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 07/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the published application on 10/30/2025. 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
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama et al (JP 2007032887 A, hereinafter Maruyama).
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama teaches a ceiling-mounted air conditioner (indoor unit 30), comprising: a cabinet (outer box 1); a panel (panel 10) disposed at one surface of the cabinet (figure 1); and a sensing part (radiation sensor 9) disposed at an inner side of the panel (figure 2), wherein the sensing part comprises: a sensor (radiation sensor 9) configured to sense an object positioned outside of the panel (radiation sensor 9 that detects the temperature of an object by detecting infrared rays radiated by an object, paragraph 0010), and a case (case 17) for receiving the sensor (radiation sensor 9), and wherein the case (case 17) comprises: a support part (transparent member 19) supporting the sensor (figure 3) for the sensor to perform sensing in a direction (figure 3) inclined at a pre-set angle (30-60°, paragraph 0012) with respect to the panel (panel 10), and a cover part (sensor fixing part 14) covering the sensor by coupling with the support part (figure 5).
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 8, Maruyama teaches wherein the pre-set angle (30-60°) is one from among an angle range of 60° ±20° (30-60°) with respect to the panel (panel 10).
Regarding claims 15-16, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 15-16 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-4, 12, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al (JP 2007032887 A, hereinafter Maruyama) in view of Steinberg (US 10393398 B2, hereinafter Steinberg).
Regarding claim 2, Maruyama teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising: memory storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the ceiling-mounted air conditioner to: control, based on the object positioned outside of the panel being sensed based on a sensing result of the sensor, an operation of the ceiling-mounted air conditioner.
However, Steinberg teaches further comprising: memory storing instructions (memory 256); and one or more processors (microprocessor 254) communicatively coupled to the memory (figure 4), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the ceiling-mounted air conditioner (air conditioner, abstract) to: control, based on the object positioned outside of the panel being sensed based on a sensing result of the sensor (sensing motion 208 as a tool for detecting occupancy of the room where the wall mount air conditioner is located, col 10 lines 43-45), an operation of the ceiling-mounted air conditioner (if load control device 108 includes a motion sensor or other means of detecting occupancy, this information can be used to change the state of the load control device and associated heating or cooling systems directly, and that information can also be transmitted to remote server 106, col 12 lines 46-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air conditioner in the teachings of Maruyama to include further comprising: memory storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the ceiling-mounted air conditioner to: control, based on the object positioned outside of the panel being sensed based on a sensing result of the sensor, an operation of the ceiling-mounted air conditioner in view of the teachings of Steinberg in order to yield the predictable result of sensing occupancy of the conditioned space, and to communicate the occupancy status of the conditioned space to the remote server managing the operation of the attached window and wall-mounted air conditioners.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the sensor (motion sensor 208 of Steinberg) is a radar sensor (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that a motion sensor is capable of being a radar sensor in order to sense occupancy in a conditioned space).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein operation of the ceiling-mounted air conditioner (wall mount air conditioner, col 10 lines 43-45 of Steinberg) includes at least one of a cooling operation (inside a space conditioned by the air conditioner, abstract of Steinberg), a dehumidifying operation, or a purifying operation mode.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising: a plurality of discharge ports formed in four different directions different from one another from the panel, wherein the sensing part comprises a plurality of sensing parts which is respectively disposed for each of the plurality of discharge ports, and wherein the each of the plurality of sensing parts comprises a sensor inclined at the pre-set angle toward an outer direction of the plurality of discharge ports with respect to a center of the panel.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “a plurality of discharge ports formed in four different directions different from one another from the panel, wherein the sensing part comprises a plurality of sensing parts which is respectively disposed for each of the plurality of discharge ports, and wherein the each of the plurality of sensing parts comprises a sensor inclined at the pre-set angle toward an outer direction of the plurality of discharge ports with respect to a center of the panel” does anything more than produce the predictable result of detecting the temperature of an object. Since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)], see MPEP 2144.04 VI B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the indoor unit 30 of Maruyama and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of detecting the temperature of an object.
Regarding claims 14 and 18-19, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 14 and 18-19 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al (JP 2007032887 A, hereinafter Maruyama) in view of Hisanaga (JP 2015137811 A, hereinafter Hisanaga).
Regarding claim 13, Maruyama teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the sensor is configured to measure at least one of distance data, speed data, angle data, or biometric signal data.
However, Hisanaga teaches wherein the sensor (infrared sensor element 61A) is configured to measure at least one of distance data, speed data, angle data (the standard viewing angle is about 45°, paragraph 0041), or biometric signal data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air conditioner in the teachings of Maruyama to include wherein the sensor is configured to measure at least one of distance data, speed data, angle data, or biometric signal data in view of the teachings of Hisanaga in order to yield the predictable result of providing an air conditioner capable of properly blowing air to a region in which a human body exists.
Further, it is understood, claim 13 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 20 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9-11 and 17 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Maruyama et al (JP 2007032887 A). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the support part comprises: a first bottom surface, a seating surface formed to be inclined at the pre-set angle from the first bottom surface to one side, and a second bottom surface protruded from the seating surface, and wherein the sensor is seated at the seating surface while one side is supported by the second bottom surface”. The closest prior art, Maruyama teaches an indoor unit 30 installed at a high part such as the ceiling, and a radiation sensor 9 provided at the indoor unit 30 or at a high part of the room to detect infrared light radiated from an object on the floor or the like to detect the temperature of the object, driven by a motor with its rotating shaft disposed in an almost gravity direction of the room, mounted to the rotating shaft so that the detecting direction is inclined by a predetermined angle to the rotating shaft.
Regarding claim 17, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Maruyama et al (JP 2007032887 A). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the sensing angle of the sensor is adjusted based on movement of an adjustment lever by a motor”. The closest prior art, Maruyama teaches an indoor unit 30 installed at a high part such as the ceiling, and a radiation sensor 9 provided at the indoor unit 30 or at a high part of the room to detect infrared light radiated from an object on the floor or the like to detect the temperature of the object, driven by a motor with its rotating shaft disposed in an almost gravity direction of the room, mounted to the rotating shaft so that the detecting direction is inclined by a predetermined angle to the rotating shaft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights