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 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the water-receiving sink with an open top formed between the water receiver and the back shell” with “the water receiver connected to a lower end of the back shell at a rear side of the back shell” as claimed in claims 14 and 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
water receiver in at least claim 14.
engagement member in at least claim 27.
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.
Water receiver is interpreted to cover a drainage outlet as per para [0016] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Engagement member is interpreted to cover a groove as per para [0062] 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 14-31 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 14 requires that “the water receiver be connected to a lower end of the back shell at a rear side of the back shell” (see line 4). Claim 14 further requires that “a water-receiving sink be formed between the water receiver and the back shell” (see last paragraph of claim 1). It is unclear as to how the water-receiving sink is provided between the water receiver and the back shell when the water receiver is already connected to the back shell.
As best understood, the back shell is #20, the water receiver is #30, and the water-receiving sink is #31. It is not apparent from the specification how the water-receiving sink #31 is provided between the water receiver #30 and the back shell #20.
Appropriate correction is required.
A similar issue is found in claim 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 calls for the limitation “the second groove” twice (see last two lines); which limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purposes, “the second groove” is interpreted as the groove.
Claim(s) 15-24 and 26-31 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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) 14-17, 20, and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US 20150013371 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Cho discloses a volute component (Fig. 1-8) comprising:
a back shell (see Fig. 2: back shell has #10a);
side shells (see Fig. 2-3), rear edges of the side shells being connected to the back shell (see Fig. 2); and
a water receiver #13 connected to a lower end of the back shell (#13 is connected to the lower half end of the back shell) at a rear side of the back shell (see Fig. 5: #13 adjoints the backwall); wherein:
the back shell and the side shells form a cross-flow channel (see Fig. 5 and airflow thereof), the side shells being arranged at two sides of the cross-flow channel in an axial direction of the cross-flow channel (see Fig. 5), and an air channel inlet #10a being formed between front edges of the side shells (Fig. 2 & 5); and
a water-receiving sink (see spout below #40 that discharges condensate from evaporator #40 to pan #13) with an open top (the spout above has an open top; at least through which condensate from #40 flows therein) is formed between the water receiver and the back shell (see Fig. 5: the spout is disposed between the front end of the water receiver #13 and the back shell), and is configured to receive water dripping along the back shell (see Fig. 5: by virtue of the structural limitations being met, the prior art can achieve this function).
Note: the limitation “configured to receive water dripping along the back shell” 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 15:
Cho further discloses wherein the back shell is provided with a guide rib #11 extending vertically and protruding from the rear side of the back shell (see at least Fig. 2 & 5: feature #11 is a three-dimensional guide rib that extends vertically and protrudes from the rear side of the back shell).
Regarding claim 16:
Cho further discloses wherein the back shell is provided with a plurality of guide ribs #11 arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the cross-flow channel, each of the plurality of guide ribs extending vertically and protruding from the rear side of the back shell (see at least Fig. 2 & 5: features #11 are a three-dimensional guide ribs that extend vertically and protrude from the rear side of the back shell).
Regarding claim 17:
Cho further discloses a top shell connected to an upper part of the back shell (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20:
Cho further discloses wherein a groove #10b is formed on an outer surface of a connection between the top shell and the back shell (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23:
Cho further discloses wherein the back shell is provided with water-blocking plates at two ends of the back shell close to the side shells (see top panel and bottom panel of housing #10), the water-blocking plates extending vertically and protruding rearwards (see Fig. 2 & 5: the top panel and bottom panel of housing #10 are a three-dimensional elements that extend vertically in their thickness direction, and that each protrude rearwards from a front of housing #10).
Regarding claim 24:
Cho further discloses wherein the water receiver and the back shell are integrally formed (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 25:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 14. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 14 above for the rejection of claim 25. Only the differences will be addressed.
Cho further discloses an air conditioner (abstract) comprising: a heat exchanger #40; wherein the heat exchanger engages with the volute component to shield the air channel inlet (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 26:
Cho further discloses a base arranged below the volute component and the heat exchanger; wherein the base includes a first support (see bottom plate of housing #10; Fig. 5) supporting the water receiver and a second support (see plate supporting elements #30 & #40; Fig. 5) supporting the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 27:
Cho further discloses wherein: the water receiver includes a first engagement member at a bottom of the water receiver; and the first support includes a second engagement member at a top of the first support, the second engagement member forming a groove with an open bottom; and the first engagement member is shaped to be compatible with the groove and engages in the groove (see Fig. 5 of Cho Reproduced and Annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Cho Reproduced and Annotated
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20150013371 A1) in view of Liu (US 20080141710 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19:
Cho discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the top shell is provided with a guide rib extending vertically and protruding from an outer side of the top shell; or wherein the top shell is provided with a plurality of guide ribs arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the cross- flow channel, each of the plurality of guide ribs extending vertically and protruding from an outer side of the top shell.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches that it is known to manufacture housing of air conditioning unit with a plurality of ribs extending vertically and protruding from an outer side thereof (see ribs 10a-b; Fig. 3 and 6).
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 Cho with the top shell having the claimed configuration above, in a similar manner as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have increased the compressive strength of the top shell; thereby, reducing the risk of undesired deformation.
As modified, the top shell is provided with a plurality of guide ribs arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the cross-flow channel, each of the plurality of guide ribs extending vertically and protruding from an outer side of the top shell.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20150013371 A1).
Regarding claims 21-22:
Cho discloses all the limitations, except for wherein a guide rib extends vertically and protrudes from the groove; or wherein a plurality of guide ribs are arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the cross-flow channel, each of the guide ribs extending vertically and protruding from the groove.
Nonetheless, Cho already discloses grooves provided with a plurality of guide ribs #11 arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the cross-flow channel, each of the plurality of guide ribs extending vertically and protruding from the rear side of the back shell (see at least Fig. 2 & 5: features #11 are a three-dimensional guide ribs that extend vertically and protrude from the rear side of the back shell).
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 Cho with the groove #10b provided with the claimed and disclosed features above; since that concept was already taught by Cho.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have prevented sagging or buckling of the groove(s) under extreme temperature fluctuations.
As modified, a plurality of guide ribs are arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the cross-flow channel, each of the guide ribs extending vertically and protruding from the groove.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-31 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 combination of elements as set forth in claim 28 does not appear to be disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 218119982 U), Chen (US 20240117973 A1), and Rust (US 5715697 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