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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, in line 4 the limitation “a principal axis” is unclear as it is unclear how this principal axis related to the principal axis of line 2. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “[a] the principal axis”.
Claim 10 requires the interior fan impeller to direct the first portion of air into the first air duct and the second air duct. However, according to Applicant’s specification, the first portion of air is directed into the first air duct, however the first portion of air is not directed into the second air duct. Applicant’s specification provides support for the second portion of air directed into the second air duct, see figure 2a. Accordingly, claim 10 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 10 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the interior fan impeller is configured to direct the first portion of air into the first air duct in a direction substantially perpendicular to the principal axis, and the interior fan impeller is configured to direct the second portion of air into the second air duct in a direction substantially perpendicular to the principal axis.”.
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,046,406 to Harris et al. hereinafter referred to as Harris, in view of US 3,176,474 to Abbott, hereinafter referred to as Abbott.
In reference to claim 1, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses a window heat pump (20) comprising:
an interior portion (cold side of the air conditioner as described in column 4 lines 8-13) comprising an interior heat exchanger (44), an interior fan impeller (50), and an interior motor (54) configured to rotate the interior fan impeller about a principal axis (52);
an exterior portion (hot side of the air conditioner as described in column 4 lines 8-13) comprising a compressor (62), an exterior heat exchanger (60), and an exterior fan impeller (58); and
the interior portion further comprises a first air outlet (26 left), a second air outlet (26 right), and an air inlet (24) such that the interior heat exchanger (44) and the interior fan impeller (50) are positioned on a fluidic pathway between the air inlet (24) and each of the first air outlet (26 left) and the second air outlet (26 right), see figures 1 and 2,
the first air outlet (26 left) is configured to direct a first portion of air exiting the interior portion along a first direction (as dictated by the adjustable louver assembly), the second air outlet (26 right) is configured to direct a second portion of air exiting the interior portion along a second direction (as dictated by the adjustable louver assembly), and the first direction is not parallel to the second direction. See column 3 lines 44-50 where Harris discloses the assemblies 26 are independently controllable by the user and contain louvers that are pivotable about both a vertical axis and horizontal axis giving the user a wide range of air flow configurations which means the first and second air outlets (26) are configured as claimed and capable of so performing.
Harris fails to disclose, the interior motor located within the interior portion) the exterior portion offset relative to the interior portion along [a] the principal axis an interconnecting portion extending between the interior portion and the exterior portion along the principal axis and mechanically, fluidically, and electrically interconnecting the interior portion and the exterior portion, wherein: each of the interior portion and the exterior portion extend away from the interconnecting portion in a direction perpendicular to the principal axis.
Abbot teaches that a saddle type window air conditioning unit comprising an interior blower motor (16) located within an interior portion (1), the exterior portion (2) offset relative to the interior portion along [a] the principal axis (of the rotation axis of fan 15); an interconnecting portion (3) extending between the interior portion (1) and the exterior portion (2) along the principal axis and mechanically, fluidically, and electrically interconnecting the interior portion (1) and the exterior portion (2), wherein: each of the interior portion and the exterior portion extend away from the interconnecting portion in a direction perpendicular to the principal axis. Abbot teaches that this method avoids taking up window space, see column 1 lines 14-25. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Harris by Abbot such that, the interior motor located within the interior portion) the exterior portion offset relative to the interior portion along [a] the principal axis an interconnecting portion extending between the interior portion and the exterior portion along the principal axis and mechanically, fluidically, and electrically interconnecting the interior portion and the exterior portion, wherein: each of the interior portion and the exterior portion extend away from the interconnecting portion in a direction perpendicular to the principal axis, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of taking up little window space.
In reference to claim 2, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the interior portion comprises a first side (left side), a second side (right side) opposite of the first side,
and a third side (bottom side) extending between the first side and the second side such that the principal axis extends between the first side and the second side and through the third side,the first direction extends away from the principal axis and toward the first side, and
the second direction extends away from the principal axis and toward the second side. See annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the respective sides and principal axis of Harris.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris as modified supra fails to explicitly disclose the first direction forms an angle of 30-60* with the principal axis, and the second direction forms an angle of 0-20' with the principal axis. Harris does teach that selectively changing the exiting air between a plurality of angles is a results effective variable in that it achieves a recognized result in this case, directional control of the exiting air, see column 2 lines 1-12. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an optimum directional angle of the adjustable louvers such that the first direction forms an angle of 30-60° with the principal axis, and the second direction forms an angle of 0-20° with the principal axis since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 21443.05 (II).
In reference to claim 4, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the first side is positioned closer to the first air outlet (26 left) than to the second air outlet (26 right),
and the second side is positioned closer to the second air outlet (26 right) than to the first air outlet (26 left). See annotated reference above with respect to claim 1.
In reference to claim 5, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the air inlet (24)is provided on the third side. See annotated reference above with respect to claim 1.
In reference to claim 6, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
the air inlet (24) is positioned between the first air outlet (26 left) and the second air outlet (26 right).
In reference to claim 7, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses at least one of the first air outlet and the second air outlet (26) is provided on the third side. See annotated reference above with respect to claim 1.
In reference to claim 8, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses both the first air outlet and the second air outlet (26) are provided on the third side. See annotated reference above with respect to claim 1.
In reference to claim 9, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
the interior portion comprises:
a first air duct (86) defining a fluidic path between the interior fan impeller (50) and the first air outlet (26 left), and
a second air duct (84) defining a fluidic path between the interior fan impeller (50) and the second air outlet (26 right), see figure 2.
In reference to claim 10, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the interior fan impeller (50) is configured to direct the first portion of air into the first air duct (86) in a direction substantially perpendicular to the principal axis, and the interior fan impeller (50) is configured to direct the second portion of air into the second air duct in a direction substantially perpendicular to the principal axis. See column 4 lines 27-49 where the air is “caused to leave the blower wheel with radial and tangential flow components” resulting in air flow substantially perpendicular to the principal axis.
In reference to claim 12, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the interior portion comprises a first set of louvers (106) positioned within the first air duct and configured to control a flow rate of the first portion of air through the first air duct.
In reference to claim 13, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the first set of louvers (106) is accessible through the first air outlet (26), is manually adjustable, and collectively pivotable (via 124).
In reference to claim 14, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the first set of louvers (106) are capable of restricting access to the first air duct and prevent contact with the interior fan impeller.
In reference to claim 16, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the interior portion comprises the interior portion comprises a second set of louvers (126) pivotably supported within the second air duct (84).
In reference to claim 17, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses a first line, which is defined by an inner surface of the first air duct and spaced furthest away from the principal axis, is defined by two bends. See annotated reference below for the examiner's definition of the first line. Note that the limitation of a line is extremely broad and does not have any claimed bounds other than being on the inner surface of the first air duct spaced furthest away from the principal axis. Accordingly, any line with any bounds can meet the claimed limitation of a line.
PNG
media_image2.png
281
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 18, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
a second line, which is defined by an inner surface of the second air duct and spaced furthest away from the principal axis, is defined by one bend. See annotated reference above with respect to claim 17 for the examiner's definition of second line. Note that the limitation of a line is extremely broad and does not have any claimed bounds other than being on the inner surface of the first air duct spaced furthest away from the principal axis. Accordingly, any line with any bounds can meet the claimed limitation of a line.
In reference to claim 20, Harris and Abbott disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the interior portion further comprises a fan shroud surrounding the interior fan impeller and comprising two protruding deflectors (80/82).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris and Abbott as applied to claim 9 supra, and in further view of US 2013/0040553 to Potter, hereinafter referred to as Potter.
In reference to claim 11, Harris, Abbott, and Potter disclose the claimed invention.
Harris fails to explicitly disclose the interior fan impeller is of a backward curved centrifugal type. Howeer, Potter teaches that in the art of air flow, that axial fans, cross flow fans, forward blowers, forward curved centrifugal fan, and backward curved centrifugal fans are equivalents, known to be suitable for the same purpose of air flow. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Harris such that the interior fan impeller is of a backward curved centrifugal type since it has been held prima facie obvious to substitute one element for another which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art, see MPEP 2144.06 (I&II).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris and Abbott as applied to claim 9 supra, and in further view of US 2016/0377311 to Breed, hereinafter referred to as Breed.
In reference to claim 15, Harris, Abbott, and Breed disclose the claimed invention.
Harris fails to disclose the interior portion comprises a second set of louvers positioned statically within the second air duct and configured to prevent contact with the interior fan impeller. However, Breed teaches that many air vents are designed with both fixed and moveable louvers [0039]. This is strong evidence that modifying Harris as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. direct the air flow in a desired direction). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Harris such that the interior portion comprises a second set of louvers positioned statically within the second air duct and configured to prevent contact with the interior fan impeller, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of directing the exit air in a desired direction.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris and Abbott as applied to claim 1 supra, and in further view of US2022/0132838 to Kennedy, III Et al., hereinafter referred to as Kennedy.
In reference to claim 19, Harris, Abbott, and Kennedy disclose the claimed invention.
Harris discloses the interior portion further comprises a filter (32) such that the interior heat exchanger is positioned between the filter and the interior fan impeller but fails to disclose the filter has a minimum efficiency reporting value of at least 13. However, Kennedy teaches that in the art of filters, that providing a filter with a Merve standard 13 or higher provides good anti-viral properties [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Harris by Kennedy such that the filter has a minimum efficiency reporting value of at least 13 in order to provide good antiviral properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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 at 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 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763