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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. limit member in claim 19.
b. fixation member in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Limit member is interpreted to cover an extension plate and a flange as per claim 20 of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Fixation member is interpreted to cover the box main body as per para [0030] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 18-20, 31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jagtap (US 20200266615 A1).
Regarding claim 18:
Jagtap discloses an electric control box (abstract; Figs. 1-7) comprising:
an electric-control-box body #12 including:
an opening mouth #17 provided at a bottom of the electric-control-box body (see Fig. 2 & 7); and
a socket #30 provided at the bottom of the electric-control-box body (best seen in Fig. 7), an opening of the socket being configured to face an inside of the opening mouth (Fig. 2 & 7);
an electric-control-box cover #14 configured to cover the opening mouth (Fig. 7), a portion of an edge of the electric-control-box cover being configured to be inserted in the socket (Fig. 7), and an opening wall of the socket being configured to position the electric-control-box cover in a cantilevered state (Fig. 7).
Note: the limitation “an opening wall of the socket being configured to position the electric-control-box cover in a cantilevered state” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il.
Regarding claim 19:
Jagtap further discloses wherein the electric-control-box body includes a box main body #12, a bottom rim of the box main body enclosing to form the opening mouth (Fig. 7); and a limit member (see V shaped groove defined by #30), one end of the limit member being configured to be connected with the box main body (Fig. 7), another end of the limit member protruding from the bottom rim and extending toward the inside of the opening mouth (Fig. 7), and the limit member and the bottom rim forming the socket (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20:
Jagtap further discloses wherein the limit member is provided as an integral member with the box main body (Fig. 7); the limit member includes an extension plate (see #30; Fig. 5) and a flange (see #62; Fig. 5), one end of the extension plate is connected to the bottom rim (Fig. 7), another end of the extension plate is configured to extend away from a top of the box main body and connect with the flange (Fig. 5 & 7), and the flange is configured to extend towards the inside of the opening mouth (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 25:
Jagtap further discloses wherein the box main body includes a plurality of sidewalls connected end to end and including a first sidewall and a second sidewall arranged opposite to each other (Fig. 7); the limit member is arranged at one end of the first sidewall close to the opening mouth (Fig. 7); and the second sidewall is provided with a fixation member #54 connected with the electric-control-box cover by a screw #56 ([0034]).
Regarding claim 31:
Jagtap further discloses an air-switch module or a junction box (one of #69 or adjacent structure seen near #69. These structures can switch direction of air), the air-switch module or the junction box each includes a shell configured to be connected to an outer wall of the electric-control-box body (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 34:
Jagtap further discloses
wherein one side of the box main body close to the shell is provided with a notch #20 for passing wires ([0030]).
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 21-24 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagtap (US 20200266615 A1).
Regarding claim 21:
Jagtap discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the flange includes a support section and an inclined section, one end of the support section is configured to be connected to the extension plate, another end of the support section is connected to the inclined section, the support section is parallel to the bottom rim, and the inclined section is configured to be inclined toward a side away from the opening mouth.
This difference is clearly with respect to the shape of the flange.
However, it has held that the particular shape of a structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 Jagtap with the claimed configuration above.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have increase the clearance space of the socket so as to facilitate assembly or installation. Other benefits included directing water or debris away from the electric box in order to limit rust and damages.
Regarding claims 22-24:
Jagtap as modified discloses all the limitations, except for wherein a thickness to of the electric-control-box cover and a width ti of the socket satisfy t1≤1.2×t0; wherein an extension length s of the support section from the extension plate to the inclined section satisfies s≥2×t1; and wherein an included angle θ formed between the inclined section and the supporting section is in a range of 150° to 180°.
These differences are clearly with respect to the sizing of the device.
However, 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).
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 Jagtap with the claimed configuration above.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have minimized material usage so as to improve manufacturing. Other benefits include increasing the clearance space of the socket so as to facilitate assembly or installation; and directing water or debris away from the electric box in order to limit rust and damages.
Regarding claim 35:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 18. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 18 above for the rejection of claim 35.
Only the difference will be addressed.
Jagtap further discloses wherein the unit is for an air conditioner (abstract).
Jagtap does not specifically disclose wherein the electric control box is within the indoor unit.
Nonetheless, housing the electric control box inside the indoor unit is a well-known practice of 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 Jagtap with the electric control box inside the indoor unit.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have limited exposure to high ambient moisture and airborne contaminants that commonly cause wear on outdoor electrical panels; thereby, lowering the risk of corrosion. Other benefits include facilitating access to the control box in order to facilitate maintenance.
Claim(s) 26-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagtap (US 20200266615 A1) in view of Korcz (US 8987593 B2).
Regarding claims 26-28 and 30:
Jagtap discloses all the limitations, except for a wiring base board arranged within the box main body;
wherein: the box main body includes a top plate located on a side of the box main body away from the opening mouth; a buckle structure is provided between the top plate and the wiring base board, and the buckle structure is configured to position the wiring base board; the wiring base board is connected to the top plate by at least one screw; wherein the buckle structure includes a mounting hole provided on the top plate; and a buckle provided on the wiring base board, and protruding from a top surface of the wiring base board and buckled with the mounting hole; wherein the buckle structure is one of at least two buckle structures provided between the top plate and the wiring base board; wherein the wiring base board is provided with a reinforcement rib extending towards the opening mouth and arranged corresponding to the limit member.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Korcz teaches this arrangement. Korcz teaches an electric control box (Fig. 1-2) comprising a wiring base board #12 arranged within the box main body; wherein
the box main body includes a top plate #16 located on a side of the box main body away from an opening mouth; a buckle structure #14 is provided between the top plate and the wiring base board, and the buckle structure is configured to position the wiring base board (Fig. 2); the wiring base board is connected to the top plate by at least one screw (see Fig. 2); wherein the buckle structure includes a mounting hole provided on the top plate; and a buckle provided on the wiring base board, and protruding from a top surface of the wiring base board and buckled with the mounting hole; wherein the buckle structure is one of at least two buckle structures (#14 & #46) provided between the top plate and the wiring base board (see Fig. 1-2); wherein the wiring base board is provided with a reinforcement rib (#70, #62) extending towards the opening mouth.
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 Jagtap with the claimed configuration above as taught by Korcz.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed for adjustability within the electrical box so as to accommodate various type of electrical components.
As modified, the wiring base board is provided with a reinforcement rib extending towards the opening mouth and arranged corresponding to the limit member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 and 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
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 so as to provide the electric control box with an electric control main board; wherein the wiring base board is provided with a positioning groove, and the electric control main board is installed in the positioning groove, the wiring base board is provided with a plurality of limiting buckles arranged along a peripheral direction of the electric control main board and buckled with an edge of the electric control main board to fix the electric control main board as required by claim 29; and wherein the shell includes a mounting box welded to the box main body and a mounting cover arranged on the mounting box; the electric-control-box cover includes a first edge and a second edge arranged opposite to each other, the first edge is configured to be inserted in the socket, the second edge is arranged corresponding to the shell, and the second edge extends to a bottom surface of the mounting cover and is connected with the mounting cover by at least one screw as required by claim 32.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelly (US 20200068736 A1), Kakimi (US 20180309279 A1), Elbaz (US 9478956 B1), Shiraki (US 20150101839 A1), Dinh (US 20040144556 A1), and Castner (US 4672510 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
Prosecution Insights