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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 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 first condensate drain members in at least claims 7-12, the second condensate drain member in at least claims 9-12, and the first holes in at least claim 10 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
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 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:
Condensate receiving member in at least claims 4-7,10 and 13
Condensate drain member in at least claims 7-12
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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A condensate receiving member appears to be described as a mesh structure having horizontal and vertical wires in at least ¶ 0117 of the specification.
A condensate drain member appears to be described as having a recess formed downward in an upper surface in at least ¶ 0019 of the specification.
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
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.
Claim 5 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 “…a projection plane parallel to the ground,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the description in the claim does not appear to be corroborated by the specification, as the application papers only describe projection planes along the vertical direction (Y-axis) in at least ¶ 0125, 0138, and 0145. Thus, it is unclear as to what projection plane applicant is intending to refer to in order to limit the structure of the claim, as a plane in the vertical direction (Y-axis) is commonsensically perpendicular to a ground plane (or X-axis). However, the claim is appearing to recite the exact opposite, wherein the claimed projection plane is parallel to the ground (or X-axis). Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and the is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanai et al. (JP H06229578 A, hereinafter “Kanai”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kanai teaches an air conditioner [11] [Fig. 2; ¶ 0012-0013], comprising:
a heat exchanger [9] extending at an incline at a first angle from a ground [¶ 0013; heat exchanger 9 is inclined from a horizontal axis];
a main drain [7] disposed adjacent to a lower end portion of the heat exchanger and configured to receive condensate from the heat exchanger [¶ 0006, 0021, 0024; Figs. 1-2; drain pan 7 receives condensate from at least portions 25]; and
a condensate guide structure [combination displayed in Fig. 6] disposed on a lower side of the heat exchanger [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection the entire guide structure is disposed below heat exchanger 9] and configured to guide the condensate from the heat exchanger toward the ground to the main drain [Fig. 2; ¶ 0017, 0029-0031; drain path 28 guides condensate from at least subdrain pans 1 towards main drain 7],
wherein the condensate guide structure comprises a mesh structure [at least 23, 25, 27, 29, 1; here, a mesh structure may be interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation as an interlaced structure comprising the plurality of listed components] configured to allow air introduced from outside the air conditioner heading to the heat exchanger to pass therethrough [¶ 0018, 0020-0021; air 21 flows through grille 23, wherein condensate collects in at least portion 27] and prevent the condensate from passing therethrough [¶ 0017, 0029-0031; condensed water flows along drain 28 on the inside of the structure, such that it flows towards main drain 7, necessarily not permeating down through the structure after the condensate has formed].
Regarding Claim 2, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kanai teaches wherein the mesh structure of the condensate guide structure is disposed on the lower side of the heat exchanger at an angle equal to or larger than the first angle [Figs. 2 and 7-9; apparent from inspection that the combination of Fig. 6 is below heat exchanger 9, having surfaces equal to or greater than the angle of the heat exchanger].
PNG
media_image1.png
456
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kanai teaches wherein the heat exchanger comprises a first area overlapping the mesh structure of the condensate guide structure [See Annotated Fig. 2; the right-side portion heat exchanger 9; apparent from inspection] and a second area not overlapping the mesh structure [See Annotated Fig. 2; the right-side portion heat exchanger 9; apparent from inspection], along a vertical direction, and
wherein a size of the main drain is at least as large as a size of the second area and the main drain is configured to cover the second area on the lower side of the heat exchanger [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection that drain pan 7 spans a at least the length of the second area, past both sides, including the subdrain pan 26].
Regarding Claim 4, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kanai teaches wherein the mesh structure comprises a plurality of condensate receiving members [at least 1, 25, 27, 29] spaced apart from each other at a predetermined interval [Fig. 10; ¶ 0005-0006, guide vanes 25 are spaced apart by L2], each of the plurality of condensate receiving members having one end portion positioned to contact the lower side of the heat exchanger [¶ 0020; Fig. 2; apparent from inspection, base 29 of vanes 25 contact heat exchanger 9].
Regarding Claim 5, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 4 above and Kanai teaches wherein each of the plurality of condensate receiving members are disposed to contact each other on a projection plane parallel to the ground [Fig. 3; apparent from inspection that at least condensate receiving members 25 and 27 contact each other in the z-direction (relative to Fig. 2; i.e. into the page), such that a plane on the z-direction is communistically parallel to a plane on the ground (x-direction)].
Regarding Claim 7, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 4 above and Kanai teaches wherein the condensate guide structure comprises a plurality of first condensate drain members [at least 27] extending along a lower side of each of the plurality of condensate receiving members [Fig. 2] and configured to provide a flow path for guiding the condensate flowing down from each corresponding condensate receiving member to the main drain [¶ 0021, 0023-0024; Fig. 2; portion 27 passes through drain passage 35 to provide the condensed fluid eventually towards main drain pan 7 at the bottom portion of 37].
Regarding Claim 8, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 7 above and Kanai teaches wherein each of the plurality of first condensate drain members comprises a drain groove [at least 35] having a recess formed downward on an upper surface [¶ 0024, 0030; Figs. 2-3; drain passages 35 are formed connected to portion 27, gradually decreasing in elevation from an upper surface such that water flows downwards along drain path 37 towards pan 7].
Regarding Claim 9, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 7 above and Kanai teaches wherein the condensate guide structure comprises a second condensate drain member disposed between adjacent first condensate drain members to provide a path for guiding the condensate downward [In Fig. 2, the leftmost and rightmost portions of 27 may be considered the first condensate drain members, while the middle portion 27 may be considered the second condensate drain member, thereby meeting the claimed limitations being between adjacent first condensate drain members].
Regarding Claim 10, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 9 above and Kanai teaches wherein each of the plurality of condensate receiving members comprises a plurality of first holes [at least grille 23], each first hole having a width smaller than a diameter of a droplet of the condensate [¶ 0015, 0022-0023; Figs. 2 and 4; condensing assembly in Fig. 6 comprises an internal grille 23 on the suction side of the heat exchanger for airflow, wherein the grille is formed with a convex shape, such that scavenged drainage flows along the longitudinal direction by its own weight, and thereby does not permeate back through the grille after condensate has formed, while allowing airflow through said grille; also see Fig. 2 showing drain passage 37 flowing directly over grille 23, thereby necessitating that the grille allows the airflow without allowing condensate to permeate], and
wherein the condensate guide structure comprises a plurality of air holes [space between guides 25, having a distance L2; see airflow arrows in Fig. 2, also see Fig. 10] defined by the plurality of first condensate drain members and the second condensate drain member, each air hole having a width larger than the width of each first hole [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection L2 is greater than internal grille portions of 23].
Regarding Claim 11, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 9 above and Kanai wherein each of the plurality of first condensate drain members and the second condensate drain member comprise a drain groove [27] having a recess formed downward on an upper surface [Figs. 2, and 6-9; ¶ 0021, 0023-0024; guide vanes 25 are provided with V-shaped portions, providing a drain groove formed downward from an upper surface].
Regarding Claim 12, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 9 above and Kanai teaches wherein each of the plurality of first condensate drain members are configured to fluidly communicate with the second condensate drain member [Fig. 2; ¶ 0024; the first and second condensate drain members are in fluid communication via at least drain passage 35, configured to receive fluid from each drain groove] connected to a corresponding first condensate drain member [Figs. 3 and 6; at least drain passage 35 is connected to each first condensate drain member; also see assembly of Fig. 6 being connected via accompanying wall portions].
Regarding Claim 13, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 4 above and Kanai teaches wherein the condensate guide structure [Figs. 2 and 6] comprises a support frame [at least 37] connecting between the plurality of condensate receiving members [¶ 0024; bottom portion 37 connected the V-shaped portions 27 and provides a surface for the drain passage to form].
Regarding Claim 14, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kanai teaches wherein the mesh structure comprises a plurality of holes [at least grille 23] having a width smaller than a diameter of a droplet of the condensate [¶ 0015, 0022-0023; Figs. 2 and 4; condensing assembly in Fig. 6 comprises an internal grille 23 on the suction side of the heat exchanger for airflow, wherein the grille is formed with a convex shape, such that scavenged drainage flows along the longitudinal direction by its own weight, and thereby does not permeate back through the grille after condensate has formed, while allowing airflow through said grille; also see Fig. 2 showing drain passage 37 flowing directly over grille 23, thereby necessitating that the grille allows the airflow without allowing condensate to permeate].
Regarding Claim 15, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kanai further teaches comprising:
an air intake [area formed for grille 23 in wall surface of Fig. 6] provided on the lower side of the heat exchanger [Figs. 2 and 6; apparent from inspection],
wherein the mesh structure is positioned between the heat exchanger and the air intake [Fig. 2; the internal condensing components [at least 23, 25, 27, 29, 1] making up the mesh structure are disposed within the walls of the assembly of Fig. 6; apparent from inspection these components exist between the heat exchanger 9 and the air intake formed by the cutout space for structure 23].
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (JP H071096 B2, hereinafter “Ito”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanai teaches the air conditioner of claim 4 above and while Kanai generally teaches bottom portion 37 having different angled surfaces [See Fig. 2] such that condensed water is drained along the longitudinal direction by its own weight (i.e. having a slope along the x-y axis), and wherein Fig. 2 may appear to show multiple surfaces greater than and less than the first angle relative to the heat exchanger, Kanai does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of condensate receiving members are disposed to form an angle larger than the first angle.
However, Ito teaches a ceiling-mounted type air conditioner [1] [Figs. 1-13] comprising a heat exchanger [6] disposed within the air conditioner, having an angle theta (θ) relative to the ground (horizontal direction), and also having a plurality of condensate water receiving trays and drains [14, 15] configured to drain water towards a main water tray [7] [¶ 0001; Figs. 11 and 13]. Ito also teaches wherein the angle theta may be known to have values greater than or less than 60 degrees. Designs with smaller angles are known to produce casings with less body height, but require greater width [W] while increasing water tray size and impacting suction opening resistance. Alternatively, designs with greater angles produce casing with higher body height, but require less width, thus less water tray area coverage and having a reduced impact on suction opening resistance and noise [¶ 0001]. Ito further teaches that water draining tray portions [14] are inclined at arbitrary angles (alpha) (α), thereby further indicating that the relative angle of the condensate receiving members is not critical to the operation [¶ 0001]. Thus, any angle greater than 0 may be considered to fulfill the drainage function, as that would enable the fluid to flow under its own weight.
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. provide α > θ, or provide α < θ or, provide α = θ, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. When considering Ito’s disclosure as α being arbitrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect any angle to lead to the anticipated success, i.e. providing an angled drain structure for condensate of an angled heat exchanger wherein the design angles change the required size of the container to influence noise and material cost [¶ 0001], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ito by trying to provide wherein each of the plurality of condensate receiving members are disposed to form an angle larger than the first angle, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meyer et al. (US 20180073768 A1) discloses a knit wire mesh configured to condense liquid droplets from an air-refrigerant heat exchanger and remove the liquid with the force of gravity.
Ciais et al. (US 20210394910 A1) discloses a three-dimensional mesh grid formed with wires configured to remove moisture from an air stream while letting said air pass through the mesh.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
