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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/9/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one panel of the second set of plurality of panels is a second refrigerant panel comprising a refrigerant inlet and outlet” recited in at least claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Therefore, the “condenser unit operatively connected to the evaporator unit” recited in at least claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Therefore, the “the condenser unit and evaporator unit (are) detachably connected to align the first refrigerant panel of the condenser unit with the second refrigerant panel of the evaporator” recited in at least claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Therefore, the “…filter panel is oriented adjacent to a condenser coil apparatus disposed within the cubic frame of the evaporator unit,” recited in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Therefore, the “…bottom frame rail,” recited in claims 14 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Therefore, the “…the evaporator unit comprises a plurality of internal components, the plurality of internal components comprising a condenser coil and a receiver, wherein the plurality of internal components are detachably connected to a bottom frame rail of the evaporator unit and extend upward from the bottom frame rail,” recited in at least claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 is not concise. Language such as “relates to” and “optionally” are indicative of language that is not concise. 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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 12, in line 2 the claim recites “…condenser coil apparatus disposed within a the cubic frame.” Please amend the claim to recite - - condenser coil apparatus disposed within the cubic frame - - for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 12, 14 and 15 is 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 Claim 5, the recitation of “…wherein the third set of plurality of panels cover the six openings of the condenser unit, wherein one panel of the third set of plurality of panels is a first refrigerant panel comprising a refrigerant inlet and outlet, and wherein one panel of the second set of plurality of panels is a second refrigerant panel comprising a refrigerant inlet and outlet,” renders the claim unclear.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In this instance, the review of figs 25-27 along with 0010 of the specifications suggests there is inconsistency between the claim and the specification. See MPEP 2173.03
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein the third set of plurality of panels cover the six openings of the condenser unit, wherein one panel of the third set of plurality of panels is a first refrigerant panel comprising a refrigerant inlet and outlet
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of “…wherein the filter panel is oriented adjacent to a condenser coil apparatus disposed within a the cubic frame of the evaporator unit,” renders the claim unclear.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In this instance, the review of figs 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 along with 0068 and 0069 of the specifications does not bring sufficient clarity to the claim such that one skilled in the art understands the metes and bounds of the claim language. Additionally, there appears to be inconsistency between the claim and the specification. See MPEP 2173.03
Regarding Claim 14, the recitation of “…wherein the compressor unit comprises a plurality of internal components, the plurality of internal components comprising a compressor rack and a suction accumulator, wherein the plurality of internal components are detachably connected to a bottom frame rail of the compressor unit and extend upward from the bottom frame rail, the bottom frame rail being a rail of the cubic frame oriented along the lowest horizontal plane of the compressor unit,” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, the lack of illustration and specific disclosure in the specifications with respect to the bottom frame rail does not bring sufficient clarity to the claim such that one skilled in the art understands the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “…wherein the evaporator unit comprises a plurality of internal components, the plurality of internal components comprising a condenser coil and a receiver, wherein the plurality of internal components are detachably connected to a bottom frame rail of the evaporator unit and extend upward from the bottom frame rail, the bottom frame rail being a rail of the cubic frame oriented along the lowest horizontal plane of the evaporator unit,” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, the lack of illustration and specific disclosure in the specifications with respect to the bottom frame rail does not bring sufficient clarity to the claim such that one skilled in the art understands the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLoach et al. (US11,187,418) in view of Tezuka et al. (JPH08312994A) in view of Herbeck et al. (US2003/0011192).
Regarding Claim 1, DeLoach teaches a modular HVAC system [fig 1] comprising:
an evaporator unit [4] including a perimeter support structure [col 4, lines 41-col 5, line 2; fig 1]; a compressor unit [6] including a perimeter support structure [col 4, lines 41-col 5, line 2; fig 1]; wherein the compressor unit [6] and evaporator unit [4] are detachably connected [col 4, lines 41-col 5, line 2; fig 1].
DeLoach does not explicitly teach where the evaporator unit includes a perimeter support structure that defines a cubic frame;
where the compressor unit includes a perimeter support structure that defines a cubic frame; and
wherein the compressor unit and evaporator unit are detachably connected to align the first uncovered opening of the compressor unit and the second uncovered opening of the evaporator unit to define a system configuration;
where the cubic frame has six openings;
having a first set of a plurality of panels selectively removably connected to the cubic frame of the compressor unit to cover five of the six openings and define a first uncovered opening, wherein one of the first set of plurality of panels includes an air discharge port; and
a second set of a plurality of panels selectively removably connected to the cubic frame of the evaporator unit to cover five of the six openings and define a second uncovered opening, wherein one of the second set of plurality of panels includes an air intake port.
However, Tezuka teaches a modular HVAC system [fig 1] comprising:
an evaporator unit [6] including a perimeter support structure defining a cubic frame [0014];
a compressor unit [9] including a perimeter support structure defining a cubic frame [0014];
wherein the compressor unit [9] and evaporator unit [6] are detachably connected to align the first uncovered opening [defined at 10] of the compressor unit and the second uncovered opening [defined at 10] of the evaporator unit to define a system configuration [0014; figs 1-3] 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. provide a system having improved installation efficiency [0019].
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 Tezuka to have where the evaporator unit includes a perimeter support structure that defines a cubic frame;
where the compressor unit includes a perimeter support structure that defines a cubic frame; and
wherein the compressor unit and evaporator unit are detachably connected to align the first uncovered opening of the compressor unit and the second uncovered opening of the evaporator unit to define a system configuration in view of the teachings of Tezuka 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. provide a system having flexibility.
Also, Herbeck teaches having where the cubic frame has six openings [0020; fig 1]; a first set of a plurality of panels [12] selectively removably connected to the cubic frame of the compressor unit to cover five of the six openings and define a first uncovered opening, wherein one of the first set of plurality of panels includes an air discharge port [0020; figs 1-3; Drawing I]; and
a second set of a plurality of panels [12] selectively removably connected to the cubic frame of the evaporator unit to cover five of the six openings and define a second uncovered opening, wherein one of the second set of plurality of panels includes an air intake port [0020; figs 1-3; Drawing I; where Herbeck discloses a cubic frame having six openings with six panels that are removable] 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. provide a system having flexibility.
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 DeLoach to have where the cubic frame has six openings; having a first set of a plurality of panels selectively removably connected to the cubic frame of the compressor unit to cover five of the six openings and define a first uncovered opening, wherein one of the first set of plurality of panels includes an air discharge port; and a second set of a plurality of panels selectively removably connected to the cubic frame of the evaporator unit to cover five of the six openings and define a second uncovered opening, wherein one of the second set of plurality of panels includes an air intake port in view of the teachings of Herbeck 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. provide a system having flexibility.
Regarding Claim 2, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and teaches wherein the system configuration is selectively one of thirty-six different configurations based on selection of the first uncovered opening and second uncovered opening [as modified above, see claim 1 above for detailed discussion]. See also MPEP 2114 which states in part that an "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this instance the prior art, in combination, teaches all of the structural limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing I
Regarding Claim 3, Deloach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and DeLoach teaches a condenser unit [8] operatively connected to the evaporator unit [4; col 4, lines 41-col 5, line 2; fig 1], the condenser unit including a perimeter support structure defining a frame of the condenser unit having a plurality of openings and a third set of a plurality of panels selectively removably connected to the frame of the condenser unit to cover the plurality of openings [as modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 above where Tezuka and Herbeck teach the recited limitations].
Regarding Claim 4, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above and teaches wherein the condenser unit comprises six openings [as modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 above where Tezuka and Herbeck teach the recited limitations].
Regarding Claim 5, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and teaches wherein the third set of plurality of panels cover the six openings of the condenser unit as modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 above where Tezuka and Herbeck teach the recited limitations] and DeLoach teaches wherein one panel of the third set of plurality of panels is a first refrigerant panel comprising a refrigerant inlet and outlet [at 116; col 8, line 56-col 9, line 16; fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 7, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above and teaches wherein the condenser unit comprises three openings and the third set of plurality of panels cover the three openings [as modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 above where Tezuka and Herbeck teach the recited limitations].
.
Regarding Claim 8, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 above and DeLoach teaches wherein one panel of the second set of plurality of panels is a second refrigerant panel comprising a refrigerant inlet and outlet and the condenser unit comprises a refrigerant inlet and outlet which detachably connect to the second refrigerant panel [col 8, line 56-col 9, line 16; see fig 3; where an end panel of the condenser unit accommodates a refrigerant inlet and outlet].
Regarding Claim 11, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and DeLoach teaches wherein the panel of the evaporator unit having an air intake port is a filter panel, and the filter panel comprises a filter housing extending from the filter panel [col 7, lines 4-18].
Regarding Claim 12, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 12 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
Regarding Claim 15, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 15 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLoach et al. (US11,187,418), Tezuka et al. (JPH08312994A) and Herbeck et al. (US2003/0011192) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Montminy et al. (US9062887).
Regarding Claim 6, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the condenser unit and evaporator unit are detachably connected to align the first refrigerant panel of the condenser unit with the second refrigerant panel of the evaporator to define a condenser system configuration.
However, Montminy teaches a modular HVACR system [fig 1] having wherein a condenser unit [16] and evaporator unit [18] are detachably connected to align the first refrigerant panel of the condenser unit with the second refrigerant panel of the evaporator to define a condenser system configuration [col 4, line 45-col 5, line 14; figs 1 & 2] 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. provide a system having compact construction.
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 DeLoach to have wherein the condenser unit and evaporator unit are detachably connected to align the first refrigerant panel of the condenser unit with the second refrigerant panel of the evaporator to define a condenser system configuration in view of the teachings of Montminy 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. provide a system having compact construction.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLoach et al. (US11,187,418), Tezuka et al. (JPH08312994A) and Herbeck et al. (US2003/0011192) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammond (US2008/0156468).
Regarding Claim 10, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the compressor unit and evaporator unit define an airflow pathway entering the air intake port disposed on the evaporator unit, moving through the first and second opening of the evaporator unit and compressor unit, and exiting the air discharge port disposed on the compressor unit.
However, Hammond teaches a modular heat pump [0002] having wherein a compressor unit [compressor module] and evaporator unit [coil module] define an airflow pathway entering the air intake port disposed on the evaporator unit, moving through the first and second opening of the evaporator unit and compressor unit, and exiting the air discharge port disposed on the compressor unit [0027; see fig 1] 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. realizing a system having multiple air flow patterns.
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 DeLoach to have wherein the compressor unit and evaporator unit define an airflow pathway entering the air intake port disposed on the evaporator unit, moving through the first and second opening of the evaporator unit and compressor unit, and exiting the air discharge port disposed on the compressor unit in view of the teachings of Hammond 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. realizing a system having multiple air flow patterns.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLoach et al. (US11,187,418), Tezuka et al. (JPH08312994A) and Herbeck et al. (US2003/0011192) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammond (US2009/0321041).
Regarding Claim 13, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein one of the first set of the plurality of panels comprises an electrical panel having an electrical box, the electrical panel controlling power to the HVAC system and to internal components of the compressor unit and evaporator unit.
However, Hammond teaches a hvac system [figs 1 & 2] having wherein one of the first set of the plurality of panels [at compressor module 6] comprises an electrical panel having an electrical box [at panel 38], the electrical panel controlling power to the HVAC system and to internal components of the compressor unit and evaporator unit [0049; 0064; fig 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. realizing a system having compact construction.
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 DeLoach to have wherein one of the first set of the plurality of panels comprises an electrical panel having an electrical box, the electrical panel controlling power to the HVAC system and to internal components of the compressor unit and evaporator unit in view of the teachings of Hammond 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. realizing a system having compact construction.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLoach et al. (US11,187,418), Tezuka et al. (JPH08312994A) and Herbeck et al. (US2003/0011192) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Draper et al. (US4449376).
Regarding Claim 14, DeLoach, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the compressor unit comprises a plurality of internal components, the plurality of internal components comprising a compressor rack and a suction accumulator, wherein the plurality of internal components are detachably connected to a bottom frame rail of the compressor unit and extend upward from the bottom frame rail, the bottom frame rail being a rail of the cubic frame oriented along the lowest horizontal plane of the compressor unit.
However, Draper teaches an indoor unit for a heat pump [col 1, lines11-13] having wherein a compressor unit [36] comprises a plurality of internal components, the plurality of internal components comprising a compressor rack [at 60] and a suction accumulator [38], wherein the plurality of internal components are detachably connected to a bottom frame rail [68] of the compressor unit and extend upward from the bottom frame rail, the bottom frame rail being a rail of the cubic frame oriented along the lowest horizontal plane of the compressor unit [col 2, line 36-col 3, line 19; fig 1] 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. realizing a system having compact construction.
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 DeLoach to have wherein the compressor unit comprises a plurality of internal components, the plurality of internal components comprising a compressor rack and a suction accumulator, wherein the plurality of internal components are detachably connected to a bottom frame rail of the compressor unit and extend upward from the bottom frame rail, the bottom frame rail being a rail of the cubic frame oriented along the lowest horizontal plane of the compressor unit in view of the teachings of Draper 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. realizing a system having compact construction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights