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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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) 1-5, 8-16, and 19-21 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recites “G-type heat exchanger”. Per MPEP 2173.05(b), section III, paragraph E, “The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression…extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite.”
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-11, 13-16, and 19-21 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1-5, 8-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 100765197) in view of Xia et al. (CN212252913U).
Per claim 1, Choi teaches an air conditioner outdoor unit comprising:
a cabinet (10) including an air outlet (12);
an electric control box (60 except 62), at least part of the electric control box being arranged inside the cabinet (see figure 2);
a fan (30), arranged inside the cabinet and located at the air outlet (see figure 2); and
a heat dissipation device (62), arranged inside the cabinet;
wherein:
in an axis direction of the fan (see annotated figure below), the heat dissipation device is located on one side of the fan (left side of the fan as shown in figure 2); and
in the axis direction of the fan (see annotated figure below), a projection of the heat dissipation device toward the fan is at least partially located within a circumferential edge of the fan (see annotated figure below) but fails to explicitly teach
a G-type heat exchanger arranged along a plurality of side walls of the cabinet, and enclosing a heat exchange channel together with the electronic control box, the heat exchange channel being communicated with the air outlet.
However, Xia teaches an outdoor unit including a G-type heat exchanger (“G-type heat exchanger 100) arranged along a plurality of side walls of a cabinet (200) (see figure 3), and enclosing a heat exchange channel (“space S”, pg. 5 of translation) together with an electronic control box (“control box”, pg. 5 of translation), the heat exchange channel (“space S”, pg. 5 of translation) being communicated with an air outlet (“the top air outlet heat dissipation”, pg. 5 of translation) for improved heat exchange (pg. 1 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a G-type heat exchanger arranged along a plurality of side walls of a cabinet, and enclosing a heat exchange channel together with an electronic control box, the heat exchange channel being communicated with an air outlet, as taught by Xia in the invention of Choi, in order to advantageously improve heat exchanger (pg. 1 of translation).
Per claim 2, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi teaches wherein:
the projection of the heat dissipation device is a first projection (see annotated figure below) of the heat dissipation device on a projection plane perpendicular to the axis direction of the fan, and the first projection intersects a second projection of a rotation plane of the fan on the projection plane (see annotated figure below); and
in a radial direction of the fan, a longest distance of the first projection within a circumferential edge of the second projection (see annotated figure below) is a percentage of a diameter of the fan but fails to explicitly teach the percentage being 5% to 40% of the diameter of the fan.
However, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in proportion. There is no evidence of record that this claimed proportion is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed proportions would not operate differently than the device disclosed by Choi. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the percentage be 5% to 40% of the diameter of the fan since it has been held that changes in size/proportion when the claimed device and a prior art device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph A, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the percentage be 5% to 40% in order to advantageously provide adequate air flow through the heat dissipation device.
PNG
media_image1.png
898
1025
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Choi teaches wherein a shortest distance between a top of the heat dissipation device and the fan in the axis direction of the fan (see annotated figure below) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shortest distance is larger than 5% of the diameter of the fan.
However, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in proportion. There is no evidence of record that this claimed proportion is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed proportions would not operate differently than the device disclosed by Choi. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shortest distance be larger than 5% of the diameter of the fan since it has been held that changes in size/proportion when the claimed device and a prior art device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph A, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shortest distance be larger than 5% of the diameter of the fan in order to advantageously provide adequate air flow and cooling to the heat dissipation device.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 4, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi taches
a ratio of an area difference between a first circular region (see annotated figure below) and a second circular region (see annotated figure below) to an area of a third circular region (see annotated figure below);
the first circular region is centered at a point on an axis of the fan and has a first radius equaling a shortest distance between:
the projection of the heat dissipation device on a plane perpendicular to the axis direction, and
the axis of the fan (see annotated figure below);
the second circular region is centered at the point on the axis of the fan and has a second radius equaling a longest distance between the projection and the axis of the fan (see annotated figure below); and
the third circular region is formed by the fan rotating around the axis (see annotated figure below)
but fails to explicitly teach wherein the ratio is larger than 0.005 and smaller than 0.5.
However, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in proportion. There is no evidence of record that this claimed proportion is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed proportions would not operate differently than the device disclosed by Choi. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the ratio be larger than 0.005 and smaller than 0.5 since it has been held that changes in size/proportion when the claimed device and a prior art device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph A, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimal air flow and cooling to the heat dissipation device.
PNG
media_image3.png
611
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 5, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi wherein the fan (30) includes an axial flow fan (see figure 2), an air outflow side (upper side of 30 as shown in figure 2) of the axial flow fan faces the air outlet (12) (see figure 2), and an air inflow side of the axial flow fan (lower side of 30 as shown in figure 2) faces the heat dissipation device (62) (see figure 2).
Per claim 8, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi teaches an air inlet (11) arranged at the side wall of the cabinet (see figure 2); wherein: the air outlet (12) is arranged at a top of the cabinet (see figure 2); and an airflow channel (channel between 20 and 40) is formed between the air outlet (12) and the air inlet (11), and the airflow channel is communicated with the heat exchange channel (see figure 2).
Per claim 9, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi teaches wherein the heat dissipation device is located on a side of the fan that is away from the air outlet (lower side if 30 as shown in figure 2), and near a part of the electric control box (61, 63) that is located inside the cabinet (see figure 2).
Per claim 10, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Choi teaches wherein the electric control box (60 except 62) is connected to the heat dissipation device (62) (see figure 2).
Per claim 11, Choi meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi teaches a compressor assembly (50), connected to the heat exchanger (20) and arranged inside the heat exchange channel (see annotated figure above).
Per claim 12, claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 13, claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 3 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 15, claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 16, claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 8 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 20, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 9 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 100765197) in view of Xia et al. (CN212252913U) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20180216836).
Per claim 21, Choi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Choi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein in the axis direction of the fan, the projection of the heat dissipation device toward the fan is entirely located within the circumferential edge of the fan.
However, Hashimoto teaches an outdoor unit wherein in an axis direction of a fan (axis of fan 3), a projection of a heat dissipation device (21) toward the fan (3) is entirely located within a circumferential edge of the fan (outer edge of 3 shown in figure 1) for improved efficiency (para. 0031). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide, in an axis direction of a fan, a projection of a heat dissipation device toward the fan is entirely located within a circumferential edge of the fan, as taught by Hashimoto in the invention of Choi, as modified, in order to advantageously improve efficiency (para. 0031).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 100765197) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20180216836).
Per claim 22, claim 22 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and claim 21 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights