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 5/28/2026 are entered. Claims 21-23 are cancelled.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2015/0198340) in view of Jang (US 2003/0041604) and Duke (US 1,535,112).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Hancock discloses an air conditioning unit for use in an opening of a building, the air conditioning unit comprising:
an indoor portion (102) configured to be positioned within an internal portion of the building, the indoor portion comprising an indoor heat exchanging coil (108) and a base pan (109) configured to collect condensate from the indoor heat exchanging coil;
an outdoor portion (104) configured to be positioned about an external portion of the building the outdoor portion comprising an outdoor heat exchanging coil (114) and a fan (118) horizontally spaced apart from the outdoor heat exchanging coil and configured to move air across the outdoor heat exchanging coil; and
a water dispersing mechanism configured to move the condensate from the base pan (109) and disperse the condensate into a horizontal space between the fan (118) and the outdoor heat exchanging coil (114), the water dispersing mechanism comprising:
a pump (107); and
tubing (113) connected to the pump;
wherein the pump (107) is configured to pump condensate from the base pan (109) through the tubing (113), and to the horizontal space between the fan and the outdoor heat exchanging coil.
Hancock lacks a filter assembly.
Jang discloses a water dispersing mechanism including a filter assembly detachably attached to a base pan, the filter assembly comprising a filter (511).
Duke discloses a submerged water filter assembly including a filter housing (15 and 16) and a filter (35) detachably attached to the base pan (as shown in figure 1 the filter is in contact with the base pan and part of the total assembly thereby the components are attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Hancock with a filter assembly as taught by Jang and Duke in order to prevent contaminants from being transported through the system.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, Hancock discloses the water dispersing system disperses the condensate along a top portion of the outdoor heat exchanging coil ([0037]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Hancock discloses the water dispersing system is configured to disperse the condensate into a top portion of the horizontal space between the fan (118) and the outdoor heat exchanging coil (114) such that the fan disperses the condensate onto the outdoor heat exchanging coil ([0042])
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, Hancock discloses the water dispersing mechanism further comprises one or more nozzles, a pipe having a plurality of apertures, or a combination thereof disposed along the horizontal space between the fan and the outdoor heat exchanging coil (“The fluid distributor may comprise a drip system or a spray nozzle.” [0006]).
Regarding claims 5-6, 13-14, and 20, Hancock discloses the water dispensing mechanism comprises the pipe extending horizontally along a top portion of the outdoor heat exchanging coil and having a plurality of apertures along its length (shown in figure 2), and wherein the plurality of apertures comprises a first aperture having a first size and a second aperture having a second size. Hancock lacks apertures of different sizes.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that distributors use outlets of different sizes to adjust flow distribution.. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided apertures of different sizes in order to equally distribute flow, e.g. smaller apertures at locations nearer to the connection of 113.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Hancock discloses apertures but is silent concerning their shape.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that apertures having a circle, an oval, and/or a slit shape are all well-known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Hancock with apertures of said shape(s) due to their ease of manufacture and flow characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Hancock, as modified, discloses the pump is spaced apart from the filter (as disclosed the pump 107 of Hancock is external to the base pan and the filter as provided is within the base pan; moreover Duke provides the filter and pump are spaced apart), and wherein the tubing comprises: a first tubing segment extending from the filter assembly to the pump (tubing upstream of 107); and a second tubing segment extending form the pump to the horizontal space between the fan and the outdoor heat exchanging coil (tubing from 107 to 111 of Hancock).
Regarding claim 9, Hancock, as modified, further discloses wherein the filter assembly further comprises an attachment portion (34 of Duke) configured to detachably attached the filter assembly to the base pan (Duke provides, as shown in figure 1, the filter is in contact with the base pan and part of the total assembly thereby the components are attached).
Regarding claim 16, Hancock discloses the water dispersing system further comprises one or more nozzles disposed along a top portion of the outdoor heat exchanging coil ([0041]), and the one or more nozzles are configured to spray the condensate into the space between the fan and the outdoor heat exchanging coil such that the fan disperses the condensate onto the outdoor heat exchanging coil and out of the outdoor portion ([0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding page 12, applicant purports that Hancock fails to provide the outdoor fan and heat exchanger spaced apart horizontally with the fluid distributor therebetween. However that arrangement is illustrated in figure 1 of Hancock. There is no preclusion in relying on a “simplified schematic diagram” as a prior art teaching and moreover reflects the scope of the claim limitation. The examiner also reminds applicant of Hsu (US 2007/010745), previously made of record, for consideration should further detail of the water dispersing mechanism be claimed.
Regarding pages 12-13, Duke has now been provided to teach a filter and filter housing as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McKay et al (US 9,791,165) condensate distributor
Chen (US 6,065,299) condensate distributor
Hsu (US 2007/0101745) condensate distributor
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