DETAILED ACTION
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 11, 21, and 22 are currently pending in the application.
The Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every specification objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections on record and they have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Please see below for the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, in which Armatorio et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0157884) is relied upon to teach a temperature regulator.
The Examiner notes that the counsel requested a telephone call if any of the claims are unpatentable so that “if possible, patentable language can be worked out”.
Due to the extent of the new rejections (see the new 35 U.S.C. 112f interpretation, the new 25 U.S.C. 112a and 112b rejections, and the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below), patentable language cannot be worked out through an Examiner’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “supplying air” in line 15, which should recite “supplying the pressurized air” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “delivers air” in line 2, which should recite “delivers the pressurized air” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 recites “a flow direction” in line 4, which should recite “the flow direction” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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: “temperature regulator” in claim 1.
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 shows 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: Page 13, lines 3-5, corresponding to Paragraph 0113, recites "Figure 34 shows the compressors (70), sending air into the aircraft through check vales (76) to a selector valve (77), and then to the filter (11a), temperature gauge (78) and temperature regulator (79), then to the filter (11a)…" It is noted there is no further detail as to the components that constitute the temperature regulator. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to interpret the metes and bounds of "temperature regulator".
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a temperature regulator” in lines 17-18.
The specification, as originally filed on 03/04/2021 merely recites "Figure 34 shows the compressors (70), sending air into the aircraft through check vales (76) to a selector valve (77), and then to the filter (11a), temperature gauge (78) and temperature regulator (79), then to the filter (11a)…" on Page 13, lines 3-5, corresponding to Paragraph 0113.
The drawings as originally filed does not illustrate the specific components of the temperature regulator, as 79 is a generic black box.
In the Remarks filed 12/22/2025, the Applicant argues “the term temperature regulator is a term of art that is known” on Pages 3-4. On Page 4, the Applicant recites two definitions of “temperature regulator”, one from an AI overview and one from Watson McDaniel, a temperature regulator supplier. It is noted neither of these definitions directly relate to the aircraft art. The Applicant further recites “any reasonable interpretation of a temperature regulator necessarily requires monitoring and control of a temperature by a sensor and control by a control mechanism” on Page 4. However, “any reasonable interpretation” of a temperature regulator is up to the discretion of one of ordinary skill. Because discretion is relied upon, the metes and bounds of the Applicant’s “temperature regulator” cannot be determined.
As no structural components are recited in the description or illustrated in the drawings to perform the function of regulating the temperature, the metes and bounds of “temperature regulator” cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, the written description requirement is not satisfied.
Claims 4, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected for their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a temperature regulator” in lines 17-18.
The specification, as originally filed on 03/04/2021 merely recites "Figure 34 shows the compressors (70), sending air into the aircraft through check vales (76) to a selector valve (77), and then to the filter (11a), temperature gauge (78) and temperature regulator (79), then to the filter (11a)…" on Page 13, lines 3-5, corresponding to Paragraph 0113.
The drawings as originally filed does not illustrate the specific components of the temperature regulator, as 79 is a generic black box.
In the Remarks filed 12/22/2025, the Applicant argues “the term temperature regulator is a term of art that is known” on Pages 3-4. On Page 4, the Applicant recites two definitions of “temperature regulator”, one from an AI overview and one from Watson McDaniel, a temperature regulator supplier. It is noted neither of these definitions directly relate to the aircraft art. The Applicant further recites “any reasonable interpretation of a temperature regulator necessarily requires monitoring and control of a temperature by a sensor and control by a control mechanism” on Page 4. However, “any reasonable interpretation” of a temperature regulator is up to the discretion of one of ordinary skill. Because discretion is relied upon, the “metes and bounds” of the Applicant’s “temperature regulator” cannot be determined.
As no structural components are recited in the description or illustrated in the drawings to perform the function of regulating the temperature, the metes and bounds of the Applicant’s “temperature regulator” cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill. This yields the claim indefinite.
Claims 4, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected for their dependency on Claim 1.
Appropriate action is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noske et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0040546) in view of Trent et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,518,522), Levine et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,559,939), and Armatorio et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0157884).
Regarding Claim 1, Noske shows (Figures 1 and 2):
A germ protection system (system illustrated in Figure 1) for a pressurized aircraft cabin (12) having seats (2) for individual passengers, the pressurized aircraft cabin (12) having a ventilation and air conditioning supply (14) for preventing germs, the system (system illustrated in Figure 1) comprising:
a compressor (17) configured for taking air from outside (the compressor may be an engine, as recited in Paragraph 0023, an engine takes air from outside the pressurized aircraft cabin as warm engine bleed air) the pressurized aircraft cabin (12) and fluidically connected to (via 8, as illustrated in Figure 1) the ventilation and air conditioning supply (14) for supplying (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in the figures) pressurized air (described in Paragraphs 0016 and 0023) to the pressurized aircraft cabin (12); and
a respective device (5/6) disposed at each of (as described in Paragraphs 0019 and 0020) the seats (2) and connected to the ventilation and air conditioning supply (14) for delivering the pressurized air (described in Paragraphs 0016 and 0023) from said compressor (17) to said devices (5/6) for supplying the pressurized air and preventing germs, bacteria, protozoa, viruses or parasites from being breathed (as illustrated in Figure 2 and described in Paragraph 0020, by supplying a personal airflow to each individual through 5/6 in the individual’s seat, germs, bacteria, protozoa, viruses or parasites within the aircraft cabin is prevented from being breathed in by the passenger, since a clean/filtered air supply is provided to each individual passenger. The passenger’s exhaled air is drawn upward from each seat to 16, preventing contamination of each passenger’s clean/filtered personal airflow); and
a mixing air system (8) disposed between (as illustrated in Figure 1) said compressor (17) and said devices (5/6) with respect to a flow direction (flow direction from 17 to 5, as illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1).
However, Noske lacks showing the compressor is electrically driven, the respective device is a mask, and the mixing air system comprises a temperature regulator.
In the same field of endeavor of aircraft ventilation systems, Trent teaches (Figures 1B and 2A):
It is known in the art for an aircraft (100) to comprise a pressurized aircraft cabin (108), a ventilation and air conditioning supply (124), and an electrically driven compressor (compressor associated with 165; “the engine 170 or the APU 164 electrically, pneumatically, hydraulically or mechanically drive a compressor to generate the compressed air”, Col. 6, lines 43-45; therefore, Trent teaches an electrically driven compressor), and a respective device (140), wherein
the compressor (compressor associated with 165; “the engine 170 or the APU 164 electrically, pneumatically, hydraulically or mechanically drive a compressor to generate the compressed air”, Col. 6, lines 43-45; therefore, Trent teaches an electrically driven compressor) is disposed external to (as illustrated in Figure 2A, the compressor is located in 112) the pressurized aircraft cabin (108) and fluidically connected to (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in Figure 2A) the ventilation and air conditioning supply (124) for supplying pressurized air (210) to the pressurized aircraft cabin (108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the compressor shown by Noske to be an electrically driven compressor, as taught by Trent, to provide better control over the pressurized air created by the compressor, by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. “electrically, pneumatically, hydraulically or mechanically drive a compressor to generate the compressed air”, Trent Col. 6, lines 43-45) with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the same field of endeavor of aircraft seat personal ventilation systems, Levine teaches (Figures 1 and 10):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, title) art for a passenger (24) in a seat (22a) to use a device (device illustrated in Figure 1) comprising a mask (26) delivering air to a mouth and nose (the mouth and nose of passenger 24 using mask 26, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 10), wherein said mask (26) has a duct (44) attached to a supply source of pressurized fresh cabin air (as described in Col. 5, lines 4-7) in a backrest (as illustrated in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device shown by Noske to further include a well-known mask delivering air directly to the nose and mouth, as taught by Levine, to allow a passenger to choose a more contained system to prevent the spread of germs if the passenger is coughing or sneezing.
In the same field of endeavor of aircraft ventilation systems, Armatorio teaches (Figure 1A):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, title) art for a mixing air system (109) to comprise a temperature regulator (heat exchanger; as recited in Paragraph 0028, “a temperature regulator such as a heat exchanger”, therefore a heat exchanger is a temperature regulator).
Further, “a temperature regulator such as a heat exchanger can be coupled to the duct network and configured to control the temperature of the air flow”, Paragraph 0028.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the mixing air system shown by Noske to include a temperature regulator such as a heat exchanger, as taught by Armatorio, to increase the comfort for the passengers on the aircraft by controlling the temperature of the air flow supplied to the passengers.
Regarding Claim 4, Levine teaches (Figures 1 and 10):
Said mask (26) delivers air to a mouth and nose (the mouth and nose of passenger 24 using mask 26, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 10), wherein said mask (26) has a duct (44) attached to a backrest of the seat (as illustrated in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Levine teaches (Figures 1 and 10):
Said duct (44 has a quick connect coupling (46) for connection to said mask (26).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noske et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0040546), Trent et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,518,522), Levine et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,559,939), and Armatorio et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0157884), as recited in Claim 1 above, further in view of Cronin (U.S. Patent No. 4,684,081)
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Noske shows (Figures 1 and 2):
Said compressor (17) and the ventilation and air conditioning supply (14) with respect to a flow direction (the flow direction from 17 to 5/6).
However, the combination lacks showing a check valve disposed between said compressor and the ventilation and air conditioning supply (as recited in Claim 21) and a selector valve disposed between said check valve and the ventilation and air conditioning supply (as recited in Claim 22) with respect to the flow direction.
In the same field of endeavor of aircraft ventilation and air conditioning supply systems, Cronin teaches (Figure 2):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, title) art that known components of a ventilation and air conditioning supply system (system illustrated in Figure 2) include a compressor (22), a check valve (74) located downstream of (as illustrated in Figure 2, 74 is located downstream of 22 in the direction of air flow) the compressor (22), a selector valve (78) located downstream of (as illustrated in Figure 2, 78 is downstream of 74 in the direction of air flow) the check valve (74), and a ventilation and air conditioning supply (duct illustrated by line labeled “to cabin” in Figure 2) located downstream of (as illustrated in Figure 2, duct “to cabin” is located downstream of 78) the selector valve (78).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system shown by Noske to include the known aircraft components of a check valve disposed between said compressor and the ventilation and air conditioning supply (as recited in Claim 21) and a selector valve disposed between said check valve and the ventilation and air conditioning supply (as recited in Claim 22) with respect to the flow direction, as taught by Cronin, to prevent damage to the compressor and allow for control over the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 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, Steve McAllister can be reached on (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 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.
/D. T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762