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 12/12/2025 and 1/08/2025 were filed before the first Office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 01/08/2025. Claims 1-14 are canceled. Claims 15-34 are new. Accordingly, Claims 15-34 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 16, see Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words and the first line contains information provided in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 motor assembly in claim 15 and claim 27;
a control device in claim 15 and claim 27;
a pump assembly in claim 18;
a detection device in claim 21;
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.
the motor assembly 42 is installed between the two fan wheels 41 and may be configured as a double-shaft motor, 0073 of Applicant Specification
c. the water pump assembly 60 includes a water pump and a water pipe 61. 0065 of Applicant Specification;
d. the detection device 70 may be configured as a water level switch, 0078 of Applicant Specification.
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
§ 112(a)
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 15-24 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.
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 27, recite the limitation “an electronic control device” in line 9 and line 11 respectively. The term “device” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit is controlled. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of controlling an operation state. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
Claims 16-26 and 28-34 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
§ 112(b)
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 15-34 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.
Regarding Claims 15, 22 and 27, the term “directly facing” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “directly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the position of the indoor heat exchanger, the term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 19 and 33, the term “directly above” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The terms “directly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the position of the water pump, the term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 15 and 27, Claim limitation “electric control device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure for electronic control device that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 16-18, 21,23-26 and 28-33 are rejected based on dependency 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, 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 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Tanaka discloses an air conditioner indoor unit [indoor unit K, Figure 1; 0012], comprising:
a housing [unit body 7, Figure 1; 0019] having an air inlet [intake port 10, Figure 2] and an air outlet [air outlets 12, Figure 2];
a water receiving tray [drain tray 19, Figure 3] having a water receiving region [drain pan 19 top surface, Figure 3; 0070] and located above a bottom plate of the housing [where drain pan 19 is located at the bottom of the unit body 7, Figure 12; 0021];
an indoor heat exchanger [heat exchanger assembly 18, Figure 3] provided at the water receiving tray and facing the water receiving region [where heat exchanger assembly 18 is positioned over the drain pan 19 surface with protrusions T, Figure 12; 0070];
an indoor fan [blower 20, Figure 3;0024] comprising a fan wheel [a multi-blade fan fitted to each rotating shaft; 0024] and a motor assembly [a two-axis fan motor FM, Figure 3; 0024], the motor assembly being connected to the fan wheel to drive the fan wheel to rotate [via rotating shafts that protrude from both end faces of motor FM, Figure 3; 0024]; and
Tanaka does not teach an electric control device configured to control an operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit, the electric control device being electrically connected to the motor assembly, and the electric control device being provided above or below the motor assembly.
However, Hara teaches an air-conditioning apparatus [0001] including an electric control device [controller 12, Figure 3] configured to control an operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit [where controller 12 controls the rotation speed of the motor that rotationally drives the sirocco fan 11, Figure 3; 0034], the electric control device being electrically connected to the motor assembly [where controller 12 controls the rotation speed of the motor that rotationally drives the sirocco fan 11, Figure 3; 0034], and the electric control device being provided above or below the motor assembly [where controller 12 is below fan 11, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have an electric control device configured to control an operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit, the electric control device being electrically connected to the motor assembly, and the electric control device being provided above or below the motor assembly in view of the teachings of Hara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner.
Regarding Claim 18, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 and does not teach where a water pump assembly is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region to an exterior of the housing.
However, Hara teaches an air-conditioning apparatus [0001] where a water pump assembly [a not shown drain pump and a not shown connection pump; 0078] is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region [water receiving surface 26 b of the drain pan, Figure 5; 0069] to an exterior of the housing [where a not-shown drain pump is provided between the target air heat exchanger 21 and the inlet side surface 23a of the unit housing 23; 0034; 0002] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have where a water pump assembly is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region to an exterior of the housing in view of the teachings of Hara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Regarding Claim 19, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and does not teach wherein the water pump assembly is located above the water receiving tray.
However, Hara teaches an air-conditioning apparatus [0001] where a water pump assembly [a not shown drain pump; 0078] is located above the water receiving tray [where the not shown drain pump is provided between the target air heat exchanger 21 and the inlet side surface 23a of the unit housing 23 and where drain pan 26 is on the bottom of the unit housing 23; 0078, Figure 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have where a water pump assembly is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region to an exterior of the housing in view of the teachings of Hara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Zhao et al. (CN1699879A).
Regarding Claim 16, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 and further teaches where the electric control device [controller 12, Figure 3] is located below the motor assembly [where controller 12 is below fan 11 rotationally driven by a motor, Figure 3; 0034] and does not teach wherein the water receiving tray has an avoidance region, the electric control device being arranged in the avoidance region.
However, Zhao teaches an air conditioner [0002] wherein the water receiving tray [drain pan 76, Figure 7] has an avoidance region [annotated Figure 7], the electric control device being arranged in the avoidance region [where control box 240 in which several components for controlling the air conditioner can be mounted, 0074, is in avoidance region, annotated Figure 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing condensate from being sucked into the indoor fan by providing a distance between evaporator condensate and fan assembly [Zhao;0076]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the water receiving tray has an avoidance region, the electric control device being arranged in the avoidance region in view of the teachings of Zhao where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing condensate from being sucked into the indoor fan by providing a distance between evaporator condensate and fan assembly [Zhao;0076]
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Tang et al. (CN208186804U).
Regarding Claim 17, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 and does not teach where the bottom plate is detachable; and the water receiving tray has a drainage hole, a blocking element being provided at the drainage hole, and the blocking element being configured to open or close the drainage hole.
However, Tang teaches an air conditioner [0002] where the bottom plate is detachable [where guide ring 8 is installed below the water collection tray 1 as a separate part, Figure 6; 0073]; and the water receiving tray [water collection tray 1, Figure 3] has a drainage hole [drain hole 162; 0055], a blocking element being provided at the drainage hole [sealing plug 18, Figure 3; 0055], and the blocking element being configured to open or close the drainage hole [where sealing plug 18 is inserted and removed multiple times and is used to seal the drain hole 162 when the water receiving tray 1 is in normal use to prevent water leakage; 0055] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., facilitating subsequent maintenance [Tang; 0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the bottom plate is detachable; and the water receiving tray has a drainage hole, a blocking element being provided at the drainage hole, and the blocking element being configured to open or close the drainage hole in view of the teachings of Tang where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., facilitating subsequent maintenance [Tang; 0055].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Seo (KR101457948B1)
Regarding Claim 20, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 where the fan wheel is one of two fan wheels of the indoor fan [where blower 20 consists of a two-axis fan motor with a multi-blade fan fitted to each rotating shaft, Figure 3; 0024] that are spaced apart from each other [where the rotating shafts are on either side of a two-axis fan motor FM; 0024]; and
Tanaka, as modified, does not teach where the water pump assembly is located between the two fan wheels.
However, Seo teaches an air conditioner with an integral indoor unit and outdoor unit [0001] where the water pump assembly [pump 37, Figure 2 ;0061] is located between the two fan wheels [first and second blower fans 25,26 arranged opposite each other with blower motor 29 in the center, Figure 2; 0101-0102], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the flow of gas through said shell, by placing said gas inlet at a top end of said shell and said gas outlet at a bottom end of said where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, i.e., pumping condensate [Seo;0061]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the water pump assembly is located between the two fan wheels in view of the teachings of Seo where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, i.e., pumping condensate [Seo;0061]
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Chen (CN104329728A).
Regarding Claim 21, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and does not teach a detection device configured to detect a water level in the water receiving region, the detection device being connected to the electric control device; wherein the electric control device is configured to control the air conditioner indoor unit to stop operating in response to the detection device detecting that the water level has reached a predetermined value.
However, Chen teaches an air conditioner indoor unit with a water pump assembly [0002] where a detection device [water level switch 66, Figure 4; 0054] is configured to detect a water level in the water receiving region [where water level switch 66 is for monitoring the condensate level of collection tray 5, Figure 5; 0054], the detection device being connected to the electric control device [where when the condensate level reaches a preset limit the water level switch is triggered and an alarm signal will be sent to the control system; 0010]; wherein the electric control device is configured to control the air conditioner indoor unit to stop operating in response to the detection device detecting that the water level has reached a predetermined value [where when the preset limit triggers the water level switch the drain pump will start and the control system of the whole machine will briefly stop cooling to avoid generating more condensate; 0010] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a detection device configured to detect a water level, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., Avoiding condensate accumulation and overflow by providing active drainage of condensate [Chen; 0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to detect a water level in the water receiving region, the detection device being connected to the electric control device; wherein the electric control device is configured to control the air conditioner indoor unit to stop operating in response to the detection device detecting that the water level has reached a predetermined value in view of the teachings of Chen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., Avoiding condensate accumulation and overflow by providing active drainage of condensate [Chen; 0007].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Hu (CN204084683U).
Regarding Claim 22, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 and further teaches where: the housing [unit body 7, Figure 1] includes an air inlet panel [where side plate 16a includes suction port 10, Figure 3], an air outlet panel [side plate 16b includes outlets 12, Figure 3], and two air inlet side plates [side plate 16c and opposing end of unit body 7, annotated Figure 3], the two air inlet side plates being opposite to each other [annotated Figure 3];
two ends of each of the two air inlet side plates is connected to the air inlet panel and the air outlet panel, respectively [where the inlet side plates are between plate 16b and plate 16a, forming a rectangular unit body 7, Figure 7 ];
the air inlet panel has an air inlet [suction port 10, Figure 2], and the air outlet panel has an air outlet [air outlets 12, Figure 2];
and the indoor heat exchanger has a bent shape [where heat exchanger forms a substantially L shaped, Figure 3; 0010] with an opening facing the air outlet panel [where the inside of the bend R faces outlets 12, Figure 3], the indoor heat exchanger facing the air inlet panel and the two air inlet side plates [where short side end S of heat exchanger assembly 18 extends along the second inlet side plate and end of long side ends L extends alongside plate 16a toward the first side plate 16c, annotated Figure 3; 0033].
Tanaka, as modified, does not teach each of the air inlet side plates has an air inlet.
However, Hu teaches a fresh air handling unit [0002] where each of the air inlet side plates [side surface 5 of casing 1, Figure 1] has an air inlet [where the other three sides 5 of casing 1 have filters 15, where airflow first enters from air inlet 8 and airflow velocity is reduced on the other three sides 5 of casing 1; 0016] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., extending service life by increasing air intake to reduce air pressure on components like air filters [Hu;0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where each of the air inlet side plates has an air inlet in view of the teachings of Hu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., extending service life by increasing air intake to reduce air pressure on components like air filters [Hu;0010].
Claim 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Sakoda (WO2021117156A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15, and further teaches an air inlet [suction port 10 with a rectangular duct 11s, in Figure 2] and does not teach the housing has an air inlet including a plurality of rectangular holes arranged at intervals.
However, Sakoda teaches an indoor unit of an air conditioner [0001] where the housing [housing 20 of indoor unit 3, Figure 2] has an air inlet [suction port 31a, Figure 2] of rectangular holes arranged at intervals [where the first suction port 31a has a slit shape extending in the depth direction of the housing 20, and suction ports 31a are spaced along the height direction of the housing 20; 0017] where it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the air inlet of Tanaka in the manner of a plurality of slots as taught by Sakoda as this is a known and suitable arrangement for air inlets in the art. Further, it is a matter of engineering design to arrange the air inlet in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by changing the arrangement of the air inlet to the claimed limitation as Sakoda teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the housing has an air inlet including a plurality of rectangular holes arranged at intervals in view of the teachings of Sakoda it is a matter of engineering design to arrange the air inlet in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design.
Regarding Claim 24, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 23 and further teaches wherein the air inlet further includes a plurality of elongated air inlet through holes [31a, where the first suction port 31a has a slit shape; 0017 of Sakoda, refer to Sakoda as applied to claim 23 above], each of the plurality of air inlet through holes being provided between adjacent ones of the plurality of rectangular holes [where four suction ports 31a are formed along the height direction of the housing 20; 0017, refer to Sakoda as applied to claim 23 above].
Claims 25-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 15 and claim 27 above and in further view of Furukawa (JP2001240980A).
Regarding Claim 25, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 and does not teach where the fan wheel is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating.
However, Furukawa teaches a ventilation device with high water-repellent and oil-repellent effects [0001] where the fan wheel is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating [where the ventilation device of the present invention has a fluororesin coating 4 is provided on the fan 22, Figure 6; 0037], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., prevent reduced airflow performance by preventing oil and grease from adhering [Furukawa; 0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the fan wheel is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating in view of the teachings of Furukawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., prevent reduced airflow performance by preventing oil and grease from adhering [Furukawa; 0042].
Regarding Claim 26, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 25 and teaches a volute [fan casing K surrounding the fan; 0024, Figure 3] the fan wheel being arranged in the volute [Figure 3, 0024] and does not teach where the volute is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating.
However, Furukawa teaches a ventilation device with high water-repellent and oil-repellent effects [0001] where the volute is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating [where the ventilation device of the present invention has a fluororesin coating 4 is provided on at least one surface of the orifice 23, Figure 6; 0037], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., prevent reduced airflow performance by preventing oil and grease from adhering [Furukawa; 0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the volute is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating. in view of the teachings of Furukawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., prevent reduced airflow performance by preventing oil and grease from adhering [Furukawa; 0042].
Regarding Claim 29, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach where the air outlet tube [discharge ducts 11d, Figure 1] is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating.
However, Furukawa teaches a ventilation device with high water-repellent and oil-repellent effects [0001] including an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating [where the ventilation device of the present invention has is characterized by having a fluororesin coating 4 provided on at least one of the orifice 23 and the fan 22, Figure 6; 0017], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, fluororesin solution coating, to a known device, air outlet tube, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., prevent reduced airflow performance by preventing oil and grease from adhering [Furukawa; 0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the air outlet tube is provided with an oil-repellent and hydrophobic coating in view of the teachings of Furukawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., prevent reduced airflow performance by preventing oil and grease from adhering [Furukawa; 0042].
Claim 27-28, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hiroishi (US20230040056A1) and Hara (US20190203953A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Tanaka teaches an air conditioner set [0001] comprising:
an air conditioner indoor unit [air conditioner unit K, Figure 1] configured to be arranged above a ceiling [where air conditioner unit K is installed in ceiling cavity 4, Figure 1; 0018] with an air outlet region[at ceiling outlet 14d of ceiling panel 2, Figure 1; 0018], the air conditioner indoor unit including:
a housing [unit body 7, Figure 1; 0019] including an air outlet [air outlets 12, Figure 2];
a water receiving tray [drain tray 19, Figure 3] having a water receiving region [drain pan 19 top surface, Figure 3; 0070] and located above a bottom plate of the housing [where drain pan 19 is located at the bottom of the unit body 7, Figure 12; 0021];
an indoor heat exchanger [heat exchanger assembly 18, Figure 3] provided at the water receiving tray and facing the water receiving region [where heat exchanger assembly 18 is positioned over the drain pan 19 surface with protrusions T, Figure 12; 0070];
an indoor fan [blower 20, Figure 3;0024] including a fan wheel [a multi-blade fan fitted to each rotating shaft; 0024] and a motor assembly [a two-axis fan motor FM, Figure 3; 0024], the motor assembly being connected to the fan wheel to drive the fan wheel to rotate [via rotating shafts that protrude from both end faces of motor FM, Figure 3; 0024]; and
a return air panel [ceiling panel 2, Figure 1;0018] configured to be provided at the ceiling [where a ceiling outlet 14d opens from ceiling panel 2 into the room, Figure 1; 0018] and separated from the air conditioner indoor unit [via discharge ducts 11d, Figure 1; 0017]; and
an air outlet tube [discharge ducts 11d, Figure 1] connected to the air outlet and configured to extend towards the air outlet region to guide air towards the air outlet region [where two air outlets 12 are provided on the left side panel, and an air outlet unit 13d is connected to them via the air outlet duct 11d, Figure 2; 0019].
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the air conditioner set is a kitchen air conditioner set.
However, Hiroishi teaches an air conditioning ventilation system for air conditioning a plurality of rooms in a building [0001] including a kitchen [where air conditioning ventilation system 100 air conditions and ventilates a living space and a non-living space such as a kitchen; 0063] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, an air conditioning set, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., creating efficient flows of air-conditioning and ventilation of an entire building [Hiroshi; 0149].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have the air conditioner set to be a kitchen air conditioner set in view of the teachings of Hiroishi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., creating efficient flows of air-conditioning and ventilation of an entire building [Hiroshi; 0149].
Tanaka, as modified, does not teach an electric control device configured to control an operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit, the electric control device being electrically connected to the motor assembly, and the electric control device being provided above or below the motor assembly;
However, Hara teaches an air-conditioning apparatus [0001] including an electric control device [controller 12, Figure 3] configured to control an operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit [where controller 12 controls the rotation speed of the motor that rotationally drives the sirocco fan 11, Figure 3; 0034], the electric control device being electrically connected to the motor assembly [where controller 12 controls the rotation speed of the motor that rotationally drives the sirocco fan 11, Figure 3; 0034], and the electric control device being provided above or below the motor assembly [where controller 12 is below fan 11, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have an electric control device configured to control an operation state of the air conditioner indoor unit, the electric control device being electrically connected to the motor assembly, and the electric control device being provided above or below the motor assembly in view of the teachings of Hara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner.
Regarding Claim 28, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and further teaches where the return air panel [ceiling panel 2, Figure 1] includes a return air grille [where the ceiling outlet 14d is shielded by a grille; 0018] and does not teach a return air filter mesh provided above the return air grille.
However, Hiroishi teaches an air conditioning ventilation system for air conditioning a plurality of rooms in a building [0001] where a return air filter mesh [filter 151, Figure 3] provided above the return air grille [where filter 151 is in grille 150, Figure 3 downstream, as in above, the exhuast intake 126, Figure 4; 0104] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., remove dust, moisture and chemical components from the air [Hiroshi; 0104].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a return air filter mesh provided above the return air grille in view of the teachings of Hiroishi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., remove dust, moisture and chemical components from the air [Hiroshi; 0104].
Regarding Claim 32, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach a water pump assembly configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region to an exterior of the housing.
However, Hara teaches an air-conditioning apparatus [0001] where a water pump assembly [a not shown drain pump and a not shown connection pump; 0078] is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region [water receiving surface 26 b of the drain pan, Figure 5; 0069] to an exterior of the housing [where a not-shown drain pump is provided between the target air heat exchanger 21 and the inlet side surface 23a of the unit housing 23; 0034; 0002] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have where a water pump assembly is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region to an exterior of the housing in view of the teachings of Hara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Regarding Claim 33, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 32 and further does not teach where the water pump assembly is located above the water receiving tray.
However, Hara teaches an air-conditioning apparatus [0001] where a water pump assembly [a not shown drain pump; 0078] is located above the water receiving tray [where the not shown drain pump is provided between the target air heat exchanger 21 and the inlet side surface 23a of the unit housing 23 and where drain pan 26 is on the bottom of the unit housing 23; 0078, Figure 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Tanaka to have where a water pump assembly is configured to guide condensed water in the water receiving region to an exterior of the housing in view of the teachings of Hara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., automating the operation of the air conditioner by forcibly discharged from the drain pan to the outside [Hara;0002]
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hiroishi (US20230040056A1) and Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 27 above and in further view of Zhao et al. (CN1699879A)
Regarding Claim 30, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach where the water receiving tray [drain pan 19, Figure 3] has an avoidance region, the electric control device being arranged in the avoidance region and located below the motor assembly.
However, Zhao teaches an air conditioner [0002] wherein the water receiving tray [drain pan 76, Figure 7] has an avoidance region [annotated Figure 7], the electric control device being arranged in the avoidance region [where control box 240 in which several components for controlling the air conditioner can be mounted, 0074, is in avoidance region, annotated Figure 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing condensate from being sucked into the indoor fan by providing a distance between evaporator condensate and fan assembly [Zhao;0076]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the water receiving tray has an avoidance region, the electric control device being arranged in the avoidance region in view of the teachings of Zhao where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing condensate from being sucked into the indoor fan by providing a distance between evaporator condensate and fan assembly [Zhao;0076]
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2011163564A) in view of Hiroishi (US20230040056A1) and Hara (US20190203953A1) as applied to claim 32 above and in further view of Seo (KR101457948B1)
Regarding Claim 34, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 32 and further teaches where the fan wheel [blower 20, Figure 3] is one of two fan wheels of the indoor fan [a multi-blade fan fitted to each rotating shaft; 0024] that are spaced apart from each other [where the rotating shafts are on either side of a two-axis fan motor FM; 0024]; and does not teach the water pump assembly is located between the two fan wheels.
However, Seo teaches an air conditioner with an integral indoor unit and outdoor unit [0001] where the water pump assembly [pump 37, Figure 2 ;0061] is located between the two fan wheels [first and second blower fans 25,26 arranged opposite each other with blower motor 29 in the center, Figure 2; 0101-0102], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the flow of gas through said shell, by placing said gas inlet at a top end of said shell and said gas outlet at a bottom end of said where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, i.e., pumping condensate [Seo;0061]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the water pump assembly is located between the two fan wheels in view of the teachings of Seo where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, i.e., pumping condensate [Seo;0061].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights