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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 03/26/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 6-9 regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds while the Applicants arguments on whole are based on newly claimed elements that have been addressed in the rejection below, the Examiner does note the Applicants arguments tangentially pertain to any exhaust system “beneath the floor” (bottom of page 7 and top of page 9); this argument appears to be a redundant argument the Examiner addressed in the Final Office Action filed 01/27/2026 on Page 3. However, there currently exists no claim language limiting or delimiting such a system from being under any floor. Certainly, if the Applicant believes such a difference to be measurable, then the Examiner invites the Applicant for a discussion on how to further distinguish over the prior art. As the claim language stands now, given the rejection of the newly amended claim language below, and as previously stated, in view of the Applicants arguments consists over structure in a method claim, where the rejection of record of the claim language as constructed performs all the claimed functions, as per MPEP 2115 which says material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. Taylor is capable of performing the claimed functions of the exhaust system combined with the teachings of Reid, the functions of the claim language as currently constructed, are met, overcoming the Applicants argument.
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.
Claims 19, 20, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 5,410,120), in view of Reid et al (US 2017/0212357), hereinafter referred to as Reid.
Regarding claim 19, Taylor (US 5,410,120) shows a method of dispelling ambient air containing fumes in an industrial workspace arranged within an open factory, the industrial workspace including a floor and a roof disposed above the floor, the method comprising:
directing a conditioned air stream from a supply duct (42, Fig. 3) to a vertical diffuser (34, Fig. 3) having a plurality of louver plates (34a-d, Fig. 3/6);
introducing the conditioned air stream at a velocity (Fig. 3/5, Col. 7, Lines 62-68 – conditioned air stream is introduced at a velocity) at a distance away from the vertical diffuser (Fig. 5) by laminar flow into the ambient air containing fumes (Fig. 3/5, Col. 7, Lines 62-68);
displacing ambient air containing fumes by the laminar conditioned air flow (Fig. 3/5, Col. 7, Lines 62-68) such that the ambient air containing fumes is displaced in a vertical direction towards an exhaust duct inlet of an exhaust system (Fig. 1/3, see Annotated Figure 1, Col. 5, Lines 16-18), the exhaust duct inlet arranged in proximity to the roof (28, Fig. 1/3 – the exhaust duct inlet is arranged in relative proximity to the roof of the structure); and
exhausting ambient air containing fumes through the exhaust system (14, Col. 5, Lines 16-18, Fig. 3 see Annotated Figure 1 – the dashed arrows reflect the movement of the ambient air containing fumes as it moves through the exhaust system).
Regarding claim 19 an the limitation “introducing the conditioned air stream at a velocity less than 150 feet per minute at a distance of 12 inches away from the diffuser”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in Taylor, where Taylor shows introducing the conditioned air stream at a velocity (Fig. 3/6, Col. 7, Lines 62-68 – conditioned air stream is introduced at a velocity) at a distance away from the diffuser (Fig. 5). It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
However, Taylor lacks showing the diffuser arranged in proximity to the floor,
Reid (US 2017/0212357), an industrial air system, is in the same field of endeavor as Taylor which is an industrial air system.
Reid teaches the diffuser (64, Fig. 1) arranged in proximity to the floor (Fig. 1/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diffuser of Taylor to incorporate the teachings of the diffuser of Reid, which would provide a diffuser at a position where it can easily be relocated to facilitate re-routing of the ducts (¶0005, Lines 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 20, Taylor shows wherein the conditioned air stream from the vertical diffuser is at a lower temperature and a higher density than the ambient air containing fumes in the industrial workspace (Fig. 3, Col. 6, Lines 45-60 – the ambient air containing the fumes is already hot, wherein conditioned air stream is at a lower temperature by default, with the general laws of physics stating that colder air is more dense, meaning, the conditioned air stream from the vertical diffuser is at a lower temperature and at a higher density because of the cooler temperature, than the ambient air containing fumes in the workspace), such that the cool air stream (Fig. 5) displaces the ambient air containing fumes (124, Fig. 5) and forces the ambient air containing fumes in a vertical direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Taylor shows wherein the conditioned air stream is contaminated and heated by a welding process to become ambient air containing fumes (Fig. 5).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 5,410,120), in view of Reid et al (US 2017/0212357), hereinafter referred to as Reid, in further view of Perkinson et al (US 2020/0309390), hereinafter referred to as Perkinson.
Regarding claim 21, Taylor shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 19 including wherein the conditioned air stream from the vertical diffuser is introduced into the industrial workspace at temperature relative to that of the temperature of the ambient air containing fumes (Col. 6, Lines 45-60).
However, Taylor lacks showing wherein the conditioned air stream from the vertical diffuser is introduced into the industrial workspace at temperature at least 5°F less than the temperature of the ambient air.
Perkinson (US 2020/0309390), an indoor air circulation system, is in the same field of endeavor as Taylor which is an indoor air circulation system.
Perkinson teaches wherein the conditioned air stream from the diffuser (30, Fig. 8) is introduced into the industrial workspace (22, Fig. 8, ¶0033, Lines 5-11) at temperature at least 5°F less than the temperature of the ambient air (Fig. 8 – the conditioned air stream is introduced into the industrial workspace 22 at 60” is at 80.0 degrees Fahrenheit, while the ambient air in the room 31, of which air is at a temperature of 86.4 degrees Fahrenheit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conditioned air stream of Taylor to incorporate the teachings of the conditioned air stream of Perkinson, which would provide a wide range of relatively cooler temperatures able to cool people of differing heights, at different ranges across separate body heights, providing comfort and usable oxygen to the worker in the workspace (Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Oh (KR100994929), however this reference does not disclose the diffuser deck being disposed within the frame members and having the opening of each subsequent louver plate below an uppermost louver plate having an area less than the area of the louver plate directly above. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oh as it would employ hindsight reasoning while modifying the mechanical function of the air distribution action of Oh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights