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 1/23/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 5/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “a drain pump fixing member” in claim 1, “a rotation suppression part” in claim 2, “a UV radiation unit” and a UV radiation unit fixing member” in claim 3, “a water level detection unit” in claim 4.
“a drain pump fixing member” corresponds to the structure described in paragraph 0047;
“a rotation suppression part” corresponds to a rotation suppression groove 301g and the rotation suppression rib 302g as described in paragraph 0070;
“a UV radiation unit” corresponds to UV radiation device 20 includes a light source that is capable of emitting ultraviolet light, such as a UV light emitting diode (LED), and a substrate for controlling emission of light from the light source as described in paragraph 0033;
a UV radiation unit fixing member” corresponds to a joint part 101 as described in paragraph 0034; and
“a water level detection unit” a float switch as describe in paragraph 0042.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fushimi et al (US 20180195790).
Regarding claim 1, Fushimi teaches an indoor unit (100) of an air conditioner (air conditioner, paragraph 0026), the indoor unit comprising: an air inlet port (6) for suctioning air inside a room (room, fig. 1, paragraph 0031); a heat exchanger (4) for exchanging heat with the air suctioned from the air inlet port; an air outlet port (7) for blowing the air after heat exchange by the heat exchanger out to the room; a drain pan (5) provided below the heat exchanger, the drain pan being for receiving water generated at the heat exchanger (paragraph 0031); a drain pump (14) for discharging water collected in the drain pan (paragraph 0037); and a drain pump fixing member (16) for fixing the drain pump, wherein the drain pump fixing member is attached in a manner sandwiching a fixing part (unnumbered attachment of 14 to 12, figs. 3-7) to which the drain pump is fixed.
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.
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi et al (US 20180195790).
Regarding claim 2, Fushimi teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a rotation suppression part for suppressing rotation of the drain pump fixing member at the fixing part to which the drain pump is fixed.
However, Fushimi a rotation suppression part (unnumbered attachment of 14 to 12 would be understood to prevent rotation, figs. 3-7) for suppressing rotation of the drain pump fixing member at the fixing part to which the drain pump is fixed.
Further, it is understood, claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…for suppressing rotation...”. 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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi et al (US 20180195790) in view of Akiyama et al (US 2021.
Regarding claim 3, Fushimi teaches the limitations of claim 3 including an antimicrobial unit (15) and a UV radiation unit fixing member (unnumbered bracket for 15) for fixing the UV radiation unit, wherein the UV radiation unit fixing member is fixed to a fixing part where the drain pump is fixed (figs. 3-7), together with the drain pump but fails to explicitly teach a UV radiation unit for radiating ultraviolet light to a water reservoir provided at a part, of the drain pan, positioned below the drain pump. See rejection of claim 1.
However, Akiyama teaches a UV radiation unit (80) for radiating ultraviolet light to a water reservoir (48) provided at a part, of the drain pan, positioned below the drain pump (51, figs. 6-7) to avoid clogging of a pump or port and reduce unpleasant odors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the indoor unit of Fushimi to include a UV radiation unit for radiating ultraviolet light to a water reservoir provided at a part, of the drain pan, positioned below the drain pump in view of the teachings of Akiyama to avoid clogging of a pump or port and reduce unpleasant odors.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach a water level detection unit (17 of Fushimi) for detecting a water level inside the drain pan (paragraph 0042 of Fushimi), wherein: the UV radiation unit fixing member is further capable of fixing the water level detection unit (paragraph 0049, fig. 4 of Fushimi).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the drain pump is switched between an operation state and a stopped state during radiation of ultraviolet light by the UV radiation unit.
However, one of ordinary would recognize when drain pump (14 of Fushimi, or51 of Akiyama) would operate based on water in the drain pan and would go between operating and stopping while 80 of Akiyama is radiating to reduce clogging or unpleasant odors.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach a water level detection unit (17 of Fushimi) for detecting a water level inside the drain pan (paragraph 0042 of Fushimi), wherein: the UV radiation unit is provided at a position higher than an upper limit of a detection range of the water level detection unit and lower than an upper end of the drain pan (fig. 4 of Fushimi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
