is disposed at a different position from the first conductive material and electrically connects another portion of the housing and the heat exchanger, the first conductive material and the second conductive material are each fixed to the housing and directly contacting the heat exchanger to electrically connect the housing and the heat exchanger”. Are these first and second conductive materials the same or different from the plurality of conductive materials made of nonmetal? To expedite prosecution, Examiner has Applied art that is relevant to both interpretations. It is believed that Applicant should link the first and second conductive materials back to the plurality disposed in the housing of amended claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 9 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the first conductive material is disposed at an inner corner formed between a housing side panel and a partition panel and electrically connects the housing side panel and the heat exchanger at a region facing the heat exchanger.”. It the “a housing side panel” the same or different from “an inner surface of a housing side panel” of claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends? It is believed to be the same.
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): both previously cited.
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 electrode 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 plurality of conductive materials disposed in the housing (see at least conductive material #60; paragraph [0064]; paragraph [0084]: connection member #60 includes both #61 and #62), wherein
the conductive materials are each fixed to different locations in the housing and each are electrically connected to the housing and electrically connected to the heat exchanger (see at least [0064]; see also paragraph [0084]: in view of that connection member #60 includes both #61 and #62, they can be seen to be located in different areas in the housing and are disclosed as in contact with one another through gap portion #63a and thus both are electrically connected to the housing and the heat exchanger).
Fuchikami et al. does not disclose that the plurality of conductive materials are made of nonmetal.
Sakuma et al. teaches another outdoor unit where a heat exchanger and housing components are joined via a plurality of conductive materials that are 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 plurality of conductive materials 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 at least one of the plurality of conductive materials 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 an electrode 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: previously cited.
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.
Claim(s) 9 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 claim 1, above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2019/0137118).
Fuchikami et al. in view of Sakuma et al. does not disclose wherein a first conductive material is disposed at an inner surface of a housing side panel and the heat exchanger, and a second conductive material is disposed at a different position from the first conductive material and electrically connects another portion of the housing and the heat exchanger, the first conductive material and the second conductive material are each fixed to the housing and directly contacting the heat exchanger to electrically connect the housing and the heat exchanger.
It was, however, old and well-known in the art to provide an outdoor unit of an air conditioner with wherein a first conductive material is disposed at an inner surface of a housing side panel and the heat exchanger, and a second conductive material is disposed at a different position from the first conductive material and electrically connects another portion of the housing and the heat exchanger, the first conductive material and the second conductive material are each fixed to the housing and directly contacting the heat exchanger to electrically connect the housing and the heat exchanger, as evidenced by Otsuka et al. (see at least paragraphs [0003]; [0029]-[0030];[0038]; [0050]).
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 a first conductive material is disposed at an inner surface of a housing side panel and the heat exchanger, and a second conductive material is disposed at a different position from the first conductive material and electrically connects another portion of the housing and the heat exchanger, the first conductive material and the second conductive material are each fixed to the housing and directly contacting the heat exchanger to electrically connect the housing and the heat exchanger, since, as taught by Otsuka et al. such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of both physically and electrically connecting different regions of the heat exchanger and housing in the case of irregular geometry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art alone or in combination does not disclose the elements of claim 10, i.e. “wherein the first conductive material is disposed at an inner corner formed between a housing side panel and a partition panel and electrically connects the housing side panel and the heat exchanger at a region facing the heat exchanger” in combination with the elements of the intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights