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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner agrees that McNeely teaches horizontal orientation of the system is possible. However, McNeely is silent regarding how the system is held in the horizontal position. Therefore, it is reasonable to rely upon Cooper to teach how an HVAC system can be mounted horizontally utilizing a baseplate..
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.
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) 1, 5-6, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19, 21-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567) in view of Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1) and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876).
Regarding claim 1, McNeely discloses a discharge section (McNeely 10) of an HVAC system comprising a first wall (see annotated figure) defining an opening (see annotated figure) configured to receive an airflow from a blower (McNeely 11) mounted to a first side of the first wall and configured to direct the air flow in a direction along the central axis, a second wall (see annotated figure) spaced apart from the first wall and a diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) coupled to and in contact with a second side of the first wall, wherein the first side of the first wall is opposite the second side of the first wall and intersects the central axis to divert the air flow received through the opening and a heater (McNeely 12) disposed between the first wall and the second wall (see McNeely figure 2), wherein the heater is disposed downstream of the diverter baffle relative to flow of the air flow (see McNeely figure 2). McNeely teaches the discharge section can be mounted horizontally (McNeely column 3 lines 37-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McNeely figure 1 (annotated)
McNeely is silent regarding the diverter baffle’s ends being disposed at oblique angles to the first and second wall and is further silent regarding how exactly the discharge section could be mounted horizontally.
However, Boutry teaches an air cooling tower comprising a discharge section (Boutry 12) configured to receive the airflow form a blower (Boutry 10) comprising a first wall (see annotated figure) with an opening (see annotated figure) and a second wall (see annotated figure) opposite the first wall, a diverter baffle (Boutry 18) coupled to the first wall and the first end of the diverter baffle is disposed at an oblique angle relative to the first wall (see annotated figure), and a second end of the diverter baffle is at a second oblique angle to the second wall (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boutry figure 1 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to incorporate Boutry’s teachings of a planar diverter baffle with its ends disposed at oblique angles to the first and second walls to divert the airflow and reduce the manufacturing costs by replacing the complex geometry of McNeely’s baffle with a simpler and cheaper to produce planar design.
However, Cooper teaches a rooftop air conditioner positioned in a horizontal position (see Cooper figure 1) comprising a discharge section (see Cooper figure 1) comprising a base plate (Cooper 32) that includes a discharge opening (Cooper 42) located on the base plate to discharge conditioned air downward into a building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to lie in a horizontal position and discharge air through an outlet in a baseplate to allow the unit to be used as a rooftop or ceiling HVAC system to increase available interior floorspace.
Regarding claim 2, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 1 teach the diverter baffle is planar (see Boutry figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 1 further discloses the heater (McNeely 12) relies upon a boiler (McNeely 13) that is heated by a resistive heating element (McNeely 32) and therefore is being interpreted as an electric heater.
Regarding claim 6, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 5 further discloses the diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) is configured to divert the airflow from the opening toward the heater (see McNeely figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 1 teach the first oblique angle is between forty-five degrees and seventy-five degrees (see Boutry figure 2).
Regarding claim 25, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the first wall and the second wall at least partially forming an outer structure of the discharge section.
However, Boutry further teaches that the second wall can be a wall forming an outer structure of the discharge section (see Boutry figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boutry figure 1 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Boutry’s teaching of the second wall being an outer wall of the discharge section to maximize the size of the outlet flowpath to increase potential throughput of the discharge section.
Regarding claim 11, McNeely discloses a heating section (McNeely 10) of an HVAC system comprising a first wall (see annotated figure) defining an opening (see annotated figure) configured to receive an airflow from a blower (McNeely 11) mounted to a first side of the first wall and configured to direct the air flow in a direction along the central axis, a second wall (see annotated figure) spaced apart from and opposite the first wall and a diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) coupled to and in contact with a second side of the first wall, wherein the first side of the first wall is opposite the second side of the first wall and intersects the central axis to divert the airflow received through the opening and a heater (McNeely 12) disposed between the first wall and the second wall (see McNeely figure 2), wherein the heater is disposed downstream of the diverter baffle relative to flow of the air flow (see McNeely figure 2). McNeely teaches the discharge section can be mounted horizontally (McNeely column 3 lines 37-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McNeely figure 1 (annotated)
McNeely is silent regarding the diverter baffle’s first end being offset from the opening and the second end being aligned with the opening, how the discharge section would be mounted . installed in a horizontal position, a baseplate extending from the first wall to the second wall, and the diverter baffle being disposed at oblique angles with respect to the two walls.
However, Cooper teaches a rooftop air conditioner positioned in a horizontal position (see Cooper figure 1) comprising a discharge section (see Cooper figure 1) comprising a base plate (Cooper 32) that includes a discharge opening (Cooper 42) located on the base plate to discharge conditioned air downward into a building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s heating section such that the heating section is horizontal with a downward discharge and utilize a base plate to allow use of the heating section as a ceiling or rooftop system to increase the useable interior floorspace of the conditioned room.
However, Boutry teaches an air cooling tower comprising a discharge section (Boutry 12) configured to receive the airflow form a blower (Boutry 10) comprising a first wall (see annotated figure) with an opening (see annotated figure) and a second wall (see annotated figure) opposite the first wall, a diverter baffle (Boutry 18) coupled to the first wall and the first end of the diverter baffle is disposed at an oblique angle relative to the first wall (see annotated figure), and a second end of the diverter baffle is at a second oblique angle to the second wall (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boutry figure 1 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to incorporate Boutry’s teachings of a planar diverter baffle with its ends disposed at oblique angles to the first and second walls to divert the airflow and reduce the manufacturing costs by replacing the complex geometry of McNeely’s baffle with a simpler and cheaper to produce planar design.
Further applicant’s specification is silent regarding the significance of the claimed alignment of the diverter baffle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of the apparatus to offset the first end of the baffle from the opening and reposition the second end of the baffle to align with the opening. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 13, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 11 further teach the diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) is configured to divert the airflow from the opening toward the heater (see McNeely figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 11 teach the first oblique angle is between forty-five degrees and seventy-five degrees (see Boutry figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 11 disclose the blower is a first blower and the heating section comprises a second blower (see McNeely figure 1), both of which are mounted to the first side of the first wall and are driven by a common motor (McNeely 19) by a system of pullies and belts (McNeely 20 and 21).
McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 11 are silent regarding the use of a common shaft to drive the blowers.
However, Cooper further discloses an HVAC system comprising a pair of blowers (Cooper 22) driven by a single motor (Cooper 26) using a common shaft (Cooper 54) (see Cooper figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s heating section to utilize Cooper’s teaching of a common shaft for two blowers instead of McNeely’s system utilizing two sets of pullies and belts to reduce the complexity of the system and simplify repairs and maintenance on the drive system for the blowers.
Regarding claim 18, McNeely discloses a discharge section (McNeely 10) of an HVAC system comprising a first wall (see annotated figure) defining an opening (see annotated figure) configured to receive an airflow from a blower (McNeely 11) mounted to a first side of the first wall and configured to direct the air flow in a direction along the central axis, a second wall (see annotated figure) spaced apart from and disposed opposite the first wall and a diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) coupled to and in contact with a second side of the first wall and a second end coupled to the second wall, wherein the first side of the first wall is opposite the second side of the first wall and intersects the central axis to divert the airflow received through the opening and the diverter baffle extends into the portion of the air flow path to redirect the air flow (see McNeely figure 2) and a heater (McNeely 12) disposed between the first wall and the second wall (see McNeely figure 2), wherein the heater is disposed downstream of the diverter baffle relative to flow of the air flow (see McNeely figure 2). McNeely teaches the discharge section can be mounted horizontally (McNeely column 3 lines 37-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McNeely figure 1 (annotated)
McNeely is silent regarding the first and second ends of the diverter baffle being at oblique angles to the walls and is further silent regarding how exactly the discharge section could be mounted horizontally.
However, Boutry teaches an air cooling tower comprising a discharge section (Boutry 12) configured to receive the airflow form a blower (Boutry 10) comprising a first wall (see annotated figure) with an opening (see annotated figure) and a second wall (see annotated figure) opposite the first wall, a diverter baffle (Boutry 18) coupled to the first wall and the first end of the diverter baffle is disposed at an oblique angle relative to the first wall (see annotated figure), and a second end of the diverter baffle is at a second oblique angle to the second wall (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boutry figure 1 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to incorporate Boutry’s teachings of a planar diverter baffle with its ends disposed at oblique angles to the first and second walls to divert the airflow and reduce the manufacturing costs by replacing the complex geometry of McNeely’s baffle with a simpler and cheaper to produce planar design.
However, Cooper teaches a rooftop air conditioner positioned in a horizontal position (see Cooper figure 1) comprising a discharge section (see Cooper figure 1) comprising a base plate (Cooper 32) that includes a discharge opening (Cooper 42) located on the base plate to discharge conditioned air downward into a building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to lie in a horizontal position and discharge air through an outlet in a baseplate to allow the unit to be used as a rooftop or ceiling HVAC system to increase available interior floorspace.
Regarding claim 19, McNeely and Boutry as applied to claim 18 discloses the diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) is configured to redirect the airflow towards the heater (see McNeely figure 2).
Regarding claim 21, McNeely and Boutry as applied to claim18 teach the diverter baffle is planar (see Boutry figure 2). Therefore, the central axis of the opening will intersect a planar portion of the diverter baffle.
Regarding claim 22, McNeely and Boutry as applied to claim 18 discloses the diverter baffle (McNeely 23 and 24) is configured to direct the airflow towards an outlet (McNeely 26) and therefore inherently will reduce recirculation of airflow within the discharge section and on aside of the diverter baffle opposite the air flow path.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marr et al. (US 2,122,482).
Regarding claim 3, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 1 teach the opening has a first width (see McNeely figure 1).
McNeely’s figures are unclear concerning the width of the diverter baffle.
However, Marr teaches a discharge section wherein an opening (see Marr figure 1) has a first width in a direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the diameter of the fan (Marr 13) and the diverter baffle (Marr 16) has a second width extending in the direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the width of the discharge section (see Marr figure 1). The second width is greater than the first width (see Marr figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Marr’s teaching of a diverter baffle that extends the full width of the discharge section to ensure all of the airflow is properly directed by the diverter baffle to improve system performance.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bianchi et al. (US 2005/0126765 A1).
Regarding claim 7, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 1 teach the discharge section comprises a side plate (see McNeely figure 1) extending from the first wall to the second wall.
McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper are silent regarding the side wall comprising a second additional opening configured to discharge airflow from the discharge section.
However, Bianchi teaches a discharge section for an HVAC system (see Bianchi figure 2) comprising a heat exchanger (Bianchi 200) having a bent profile (see Bianchi figure 2) that increases surface area of the heat exchanger and directs outlet airflow in multiple directions (Bianchi [0014]) without the need for additional ductwork. The airflows include a main airflow (Bianchi 204) and side airflows (Bianchi 206) that flow out of side outlets (Bianchi 260).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Bianchi’s teachings of a bent heat exchanger profile and side outlets to produce a predictable result of increasing the heat exchanger area to improve heat exchanger efficiency and outlet airflow to the sides to allow a side airflow without the need for additional diverters.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876), and Bianchi et al. (US 2005/0126765 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gladden (US 4,602,556).
Regarding claim 8, McNeely, Boutry, Cooper, and Bianchi as applied to claim 7 is silent regarding the diverter baffle having a side panel.
However, Gladden teaches a discharge baffle (Gladden 11) that comprises a side panel (Gladden 41) orthogonal to a first wall (see Gladden figure 1) configured to direct airflow (Gladden col 2 In 51-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Gladden’s teaching of a baffle comprising aside panel to create the predictable result of directing airflow towards the side discharge outlet. Examiner notes that McNeely teaches side panels orthogonal to the first and second walls (see McNeely figure 1). Therefore, Gladden’s orthogonal side panel will be parallel to the side plates.
Regarding claim 9, McNeely, Boutry, Cooper, Bianchi and Gladden as applied to claim 8 teach a side panel (Gladden 41) orthogonal to a first wall (see Gladden figure 1) configured to direct airflow (Gladden column 2 line 51-53).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Marr et al.(US 2,122,482).
Regarding claim 14, McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 11 further teach the opening has a first width (see McNeely figure 1) extending in a direction transverse to the direction along the central axis.
McNeely’s figures are unclear concerning the width of the diverter baffle.
However, Marr teaches a discharge section wherein an opening (see Marr figure 1) has a first width in a direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the diameter of the fan (Marr 13) and the diverter baffle (Marr 16) has a second width extending in the direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the width of the discharge section (see Marr figure 1). The second width is greater than the first width (see Marr figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s heating section to utilize Marr’s teaching of a diverter baffle that extends the full width of the discharge section to ensure all of the airflow is properly directed by the diverter baffle to improve system performance.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Marr et al. (US 2,122,482).
Regarding claim 17, McNeely, Boutry and Cooper as applied to claim 16 teach the heating section comprises first and second blowers (see McNeely figure 1) having a total width in the direction transverse to the direction along the central axis (see McNeely figure 1).
McNeely’s figures are unclear about the exact width of the diverter baffle.
However, Marr teaches a discharge section wherein an opening (see Marr figure 1) has a first width in a direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the diameter of the fan (Marr 13) and the diverter baffle (Marr 16) has a second width extending in the direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the width of the discharge section (see Marr figure 1). The full width of the discharge section is wider than the total width of the blower.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Marr’s teaching of a diverter baffle that extends the full width of the discharge section to ensure all of the airflow is properly directed by the diverter baffle to improve system performance.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gladden (US 4,602,556).
McNeely, Boutry, and Cooper as applied to claim 18 are silent regarding the diverter baffle having a side panel.
However, Gladden teaches a discharge baffle (Gladden 11) that comprises a side panel (Gladden 41) orthogonal to a first wall (see Gladden figure 1) configured to direct airflow (Gladden col 2 In 51-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Gladdens teaching of a baffle comprising aside panel to create the predictable result of directing airflow towards the outlet.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeely (US 4,040,567), Boutry (US2019/0323715 A1), and Cooper et al. (US 4,242,876) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Marr et al. (US2,122,482).
Regarding claim 23, McNeely and Boutry as applied to claim 18 further discloses the opening has a first width (see McNeely figure 1) extending in a direction transverse to the direction along the central axis.
McNeely’s figures are unclear concerning the width of the diverter baffle.
However, Marr teaches a discharge section wherein an opening (see Marr figure 1) has a first width in a direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the diameter of the fan (Marr 13) and the diverter baffle (Marr 16) has a second width extending in the direction transverse to the direction along the central axis equal to the width of the discharge section (see Marr figure 1). The second width is greater than the first width (see Marr figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McNeely’s discharge section to utilize Marr’s teaching of a diverter baffle that extends the full width of the discharge section to ensure all of the airflow is properly directed by the diverter baffle to improve system performance.
Regarding claim 24, McNeely, Boutry, Cooper and Marr as applied to claim 23 teach the discharge section has a third width and the diverter baffle extends the full width of the discharge section and therefore the second width is equal to the third width.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762