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 12/10/2024 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. seal member in claim 16.
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.
a. seal member is interpreted to cover at least a pipe joint as per claim 28.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 19-22 each depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 has been cancelled; making claims 19-22 in improper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For examination purposes, claim 19 would be made dependent on claim 16.
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) 16, 23, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei (CN 217899995 U).
Regarding claim 16:
Lei discloses a window air conditioner comprising:
an outdoor unit component #2;
an indoor unit component #1 having a first connection end (see connection end where #1 meets #4 in at least Fig. 1 & 7);
an intermediate component #3 & #4 including:
a first shell assembly #4 having a second connection end, the second connection end being connected to the first connection end (see Fig. 7) and having a port in communication with an inner cavity of the intermediate component (see Fig. 7-8 & 12);
a second shell assembly #3 connected to the outdoor unit component (Fig. 7-8), the second shell assembly and the first shell assembly being movable relative to each other in an inner-outer direction (Fig. 7-10); and
a seal assembly including a seal member #31 configured to seal the port (Fig. 8-9); and
a pipeline assembly #6 extending through the seal member and the inner cavity of the intermediate component (Fig. 8-9), the pipeline assembly having an inner end connected to the indoor unit component and an outer end connected to the outdoor unit component (see Fig. 8-9 and associated description thereof).
Regarding claim 23:
Lei further discloses wherein the first shell assembly is arranged around the second shell assembly (Fig. 5-10); the intermediate component further includes a slide rail assembly including a first slide rail and a second slide rail that are slidably engaged with each other in the inner-outer direction, the first slide rail being fixedly connected to the first shell assembly, and the second slide rail being fixedly connected to the second shell assembly; and at least one of the first shell assembly or the second shell assembly covers the slide rail assembly (see Fig. 20 and associated description thereof).
Regarding claim 30:
Lei further discloses wherein the first connection end is formed between an outer end of a top plate of the indoor unit component and an upper end of a rear back plate of the indoor unit component; and the first connection end is arranged around the second connection end (see Fig. 7-9).
Regarding claim 31:
Lei further discloses wherein the second shell assembly has an outer end rotatably connected to an upper part of an inner end of the outdoor unit component (see Fig. 1 & 21 and associated description thereof).
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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 217899995 U) in view of Dubin (US 5582025 A).
Regarding claims 17-18:
Lei discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the seal member includes a first seal and a second seal, the second seal being arranged around an edge of the first seal in a circumferential direction of the port, and a cavity being formed in the second seal; wherein the cavity is one of a plurality of cavities formed in the second seal that are arranged at intervals in an axial direction of the port.
In the same field of endeavor, Dubin teaches a window air conditioner comprising a seal assembly (Fig. 10)
wherein the seal member includes a first seal (made of #87 & #88) and a second seal (made of #85 & #86), the second seal being arranged around an edge of the first seal in a circumferential direction of the port (Fig. 10-11), and a cavity being formed in the second seal (see cavities of #85 & #86 that accommodate #87 & #88); wherein the cavity is one of a plurality of cavities formed in the second seal that are arranged at intervals in an axial direction of the port (see Fig. 10).
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 Lei with the claimed arrangement above in a similar manner as taught by Dubin.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a seal with no refrigerant loss as suggested by Dubin. Other benefits include facilitation of installation.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 217899995 U).
Regarding claim 19:
Lei further discloses wherein the seal member is a first seal member; the seal assembly further includes a second seal member #5 configured to seal the first shell assembly (Fig. 6 & 8-9).
Lei does not disclose wherein the first shell assembly comprises a plurality of sub-shells.
However, making the first shell assembly in two sections so as to have a plurality of sub-shells is recognized as a manufacturing design preference. See MPEP 2144.04 and In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Lei with the first shell assembly split in two equal sections so as to form a plurality of sub-shells.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have improved manufacturing efficiency, logistical flexibility, and design adaptability.
As modified, the second seal member is configured to seal connections where the plurality of sub-shells are connected to one another.
Regarding claim 20:
Lei as modified discloses all the limitations.
As modified, the plurality of sub-shells includes an upper shell and a lower shell; the port is formed between an inner end portion of the upper shell and an inner end portion of the lower shell; and
two side edges of the upper shell in a transverse direction are correspondingly connected to two side edges of the lower shell in the transverse direction, respectively, and the two side edges of the upper shell in the transverse direction are sealingly engaged with the two side edges of the lower shell in the transverse direction through the second seal member (see rejection of claim 19 above).
Regarding claim 21:
Lei as modified discloses all the limitations.
Lei further discloses wherein a cavity is formed in the second seal member (see cavity defined by #51 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 22:
Lei as modified discloses all the limitations.
Lei further discloses wherein the second seal member and at least part of the first seal member are integrally formed (see at least Fig. 1 and 9: when all components are assembled, they are structurally connected together so as to form one element. Thus, the second seal member and at least part of the first seal member are integrally formed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-29 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.
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 seal member with a first seal shaped to match the port, the first seal having a through hole; and a second seal configured to seal the through hole and having deformation resistance greater than deformation resistance of the first seal; and the pipeline assembly extending through the second seal. The instant claims are be patentable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tang (US 10865831 B1), Gray (US 20230280048 A1), Booten (US 10156369 B2), Si (US 20220228771 A1), Leezer (US 20210341175 A1), Li (US 20210078118 A1), Baumann (US 10739018 B2), Thompson (US 7296424 B2), Cur (US 6568201 B1), and Hull (US 2320436 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