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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure (with emphasis by examiner).
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not identify what is considered to be the inventive system, but only describes an “example” of the invention (i.e. “An example heat pump system includes…”). 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 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 4 and 5 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 4 teaches that “the heat exchanger is vertically-oriented in the cabinet”. The specification as originally filed with US Application No. 17/523169 (hereafter “the parent application” as the instant application is a continuation of this prior application) does not teach that the heat exchanger is “vertically-oriented”. (This is contrasted with other elements such as the compressor which is taught in ¶ 138 (by the numbering of both the instant and parent applications) to be a “horizontally-oriented compressor”.) For this reason, the teaching of the heat exchanger being “vertically-oriented” constitutes new matter and claim 4 is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 5 has been rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
MPEP 602.05 Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications states (with emphasis by examiner):
A copy of the oath or declaration from a prior nonprovisional application may be filed in a continuation or divisional application even if the specification for the continuation or divisional application is different from that of the prior application, in that revisions have been made to clarify the text to incorporate amendments made in the prior application, or to make other changes provided the changes do not constitute new matter relative to the prior application. If the examiner determines that the continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action and indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
Because the instant application recites new matter not presented in the parent application, this new matter should be cancelled from the application or the instant application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
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 2-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 teaches that “the compressor is horizontally-oriented in the cabinet”. As a compressor is a three-dimensional object extending in multiple directions both horizontal and vertical, it is not clear what limitation on the placement or positioning of the compressor is to be interpreted from the phrase “horizontally-oriented”. Fig. 16 of the instant application, shown above, illustrates the compressor (300) as an approximate cylinder having a length between the circular faces longer than its diameter with this length arranged to extend along a horizontal axis, but it is unclear which of these features are or are not required for compressor to be considered to be “horizontally-oriented”.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For example, US Publication No. 2007/0125119 A1 to Naemura teaches in fig. 3, shown above, a compressor (12) for a refrigeration cycle system which is approximately cylindrical with horizontal width greater than its length (or vertical height, in this case) but it is unclear whether such a compressor would fall within the scope of claim 2 because the axis of the compressor extends vertically even though its greatest dimension is horizontal. Similarly, it is unclear whether a compressor with a horizontal axis, but a vertical height greater than its horizontal length or one with these two dimensions equal would be “horizontally-oriented” and fall within the scope of claim 2.
For this reason, the scope of claim 2 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Similar to claim 2, claim 4 teaches that “the heat exchanger is vertically-oriented” but it is unclear what features of the heat exchanger must be “vertical” to constitute the heat exchanger as a whole being considered to be “vertically oriented”. Also similar to the compressor of claim 2, the heat exchanger of claim 4 is shown in fig. 16 as element 400 and is shown with a vertical dimension greater than its horizontal dimensions, and is also shown having inlets and outlets which are vertically aligned (with brine inlet 404 below brine outlet 402 and refrigerant ports 406 and 408 likewise aligned). It is unclear if the term “vertically-oriented” in claim 4 requires that the longest dimension of the heat exchanger be a vertical dimension, requires the vertical alignment of the ports of the heat exchanger, requires a vertical flow direction of one or more of the fluids passing through the heat exchanger, requires some combination of these features, or requires some other vertical feature altogether. For this reason, the scope claim 4 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 6 teaches “a plurality of horizontally-oriented heat exchange tubes”. This recitation has not been found to render the claim indefinite as the understood structure of a “tube” is significantly simpler than that of a “compressor” or a “heat exchanger” so that tubes which simply extend in a horizontal direction will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be “horizontally-oriented”.
Claim 20 teaches that “the cabinet has a maximum height of about 9 inches”. It is not clear in the context of this claim what is meant by “a maximum height”. This recitation could be taken as requiring only that “the height of the cabinet is about 9 inches or less” but the use of the word “maximum” appears to suggest multiple heights for the cabinet of which “about 9 inches” is the greatest (with such multiple heights capable of resulting from a curved or convex shape, or a movable element such as the rotating blower panel described in ¶ 173). For this reason, it is not clear whether “about 9 inches” as taught in claim 20 is intended as a height of the total apparatus of the cabinet in at least one configuration (e.g. when the blower panel is closed and the system is in its “ordinary” operating position) or a limit for movement or opening of the cabinet so that no change in height may bring this value above “about 9 inches”.
Further, the phrasing of “a maximum height of about 9 inches” invokes one range (“about 9 inches”) having approximate bounds within another range recited to set a particular limit (“a maximum height”). As a result, it is not clear what particular heights for the recited cabinet would or would not fall within the claim’s scope even apart from the indefiniteness related to the word “maximum” as described above. For example, a cabinet with a height of 9.2 inches might be considered to fall within the claim’s scope as this value may be taken as “about 9 inches” but it may also fall outside of the scope as it is greater than a number of other values which are also “about 9 inches” so that 9.2 inches is greater than these other maximums.
For the reasons detailed above, the scope of claim 20 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 5 have been rejected as depending upon base claims which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 and 6-19 allowed.
Particularly, the prior art including reverences discussed below, does not tach the limitations of instant independent claim 1 regarding the cabinet of a heat pump system configured for mounting to a ceiling and specifically including an integrated plenum compartment which is arranged horizontally adjacent to a blower assembly which is in turn arranged horizontally adjacent to an air coil of the heat pump system cabinet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 4,139,052 to Lackey teaches in figs. 1 and 3, shown above, and in col. 3, lines 29-57, an air conditioning unit adapted for mounting on a roof top, the unit comprising a frame having a number of panels (28 and 36, at least) in which are disposed a plurality of compressors (18) and a condenser coil (26) disposed in an outdoor airflow section (10) and a pair of centrifugal fans (40) driven by a common motor (42) and an evaporator coil (38) disposed in an indoor airflow section (12). Lackey does not teach any section of the housing as an “integrated plenum compartment” horizontally adjacent to the blower assembly which is further horizontally adjacent to the evaporator coil and does not teach or suggest any configuration of the unit for mounting to a ceiling.
PNG
media_image3.png
438
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
432
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
376
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
346
248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Patent No. 3,665,727 to Mather teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, a “sectionalized air conditioning unit” having a condensing section (12) which contains a compressor (20) and a condenser (18) and an evaporating section (14) which contains an evaporator (62) horizontally adjacent to a blower (64) but does not tach the system to be configured for mounting on a ceiling or to include a plenum horizontally adjacent to the blower, the blower drawing air directly from the evaporator (62) and exhausting it directly to an outlet opening (56).
US Publication No. 2018/0328600 A1 to Swanson teaches a heat pump system (10) including a cabinet (66) comprising a frame (20) and a plurality of panels (30, 32, 34, 44, 48, 50, 56, 58, and 70) defining compartments within the cabinet which are divided from each other by some of the plurality of panels (44, 56, and 70) and further including a compressor (12), an evaporator (18), a condenser (16) and a plurality of condenser fans (24) disposed in the housing in the various compartments, but does not teach the system further including a plenum compartment horizontally adjacent to the blower separated by the internal panels from the compressor and blower compartments and does not provide any teaching of configurations of the cabinet for mounting to a ceiling as taught in the instant independent claims.
US Publication No. 2020/0041187 A1 to Huckaby et al. teaches a refrigeration machine (100) for the production of ice in which a frame (201) and a plurality of panels define an outer casing (120) with a plurality of internal spaces which accommodate a compressor (220) and condenser (224) in one space (204), and an evaporator (310) in another (206) but does not teach the space in which the evaporator is installed also including a blower horizontally adjacent to the evaporator or a plenum compartment also horizontally adjacent to the blower and does not provide any teaching or suggestion to modify the heat pump of Swanson with the construction of Huckaby which is particularly taught as an ice maker, and does not teach any configurations of the cabinet of the ice maker for mounting on a ceiling as taught in the instant independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights