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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 1; the phrase “according to claim 1” should be changed to -- according to claim 4-- for proper dependence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7; the limitation, “a cross-sectional area X of the air inlet of the first air duct and a cross-sectional area Y of the air outlet of the second air duct satisfy a mathematical relationship of Y < 0.05X” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present application does not further disclose what constitute the variables “X” and “Y” of the cross-sectional areas as recited within the claim. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Claim 8 is rejected based upon their dependency from claim 7.
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 7 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7; the limitations, “a cross-sectional area X of the air inlet of the first air duct and a cross-sectional area Y of the air outlet of the second air duct satisfy a mathematical relationship of Y < 0.05X”. The variables “X” and “Y” are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The variables “X” and “Y” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected based upon their dependency from claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NISHIOKA et al (English Translated WO Pub. No.: WO2018220967 A1), hereinafter referred to as NISHIOKA et al ‘967.
Regarding claim 1, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclose a refrigeration apparatus {as shown in Fig. 3} comprising: a heat exchanger (4) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0030]}; a first air duct (21) with an air inlet (18) disposed corresponding to the heat exchanger {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0030]}; a fan (8) disposed at an air outlet (17) of the first air duct {as shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 5: ¶¶ [0030] and [0039]}, corresponding to the heat exchanger across the first air duct {as shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 5: ¶¶ [0030] and [0039]}; a second air duct (22) with an air outlet (29) opened on a side of the first air duct and an air inlet (30) open to an atmosphere {as shown in Figs. 3 and 9: ¶ ¶ [0048] and [0051]}; and an electronic control device (6) disposed in the second air duct {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0030]}.
Regarding claim 2, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclose the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first air duct and the second air duct are perpendicular to each other {as shown in Fig. 3}.
Regarding claim 3, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclose the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the air outlet of the second air duct is opened on the side of the first air duct while being immediately adjacent to the heat exchanger {as shown in Fig. 9: ¶ [0048]}.
Regarding claim 10, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclose the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a filter screen disposed at the air inlet of the second air duct {see ¶ [0002]}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIOKA et al ‘967, in view of WATARAI (English Translated WO Pub. No.: 2024029008 A1), hereinafter referred to as WATARAI ‘008.
Regarding claim 4, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclose the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 3, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein the electronic control device further includes an electronic control unit (ECU) and heat dissipation fins (21a) disposed around the electronic control unit.
WATARAI ‘008 teach: the concept of the electronic control device (1) further includes an electronic control unit (ECU) and heat dissipation fins (21a) disposed around the electronic control unit {as shown in Fig. 5: Abstract and Page 5}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify NISHIOKA et al ‘967 electronic control device by the electronic control device of WATARAI ‘008 so as to include an electronic control unit and heat dissipation fins disposed around the electronic control unit, in order to facilitate heat dissipation {WATARAI ‘008 – Abstract}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the NISHIOKA et al ‘967 in view of WATARAI ‘008 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIOKA et al ‘967 and WATARAI ‘008 as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of CHEN et al (English Translated Chinese Pub. No.: 210222726 U), hereinafter referred to as CHEN et al ‘726.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of NISHIOKA et al ‘967 and WATARAI ‘008 disclose and teach the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 4, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein the heat dissipation fins include air duct-parallel heat dissipation fins disposed parallel to an airflow direction in the second air duct, and air duct flow-guiding heat dissipation fins disposed at a predetermined angle relative to the airflow direction in the second air duct.
CHEN et al ‘726 teach: the concept of the heat dissipation fins include air duct-parallel heat dissipation fins disposed parallel {see Page 2, ¶¶ 4 and 5; Page 3, ¶¶ 1-7; and Page 5, ¶¶ 1-3}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify NISHIOKA et al ‘967 as modified by WATARAI ‘008 heat dissipation fins by the heat dissipation fins of CHEN et al ‘726 so as to include air duct-parallel heat dissipation fins disposed parallel to an airflow direction in the second air duct, and air duct flow-guiding heat dissipation fins disposed at a predetermined angle relative to the airflow direction in the second air duct, in order to optimize the heat dissipation of the heat dissipation device {CHEN et al ‘726 – Page 6, ¶ 2}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the NISHIOKA et al ‘967 as modified by WATARAI ‘008 in view of CHEN et al ‘726 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of NISHIOKA et al ‘967, WATARAI ‘008 and CHEN et al ‘726 disclose and teach the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 5, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 as modified by NISHIOKA et al ‘967 as modified by WATARAI ‘008 in view of CHEN et al ‘726 to limitations of the air duct flow-guiding heat dissipation fins capable of being disposed on a side of the electronic control unit closer to the air inlet of the second air duct {as shown in Figs. 6-7: Page 6, ¶ 2}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify NISHIOKA et al ‘967 as modified by WATARAI ‘008 in view of CHEN et al ‘726 to include the air duct flow-guiding heat dissipation fins disposed on a side of the electronic control unit closer to the air inlet of the second air duct, since it has held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP§ 2144.04(VI) (C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIOKA et al ‘967, in view of UEDA et al (English Translated Japanese Patent No.: S5922252147 A), hereinafter referred to as UEDA et al ‘147.
Regarding claim 9, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclose the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations wherein a cross-sectional area of the air inlet of the second air duct is greater than a cross-sectional area of the air outlet of the second air duct.
UEDA et al ‘147 teach: the concept of a cross-sectional area (7) of the air inlet of the second air duct is greater than a cross-sectional area of the air outlet (8) of the second air duct {as shown in Fig. 4: Page 2, Page 3, Brief Description of the Drawings}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify NISHIOKA et al ‘967 in view of UEDA et al ‘147 to include a cross-sectional area of the air inlet of the second air duct is greater than a cross-sectional area of the air outlet of the second air duct, in order to facilitate a draft air duct to maintain proper static pressure therein {UEDA et al ‘147 – Claims, Page 3}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the NISHIOKA et al ‘967 in view of UEDA et al ‘147 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIOKA et al ‘967, in view of HIRONAKA et al (English Translated Japanese Patent No.: 2011219076 A), hereinafter referred to as HIRONAKA et al ‘076.
Regarding claim 11, NISHIOKA et al ‘967 disclosed the refrigeration apparatus according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations of further comprising: a flow guide plate disposed at the air outlet of the second air duct while deflecting toward the fan and configured to guide air from the second air duct and air from the first air duct.
HIRONAKA et al ‘076 teach: the concept of a flow guide plate (12c) disposed at the air outlet (12a) of the second air duct while deflecting toward the fan (13) and configured to guide air from the second air duct (12a) and air from the first air duct (12b){as shown in Fig. 1: ¶¶ [0044] and [0046-0047]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify NISHIOKA et al ‘967 in view of HIRONAKA et al ‘076 to include the use of a flow guide plate disposed at the air outlet of the second air duct while deflecting toward the fan and configured to guide air from the second air duct and air from the first air duct, in order to facilitate circulating inside air and outside air, and both the inside / outside air switching door 12c that selectively opens and closes the inlets of the intake side ducts 12a and 12b {HIRONAKA et al ‘076 – ¶ [0046]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the NISHIOKA et al ‘967 in view of HIRONAKA et al ‘076 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO-2024045299-A1 to ZHANG, Yinyin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights