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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/6/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-10 are pending and are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riello (US3406530).
Re Claim 1. Riello teaches a duct connecting apparatus (31) that connects a duct (36, 37) to an inlet of an air conditioner (interior of 1), the duct connecting apparatus comprising (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 6-48):
a housing (32 is a housing) provided with an intake hole (at 36, 37) communicating with the duct and a discharge hole (rear portion of 31 that connects to 1) communicating with the inlet (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 6-48);
a latch part (portion of 31 that overlaps 34) provided on a lower end of the housing and configured to be seated and mounted on a lower edge of an edge defining the inlet (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 6-48); and
a coupling part (40) provided on the housing and configured to detachably couple the housing to an outer surface of the air conditioner (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 6-48; 40 is a magnet that couples the duct connecting apparatus to the air conditioner casing).
Re Claim 10. Riello teaches an air conditioner comprising (Figures 1-2):
a casing (1) provided with an inlet (at 30 or 31) and an outlet (at 30 or 31) (Figures 1-2; Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48);
a heat exchanger (5 or 18) provided inside the casing and configured to heat-exchanged with external air introduced through the inlet (Figures 1-2; Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48);
a blower fan (14, 24) through which the external air is introduced through the inlet, and the heat-exchanged external air is exhausted through the outlet (Figures 1-2; Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48); and
a duct connecting apparatus (31) configured to connect a duct (36, 37) to the inlet of an air conditioner (interior of 1), wherein the duct connecting apparatus comprises (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 6-48):
a housing (32 is a housing) provided with an intake hole (at 36, 37) communicating with the duct and a discharge hole (rear portion of 31 that connects to 1) communicating with the inlet (Figures 1-2 Column 3 lines 6-48);
a latch part (portion of 31 that overlaps 34) provided on a lower end of the housing and configured to be seated and mounted on a lower edge of an edge defining the inlet (Figures 1-2 Column 3 lines 6-48); and
a coupling part (40) provided on the housing and configured to detachably couple the housing to an outer surface of the air conditioner (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 6-48; 40 is a magnet that couples the duct connecting apparatus to the air conditioner casing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riello (US3406530) in view of Rickman (US7022011B1).
Re Claim 2. Riello teaches the latch part comprises: a first extension part (horizontally extending flange portion of 31) provided on a lower edge of an edge defining the exhaust hole and provided to protrude in a direction away from the housing (Figures 1-2) but fails to specifically teach a second extension part extending to be inclined downward from the first extension part in the direction away from the housing.
However, Rickman teaches the latch part comprises: a first extension part provided on a lower edge of an edge defining the exhaust hole and provided to protrude in a direction away from the housing; and a second extension part extending to be inclined downward from the first extension part in the direction away from the housing (see annotated Figure 3 below; Figures 1 & 3; Column 4 lines 1-19).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of Rickman's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a second extension to the duct connecting apparatus of Riello in order to provide a better seal connection between the duct connecting apparatus and the air conditioner casing.
Re Claim 3. Riello as modified by Rickman teach the latch part further comprises a third extension part (see annotated Figure 3 of Rickman above) extending upward from a bottom surface of the housing to define a lower edge of the exhaust hole and configured to support the first extension part (Riello Figures 1-2, Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48; Rickman Figures 1 & 3, Column 4 lines 1-19).
Re Claim 6. Riello as modified by Rickman teach the coupling part comprises: one surface coupled to the edge defining the exhaust hole; and the other surface disposed opposite to the one surface and being in contact with a peripheral area of the inlet, and the first extension part comprises: one end coupled to the lower edge of the edge defining the exhaust hole; and the other end provided opposite to the one end, wherein the other end of the first extension part is spaced farther from the edge of the exhaust hole than the outer surface of the coupling part in the direction away from the housing (Riello Figures 1-2, Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48; Rickman Figures 1 & 3, Column 4 lines 1-19).
Re Claim 7. Riello as modified by Rickman teach the coupling part comprises one or more magnets (Riello 40, Rickman 58) (Riello Figures 1-2, Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48; Rickman Figures 1 & 3, Column 4 lines 1-19).
Re Claim 8. Riello as modified by Rickman teach the coupling part comprises: a magnet part comprising one or more magnets (Riello 40, Rickman 58); and a sealing part (Rickman 54) configured to seal the exhaust hole from the outside (Riello Figures 1-2, Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48; Rickman Figures 1 & 3, Column 4 lines 1-19).
Re Claim 9. Riello as modified by Rickman teach the first extension part is elastically supported by the third extension part (Riello Figures 1-2, Column 2 lines 25-72, Column 3 lines 6-48; Rickman Figures 1 & 3, Column 4 lines 1-19. It is noted that no degree of elasticity is recited, and thus the thin metal of the shroud of Rickman is considered elastically supported). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select an elastic material to achieve a desired elasticity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the thickness of the material to achieve a desired elasticity, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 recites “a pair of first accommodation plates extending in a direction that intersects a virtual line interconnecting the intake hole to the exhaust hole are provided inside the housing, wherein each of the pair of first accommodation plates is spaced a predetermined distance from the third extension part toward the intake hole so that a filter part is accommodated between the first accommodation plate and the third extension part”. Reillo and Rickman both fail to teach a pair of first accommodation plates for accommodating a filter in the housing. Reillo teaches a filter already in the casing 1 of the air conditioner, and thus there would be no motivation to also provide another filter in the duct connecting apparatus. There would be no motivation to further modify the prior art without utilizing impermissible hindsight reasoning or without changing the principle of operation of the prior art. Therefore, the invention is novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art.
Claim 5 is allowable based on its dependency from allowable claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights