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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that there were no arguments directed to the rejections of independent claim 12, as Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the amended claim language:
“a discharge cover disposed in the casing,
wherein the discharge cover is disposed below the first outlet and in front of the second outlet,
wherein an upper surface of the discharge cover is inclined upward toward the front,
wherein a lower surface of the discharge cover is inclined downward toward the front.”
Therefore, the rejections of claims 12-17 will be maintained by the Examiner.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites,
“a discharge cover disposed in the casing,
wherein the discharge cover is disposed below the first outlet and in front of the second outlet,
wherein an upper surface of the discharge cover is inclined upward toward the front,
wherein a lower surface of the discharge cover is inclined downward toward the front.”
in lines 9-14. However, the Examiner notes that, “The discharge cover 30 may be disposed in the casing 10 to form the first outlet 36. The discharge cover 30 may be disposed in the casing 10 forming the front surface. The discharge cover 30 may have a structure disposed inside of the casing 10. The discharge cover 30 may form the first outlet 36 that is formed in the leftward-rightward direction. The front vane 40 may be disposed on the discharge cover 30. [0027]”, there is no place in the immediate specification that indicates or suggests that the discharge cover “is disposed below the first outlet” as the discharge cover itself forms the first outlet, and therefore cannot be “disposed below” itself as claimed by the Applicant, and further is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 now recites,
“a discharge cover disposed in the casing,
wherein the discharge cover is disposed below the first outlet and in front of the second outlet,
wherein an upper surface of the discharge cover is inclined upward toward the front,
wherein a lower surface of the discharge cover is inclined downward toward the front.”
in lines 9-14. However, the Examiner notes that, “The discharge cover 30 may be disposed in the casing 10 to form the first outlet 36. The discharge cover 30 may be disposed in the casing 10 forming the front surface. The discharge cover 30 may have a structure disposed inside of the casing 10. The discharge cover 30 may form the first outlet 36 that is formed in the leftward-rightward direction. The front vane 40 may be disposed on the discharge cover 30. [0027]”, and as the discharge cover itself forms the first outlet, and therefore cannot be “disposed below” itself as claimed by the Applicant.
For the above, the Examiner holds that the claim as written is indefinite for failing to particularly point and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori et al. (JP 2021076283 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hattori et al. discloses an air conditioner (1B), comprising:
a casing (10) in which an inlet (20), a first outlet (A1) positioned at a front (12) thereof, and a second outlet (A6) positioned at a lower surface (14) thereof are formed;
a fan (80) that creates an air flow (A1-A6) from the inlet to the first outlet or the second outlet (Fig. 8, Fig. 9);
a first vane (76) that opens or closes the second outlet (Fig. 8, Fig. 9), wherein the first vane
closes the second outlet to discharge the air through the first outlet (Fig. 8), or opens the second outlet to discharge air below the first outlet (Fig. 9); and
a guide (61, 62) that partitions the first outlet and the second outlet (Fig. 8), and inclined upper
surface (63) of the guide extending forward and upward toward the first outlet (Fig. 8) and an inclined lower surface (111) of the guide extending forward and downward.
Regarding claim 13, Hattori et al. discloses all of claim 12 as above, wherein a front end of the
first vane (76) forms an inclined surface that extends downward as it extends forward (Fig. 9), and
wherein the front end of the first vane is positioned under the inclined lower surface of the guide (Fig. 8), when the first vane closes the second outlet.
Regarding claim 14, Hattori et al. discloses all of claim 12 as above, wherein a front vane (71) is positioned in the first outlet (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Hattori et al. discloses all of claim 14 as above, wherein the front vane is inclined forward and upward (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Hattori et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, further comprising a second vane (73) that guides a flow of air generated by the fan (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Hattori et al. discloses all of claim 16 as above wherein the first vane is positioned in the second outlet, the second vane is positioned so that a front end of the second vane faces forward to guide air into the first outlet (Fig. 8; the second vane guides air into the first outlet).
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (JP 2021076283 A) in view of Ishikawa (CN 111051789 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hattori et al. discloses an air conditioner (1B), comprising:
a casing (10), in with an inlet (20), a first outlet (A1) positioned at a front (12) thereof, and second outlet (A6) positioned at a lower surface (14) thereof are formed;
a fan (80) that created an air flow (A1-A6) from the inlet to the first outlet or the second outlet (Fig. 8, Fig. 9);
a first vane (76) that opens or closes the second outlet (Fig. 8, Fig. 9), wherein the first vane closes the second outlet to discharge air through the first outlet, or opens the second outlet to discharge air below the first outlet (Fig. 8, Fig. 9).
However, Hattori et al. does not explicitly disclose, “a discharge cover disposed in the casing,
wherein the discharge cover is disposed below the first outlet and in front of the second outlet,
wherein an upper surface of the discharge cover is inclined upward toward the front,
wherein a lower surface of the discharge cover is inclined downward toward the front.”
PNG
media_image3.png
716
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
666
492
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ishikawa teaches, in the field of air conditioners, a discharge cover (111) disposed in the casing (Fig. 4), wherein the discharge cover is disposed below the first outlet (5, Fig. 4) and in front of the second outlet (5, Fig. 6), wherein an upper surface (see annotated Fig. 4 above) of the discharge cover is inclined upward toward the front (the Examiner notes that the upper part of the discharge cover is vertical from the center line and therefore is inclined upward), wherein a lower surface (see annotated Fig. 4 above) of the discharge cover is inclined downward (the Examiner notes that the upper part of the discharge cover is vertical from the center line and therefore is inclined downward) toward the front.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the air conditioner of Hattori et al. to have the discharge cover of Ishikawa, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that (“First, an air conditioner indoor machine 1 has stopped running, the 1 panel 111 and second 2 panel 112 on the same vertical plane are arranged, a 1 panel 111 caused by it and the 2 panel 112 surface is an integral aesthetic feeling, which is very beautiful. first 1 panel 111 is viewed from the front thereof in the longitudinal direction than the 2 panel 112 longer. 2 panel 112 of longitudinal length is set to be same with the front of the height size of the air outlet 5. ([0092])”. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the discharge cover of Ishikawa is fully capable of being utilized with moving vanes (Ishikawa, 30; 40) similar to those disclosed by Hattori et al. as the discharge cover is movable through a panel transmission mechanism (Ishikawa, 21)
Regarding claim 2, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the first vane guides air blown by the fan to the first outlet when positioned in the second outlet (Hattori et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the first outlet is positioned in front of a rotational center of the fan (Hattori et al.; Fig. 8, Fig. 9; the Examiner reiterates the fan is 80), and wherein the second outlet is positioned between the first outlet and the rotational center of the fan in a frontward-backward direction (Hattori et al.; Fig. 8, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 1 as above, further comprising: a front guide (Hattori et al.; 61, 62) that partitions the first outlet and the second outlet (Hattori et al.; Fig. 8, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 4 as above, wherein an upper surface (63) of the front guide extends in forward and upward directions (Hattori et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 4 as above, wherein the front guide comprises an upper guide (Hattori et al., 63) that forms a surface inclined forward and upward (Hattori et al., Fig. 8); and a lower guide (Hattori et al., 62) that forms a surface inclined forward and downward (Hattori et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 6 as above, wherein a front end of the first vane forms an inclined surface that extends downward as it extends forward (Hattori et al., Fig. 9), and wherein the front end of the first vane is positioned under the lower guide, when the first vane closes the second outlet (Hattori et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein a front vane (Hattori et al.; 71, 73) is positioned in the first outlet (Hattori et al., A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 8 as above, wherein the front vane is inclined forward and upward (Hattori et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 1 as above, further comprising: a second vane (Hattori et al.; 71, 74) that guides a flow of air (Hattori et al., A1) generated by the fan (Hattori et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, the combination Hattori et al. and Ishikawa teach all of claim 10 as above, wherein when the first vane is positioned in the second outlet (Hattori et al., Fig. 8) the second vane is positioned so that a front end of the second vane faces forward (Hattori et al., Fig. 8) to guide air to the first outlet.
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/R.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745