CTNF 18/856,667 CTNF 93174 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 and 09/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3-8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 calls for the limitation “A control box of an outdoor unit comprising…” in the preamble; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear which previously recited limitation the word “comprising” is referring to. Is “comprising” referring to the control box? Or the outdoor unit? It’s uncertain. To alleviate the indefiniteness issue, applicant is encouraged to recite “A control box of an outdoor unit, the control box comprising…”. Claim 1 calls for the limitation “an inner ventilating opening penetrating the inner side-wall portion provided at a position where the inner ventilating opening does not overlap the outer ventilating opening in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction” in lines 14-16, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to which previously recited limitation the term “provided at a position …” is referring to. It’s unclear if it’s referring to the inner ventilation opening or the inner side-wall portion. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the limitation above will be interpreted as “an inner ventilating opening penetrating the inner side-wall portion; said inner ventilating opening provided at a position where the inner ventilating opening does not overlap the outer ventilating opening in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”. Claim(s) 3-8 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki (JP 2013029222 A) . Regarding claim 1: Inagaki discloses a control box #9 of an outdoor unit comprising ([0018-0019]): a housing #9 having a side wall portion (made by #10 & #12); electrical components provided in an interior of the housing ([0019]); a ventilating opening (see opening allowing air passage #12c; best seen in Fig. 6 & 7) provided on the side wall portion and communicating with an exterior of the housing ([0029]); and a lid body #12a provided covering the ventilating opening and having a plurality of first through holes #12b (Fig. 7-8), wherein a part of the side wall portion where the ventilating opening is provided has a double-wall structure made up of an outer side-wall portion #12d and an inner side-wall portion #12e, a space is provided between the outer side-wall portion and the inner side-wall portion (see passage of #12c; Fig. 7), the ventilating opening includes an outer ventilating opening (opening below #12d; where #12c passes) penetrating the outer side-wall portion (Fig. 7), and an inner ventilating opening (opening above #12e; where #12c passes) penetrating the inner side-wall portion; said inner ventilating opening provided at a position where the inner ventilating opening does not overlap the outer ventilating opening in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (Fig. 7), the space between the outer ventilating opening and the inner ventilating opening serves as an air passage connecting the exterior of the housing and the interior of the housing ([0029]), and the lid body is provided covering the inner ventilating opening (Fig. 7). Regarding claim 5: Inagaki further discloses wherein the lid body has a handle #12f (Fig. 7), and the lid body is provided such that the handle protrudes toward the interior of the housing (in the direction of airflow #12c; handle #12f protrudes toward the interior of the housing) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (JP 2013029222 A) . Regarding claim 4: Inagaki further discloses wherein each of the plurality of first through holes has a circular shape (best seen in Fig. 8). Inagaki does not disclose: I. wherein the lid body is a metal plate However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Inagaki with the lid body being a metal plate. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a durable and fire-resistant lid body; thereby, improving the structural integrity of the control box. II. the diameter of the through holes being equal to or smaller than 3 mm. Nonetheless, Inagaki teaches that the opening 12d are designed to prevent snow and dust from reaching the control box ([0028]). The art recognize that 1 mm holes are standard for blocking dust and debris from entering systems (official notice). Also, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In view of the above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Inagaki with the diameter of the through holes being equal to or smaller than 3 mm. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have ensured that dust and debris are effectively prevented from entering the control box; thereby, limiting damages to the control box. Regarding claim 6: Inagaki discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the side wall portion has a screw hole, the lid body has a second through hole, and the lid body is screwed to the side wall portion at the screw hole with a screw inserted into the second through hole on the lid body. In other words, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is with respect to the manner in which the lid body is connected to the side wall portion. However, adapting the connection between elements using a screw and coaxial holes is well known in the art (official notice). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Inagaki with the side wall portion having a screw hole, the lid body having a second through hole, and the lid body screwed to the side wall portion at the screw hole with a screw inserted into the second through hole on the lid body. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed the lid body to be selectively removed from the assembly for cleaning and repairs; thereby, ensuring continuous and effective operation of the control box. Regarding claim 8: Inagaki discloses all the limitations, except for a sealing material provided between the side wall portion and the lid body. However, using a sealing material to connect structural elements is well known in the art (official notice). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Inagaki with a sealing material provided between the side wall portion and the lid body. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have fill uneven surface imperfections in the mating parts so as to create a tighter fit than the components could alone; thereby, providing benefits such as vibrations damping and contaminants intrusion . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3 and 7 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. There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art of record to provide the side wall portion with a metal plate, the outer side-wall portion having a slit, and a protruding portion formed by bending a part of the metal plate adjacent to the slit to protrude toward an outside of the housing, and the outer ventilating opening is a gap formed between the slit and a lower end of the protruding portion as required by claim 3; and to provide the side wall portion with a screw hole, the lid body with a second through hole, the lid body screwed to the side wall portion at the screw hole with a screw inserted into the second through hole on the lid body the side wall portion has a fitting hole, and the lid body having a protrusion to be fitted into the fitting hole as required by claim 7. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miura (JP 2008281286 A) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/856,667 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights