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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2/07/2025 and 2/09/2025 were filed before the first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 length exceeds 150 words. 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).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: WINDOW AIR CONDITIONER.
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:
At least one soundproof member in at least claim 1;
A first soundproof member in at least claim 3;
A second soundproof member in at least claim 15;
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 first soundproof member 61 may include a foam material, 00125 of Applicant Specification.
the first soundproof member 61 may include a foam material, 00125 of Applicant Specification.
the second soundproof member 62 may include a foaming material. For example, the second soundproof member 62 may include PU foam or a PE foam, 00131.
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
Claims 1-15 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 1-15, as per claim 1, the claim recites “a window-type air conditioner”, however, it has been held that the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (See MPEP § 2173.05(b) (III) (E)). It is unclear whether infringement would occur when the air conditioner is a window air conditioner, or if the claim requires a specific type of window air conditioner for infringement.
For examination purposes, the claim will be construed as simply requiring a window air conditioner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubin et al. (US5582025A) in view of Yang (CN101876466A).
Regarding Claim 1, Dubin teaches a window air conditioner that is installable in a window frame [a low-obstruction window air conditioner 20, Figure 1; col. 1, lines 5-12], the window air conditioner comprising:
an outdoor module [outer unit 21, Figure 1] including a compressor [where the outer unit contains the compressor col. 4, lines 29-31] for compressing a refrigerant [where suction refrigerant and vapor refrigerant tube is represented at 81, Figure 10], an outdoor heat exchanger [where the outer unit contains the condenser coil; col. 4, lines 29-31] in which heat exchange between outdoor air and the refrigerant occurs [where the condenser coil fan dissipates heat and condensate from the condenser coil; col. 4, lines 29-31], and an outdoor housing accommodating the compressor and the outdoor heat exchanger [at outer unit 21, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 29-31];
an indoor module [inner unit 22, Figure 1] including an indoor housing [at indoor unit 22 comprising a cooling chassis 75, Figure 9; col. 5, lines 40-45] spaced apart from the outdoor housing [where the air conditioner 20 straddles the window sill 12, Figure 1], and an indoor heat exchanger that is arranged in the indoor housing [where the inner unit 22 comprises the evaporator coil 78; col. 5, lines 40-45] and in which heat exchange between indoor air and the refrigerant occurs [where cool air is fed into the room and a lowered vent from which room air is drawn into unit 22 to be cooled; col. 4, lines 34-39];
a refrigerant pipe [refrigerant tubes 81, Figure 9] providing a flow path through which the refrigerant moves between the indoor module and the outdoor module [where refrigerant tubes 81, seen extending from inner unit 22, has connectors 85 for mating with the outer unit, Figure 9; col. 5, lines 53-55]; and
a connection support module [bracket 34, Figure 2] connecting the indoor module and the outdoor module [where on the outside of the bracket air conditioner 20 comprises an outer unit 21 and on the inside of the bracket 34 is the inner unit 22; col. 4, lines, 24-29], and being configured so that opposite end portions [outdoor side and indoor side, Figure 9] thereof support the indoor housing and the outdoor housing [Figure 9; col. 4, lines, 24-29] and Dubin does not teach wherein at least one soundproof member surrounding the refrigerant pipe is arranged in the connection support module.
However, Yang teaches a saddle-shaped air conditioner [0002] where at least one soundproof member [insulation and shock absorbing material; 0019] surrounding the refrigerant pipe [refrigerant connection pipe between outdoor unit casing and indoor unit casing; 0050] is arranged in the connection support module [where insulation and shock-absorbing material is filled inside the connecting casing to reduce the noise generated by the outdoor air conditioner; 0019] 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., reducing the noise generated by the outdoor air conditioner [Yang; 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 Dubin to have at least one soundproof member surrounding the refrigerant pipe is arranged in the connection support module in view of the teachings of Yang 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., reducing the noise generated by the outdoor air conditioner [Yang; 0019].
Regarding Claim 2, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where at least one of the outdoor housing or the indoor housing includes a protruding portion [where the outdoor unit 21 has a protrusion, annotated Figure 3] that protrudes from a part of opposite surfaces facing each other [the opposing surface of outdoor unit 21 where the outdoor unit 21 and indoor unit 22 face bracket 34, Figure 9] to be inserted into the connection support module [where the outer unit is tilted and brought into cradle 60 of bracket 34 into a vertical position, Figure 4 - Figure 8; col. 5, lines 17-30].
Regarding Claim 4, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches where an end portion [outdoor side, Figure 2] of the connection support module [bracket 34, Figure 2] includes:
an inner fixed portion [annotated Figure 3] fixed to the protruding portion inserted therein [where a pair of support clips 66 engage in slits 67 of the bracket 34, Figure 6; col. 5, lines 17-26]; and
a flange fixed portion [annotated Figure 3] fixed to a remaining portion that is a portion of the opposite surfaces other than the protruding portion [where rollers 58 are trapped in vertical guides 51 and 52, Figure 4 and Figure 5, col. 5, lines 17-26].
Regarding Claim 5, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and further teaches where the flange fixed portion [annotated Figure 3] is fixed to the remaining portion of the opposite surfaces by a first fastening member (V1) [where rollers 58 are trapped in vertical guides 51 and 52, Figure 4, col. 5, lines 17-26] fastened in a first direction (X) [annotated Figure 3], and wherein the inner fixed portion is fixed to the protruding portion [annotated Figure 3] of the opposite surfaces by a second fastening member (V2) [where a pair of support clips 66 engage in slits 67 of the bracket 34, Figure 8; col. 5, lines 17-26] that is fastened in a second direction (Y) that is different from the first direction [up and down direction, Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 6, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and further teaches where the protruding portion includes a protruding surface [outer unit 21 where the protruding portion meets the inner fixed portion, annotated Figure 3] and a connecting surface [the faces above, below and to the sides of the protruding surface, annotated Figure 3] connecting the protruding surface to the remaining portion [where outer unit 21 meets outer channels 51 and 52, Figure 4] and having an orientation different from the remaining portion [perpendicular to the protruding surface, annotated Figure 3], and wherein the second fastening member [support clips 66] is fastened with the connecting surface [where support clips 66 fasten to the top of protrusion, annotated Figure 3 and Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 7, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and further teaches where the inner fixed portion [annotated Figure 3] is fixed to the protruding portion of the opposite surface [annotated Figure 3] by a third fastening member (V3) [bars 69, Figure 8] that is fastened in a third direction (Z) that is different from the first direction and the second direction [the inside-outside direction of arrows 70, Figure 8; col. 2, lines 28-34].
Regarding Claim 10, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the connection support module [bracket 34, Figure 2] includes first [annotated Figure 10] and second support plates [annotated Figure 10] spaced apart from each other with the refrigerant pipe provided therebetween [where the first and second support plates are spaced apart on opposing sides of the bracket 34 with refrigerant tubes 81 in between, annotated Figure 10].
Regarding Claim 11, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches where the connection support module [bracket 34, Figure 2] includes a third support plate connecting the first and second support plates so that the first and second support plates form one body [where the third support plate is below refrigerant pipes 81, annotated Figure 10].
Regarding Claim 12, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches where the first support plate and the second support plate are separate members spaced apart from each other [where the first and second support plates are spaced apart such that pipes 81 are between, annotated Figure 10].
Regarding 13, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and further teaches where the outdoor housing [outdoor unit 21, Figure 1] includes a first body surrounding the compressor and the outdoor heat exchanger [where outdoor unit 21 contains the compressor and the condenser coil; col. 4, lines 25-31], and a first upper cover assembled onto an upper portion of the first body [where handles 61 mount onto outdoor unit 21, Figure 6],
wherein the indoor housing [indoor unit 22, Figure 1] includes a second body surrounding the indoor heat exchanger [where indoor unit 22 comprises the evaporator coil; col. 4, lines 34-36], and a second upper cover assembled onto an upper portion of the second body [platform 24, Figure 1], and
wherein the connection support module [bracket 34, Figure 1] further includes an upper plate [cover 30, Figure 1] connecting the first upper cover and the second upper cover so that the first upper cover and the second upper cover are integrated as one body [where cover 30 is attached by screws to complete the installation, Figure 12; col. 6, lines 8-12].
Regarding Claim 14, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the outdoor housing [outdoor unit 21, Figure 1] includes a first body surrounding the compressor and the outdoor heat exchanger [where outdoor unit 21 contains the compressor and the condenser coil; col. 4, lines 25-31], and a first lower cover assembled onto a lower portion of the first body [annotated Figure 3], wherein the indoor housing [indoor unit 22, Figure 1] includes a second body surrounding the indoor heat exchanger [where indoor unit 22 comprises the evaporator coil; col. 4, lines 34-36], and a second lower cover assembled onto a lower portion of the second body [bottom of cooling chassis 75 , Figure 2], and wherein the connection support module [bracket 34, Figure 1] further includes a lower plate [horizontal member 37, Figure 2] connecting the first lower cover and the second lower cover so that the first lower cover and the second lower cover are integrated as one body [where the horizontal member 37 connects the platform 53 to outdoor unit 21 and vertical member 42 on the room side connected to chassis 75 of indoor unit 22, Figure 2, Figure 4 and Figure 10].
Regarding Claim 15, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches where the soundproof member includes a second soundproof member [insulation and shock absorbing material; 0019 of Yang, refer to claim 1 above] that is arranged outside the protruding portion, inside the connection support module [where insulation and shock-absorbing material is filled inside the connecting casing to reduce the noise generated by the outdoor air conditioner; 0019 of Yang, refer to claim 1 above], and surrounds the refrigerant pipe [refrigerant connection pipe between outdoor unit casing and indoor unit casing; 0050 of Yang, refer to claim 1 above].
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1115
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
842
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubin et al. (US5582025A) in view of Yang (CN101876466A) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Mu (CN106642352A)
Regarding Claim 3, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and does not teach where the soundproof member includes a first soundproof member that is arranged in the protruding portion inserted into the connection support module and surrounds the refrigerant pipe.
However, Mu teaches a window air conditioner [0002] where the soundproof member includes a first soundproof member [first sound-insulating; 0015] that is arranged in the protruding portion inserted into the connection support module [where Dubin teaches a protruding portion on the side wall of the outdoor unit facing the indoor unit and where Mu teaches the first sound-insulating material is provided on the side wall of the outdoor shell facing the indoor shell; 0050] and surrounds the refrigerant pipe [where circulation pipes connect between the outdoor unit assembly 21 and indoor unit assembly 11; 0040] 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 sound insulation material from being damaged by bumps during transportation [Wu; 0050]
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 soundproof member includes a first soundproof member that is arranged in the protruding portion inserted into the connection support module and surrounds the refrigerant pipe in view of the teachings of Mu 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 sound insulation material from being damaged by bumps during transportation [Wu; 0050]
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubin et al. (US5582025A) in view of Yang (CN101876466A) as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Lei et al. (US20220381475A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 wherein the connecting surface includes: side surfaces on opposite sides of the protruding surface [where the protrusion has side surfaces, annotated Figure 3]; and a lower surface arranged under the protruding surface [where the protrusion has a bottom surface at first lower cover, annotated Figure 3], but does not teach the second fastening member [support clips 66, Figure 3] fastened to the side surfaces of the connecting surface, and the third fastening member [bars 69, Figure 8] fastened to the lower surface of the connecting surface.
However, Lei teaches a mounting bracket assembly and a window air conditioner assembly [0002] where the second fastening member [connector 20; 0125] fastened to the side surfaces of the connecting surface [where first support 21 has a plurality of support connection positions distributed along the up-down direction for connection with the window air conditioner 200; 0125], and the third fastening member [third connection through hole for a threaded connection; 0126] fastened to the lower surface of the connecting surface [where the third connection through hole is a long strip hole extending in the up and down direction, and the third connection through hole defines a plurality of support connection positions; 0126] where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention since 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.
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 second fastening member fastened to the side surfaces of the connecting surface, and the third fastening member fastened to the lower surface of the connecting surface in view of the teachings of Lei where the modification constitutes mere rearrangement of parts and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubin et al. (US5582025A) in view of Yang (CN101876466A) as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Cur et al. (US20030097854A1)
Regarding Claim 9, Dubin, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 and does not teach where a height (h) of the protruding portion is less than a height (h1, h2) of the outdoor housing or the indoor housing.
However, Cur teaches arrangements to substantially improve customer benefits in window air conditioning and at the same time to reduce assembly and installation requirements [0001] where a height (h) of the protruding portion [bridge 106, Figure 4] is less than a height (h1, h2) of the outdoor housing or the indoor housing [where local unit 102 extends further down than remote unit 104 and bridge 106, Figure 4] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing or decreasing dimensions of indoor housing with selected blower wheels to minimize vibration [Cur; 0102].
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 a height (h) of the protruding portion is less than a height (h1, h2) of the outdoor housing or the indoor housing in view of the teachings of Cur where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing or decreasing dimensions of indoor housing with selected blower wheels to minimize vibration [Cur; 0102].
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