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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the limitation “each through hole being provided with a logarithmic valve for automatically adjusting a size of the through-opening in dependence on air pressure on either side of the floor tile”, to which the element of “the through-opening” has yet to be invoked, however, the same claim recites limitations pertaining to the through-holes. To obviate the objection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the term “through-openings” to the already invoked “through-holes”. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for depending from an objected to claim.
Claim 21, the first instance of “MVHR” in line 4 should at least be recited to read “mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR),” i.e. in similar fashion to claim 12.
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 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:
Claims 3 and 17 – “A moveable blocking member… displaceable along a surface area of the tile for at least partly blocking off the through-holes.”
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a plate-shaped structure identified as element number 16’ as at least illustrated in Figure 4B, and at least described in paragraph 0066 of the 11/28/2022 specification.
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 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 5, 13, & 21-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein each floor tile is provided with upper through-openings of a first diameter in a predefined pattern and wherein the blocking member is provided with lower through-openings in a predefined pattern matching the predefined pattern of the upper through-openings, each lower through-opening having a second diameter which is larger than the first diameter or being slot-shaped, having a length which is larger than the first diameter and a width at least equal to the first diameter, the upper and lower through-openings forming the through-holes of the floor tile“, to which it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of limitation pertaining to the upper and lower through-holes just being “slot shaped”, with no insight to whether the slot-shape required the previous limitations of the upper and lower through-openings and their relative diameters, and conversely, it is unclear as to if the openings have a diameter, which a diameter is known as s straight line passing from side to side through the center of a body or figure, especially a circle or sphere, as to how the limitations related to the slot-shape and their having a length which is which is larger than the first diameter and a width at least equal to the first diameter, are to have a width and a length applied to the diameter of a circle, which has no measurement of length, relative to its diameter, as a diameter is equidistant. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as a Markush claim limitation where the option of: “or being slot-shaped, having a length which is larger than the first diameter and a width at least equal to the first diameter, the upper and lower through-openings forming the through-holes of the floor tile” not being the chosen limitation.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the ventilation unit is a modular unit comprising at least four equally sized and shaped modules, preferably eight”, to which is unclear as to whether the ventilation unit is to comprise of four or eight equally sized and shaped modules. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as there being at least four equally sized and shaped modules, but eight aren’t necessarily required. Should the Applicant want patentable weight for eight modules, then the “preferably” language should be removed with eight modules positively claimed.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 21 recites the limitation “and preferably - a MVHR system module, comprising a MVHR system and a bypass”, to which is unclear is the claimed invention is to comprise of a MVHR system module, comprising a MVHR system and a bypass or not. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as not necessarily being required for the claim, but for the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will search for the limitation regardless as it would seem to be a component that could be part of the system, of which the Applicant specifically mentions to possibly be included over other elements that could be included as well. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for being dependent from a rejected claim. To overcome this rejection, the Applicant should remove the “preferably” language and positively claim the MVHR system module, comprising a MVHR system and a bypass, if this was the Applicant’s intent.
Regarding Claim 21, the third to last line of the claim, the limitation “the modules are stackable and connectable…” renders the claim indefinite, since it’s not entirely clear if “the modules” is a reference to all six modules recited prior to, i.e. the first and second fan module; the first and second inlet module; and the first and second outlet module. In other words, all six modules required to be stackable and connectable? Or 2, 3, 4, or 5?
Claim 12 should be amended to explicitly indicate if all 6 modules, or if not, which specific modules are “stackable and connectable” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “for forming a ventilation unit for use in a ventilation system according to claim 13” (emphasis added) renders claim 21 indefinite for the following reasons.
The invention of claim 21 is directed to a set of modules, per se; but claim 21 is also technically dependent on claim 13 since the claim makes reference to claim 13 in the preamble. Claim 10, from which claim 13 depends from, specifies that the claimed ventilation system of claim 10, “further comprising a ventilation unit.” Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, also requires that this ventilation unit requires four or eight modules. Circling back to claim 21, claim 21 now claims “a set of modules… for forming a ventilation unit for use in a ventilation system according to claim 13.”
In other words, it’s unclear if the set of modules of claim 21 that are for “forming a ventilation unit,” are the same modules, or different from the modules of claims 10 and 13.
A review of the specification appears to indicate that there’s only one ventilation unit (200) with modules as depicted in Figure 6, and at least described in paragraph 0076 of the Applicant’s as-filed Specification.
For the purpose of examination, the modules/ventilation unit of claim 21 will be construed to be the same as those in claims 10/13.
To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests the Applicant to avoid the shorthand reference to claim 13 in claim 21’s preamble, and recite whatever structure that is intended to correspond to the “set of modules” in the body of the claim only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer (US 3,277,811).
Regarding Claim 15, Fischer (US 3,277,811) discloses a floor tile (1/2, Fig. 1) for use in a ventilation system having a predetermined permeability and sound proofing (Col. 1, Lines 12-16 – the floor tile 1/2 is used in a ventilation system and has a predetermined permeability and sound proofing)
With regards to the limitation “for use in a ventilation system according to claim 1,” it’s noted that this is a limitation of intended use within the preamble of claim 15, which according to MPEP 2111.02 (Effect of Preamble), Section II, is “not considered a limitation and is of no significant to claim construction” since the body of claim 15 “fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention,” i.e. claim 15 structurally requires a lid having a predetermined permeability and sound proofing. Despite this intended use limitation not being considered a limitation, the Examiner still takes the position that Fischer’s floor tiles are structurally capable of being implemented in the ventilation system as recited in claim 1
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE
The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applegate (GB2296968).
Regarding Claim 21, Applegate discloses (see Figures 4 and 6) a set of modules for forming a ventilation unit (see Figures 4 and 6) for use in a ventilation system according to claim 13 (it is the examiner’s position that the ventilation unit in Figures 4 and 6 is structurally and/or functionally capable of being used with the ventilation system according to claim 13; see the interpretation to this limitation per the rejection under 112b, above), the set of modules comprising:
a first (module holding fan 148, Fig. 6; see annotated figure A, below) and a second fan module (module holding fan 156, Fig. 6; see annotated figure A, below), each comprising a fan–
a first (see the annotated figure A, below) and a second (see the annotated figure A, below) inlet module, each comprising an air inlet (see the inlets that correspond to incoming fresh air 160, and the inlet that corresponds to incoming vitiated air 162)
a first (see the annotated figure A, below) and a second (see the annotated figure A, below) outlet module, each comprising an air outlet, and preferably - a MVHR system module, comprising a MVHR system (see the last paragraph on page 1, and first paragraph 2 of the written description, referencing the “recuperator” which is a key component of a mechanical ventilation heat recovery system and illustrated as heat exchangers 102 and 104 in at least Figure 4 and 6) (see the housing of Figure 6 that is segmented or divided into separate frames that define modules, stacked on top of one another; the construction of Figure 6’s housing is very similar or substantially identical to the one shown in Figure 6 of the Applicant’s own invention) and connectable (fluidly + physically connected) such that the first inlet module, the first fan module (i.e. 148) and the first outlet module form an air supply channel (see “supply” 160 in Fig. 6 with an outgoing arrow) and the second inlet module, the second fan module (i.e. 156) and the second outlet module form an air outlet channel (see “exhaust” 162 in Fig. 6 with an outgoing arrow).
It’s noted that “preferably” has the same meaning as “optionally,” so Applegate isn’t necessarily required to disclose the claimed MVHR system module, nor the bypass. Regardless, Applegate has the MVHR system module, and examiner notes that bypasses in MVHR system modules are already known in the art per page 3 and element 60 in GB 2513093.
PNG
media_image1.png
705
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegate (GB2296968).
Regarding Claim 22, Applegate discloses the set of modules according to claim 21, wherein each module is comprised in a housing (as noted per the annotated figure A, above). Applegate doesn’t explicitly disclose that the housing has a length (L1) equal to the width of two floor tiles and a depth (D1) equal to the width of one floor tile.
It’s noted that the floor tiles recited in claim 22 aren’t positively claimed as structure that the set of modules comprises, per se. In other words, these claimed tiles are being interpreted as hypothetical tiles.
With regards to changes in size and proportion, MPEP 2144.04, Section IV.A. notes that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it’s the examiner’s position that a change in size/proportion is routinely expedient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Applegate so that each module’s housing length (L1) in Applegate to be equal to the width of two floor tiles, and to modify each module’s housing depth (D1) to be equal to the width of one floor tile, for a specific application in which a specific size would be relevant or desired, such as to conserve space. The abstract of Applegate mentions “The heat exchangers may be stacked one above the other to save space (Fig. 6),” so such an endeavor is acknowledged by Applegate. It appears that Applegate’s device (Fig. 6) would not perform differently to a device having the recited dimensions of claim 6.
Claims 1, 8, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo (JPH08121851) shows a ventilation system for ventilating a room, comprising:
a lowered ceiling (6, Fig. 10), defining a ceiling space (7, Fig. 10) which, when installed, is between the lowered ceiling and a ceiling (5, Fig. 10) of the room (9, Fig. 10), the lowered ceiling having a ceiling surface area that is air permeable (Fig. 10 – the lowered ceiling 6 comprises of elements 8, of which passes air, making the lower ceiling 6 air permeable);
a raised flooring (2, Fig. 10), defining a floor space (3, Fig. 10) which, when installed, is between the raised flooring and a floor (1, Fig. 10) of the room (Fig. 10), the raised flooring being air permeable (Fig. 10 – the raised floor 2 is air permeable as air flows through elements 4) over a floor surface area that is opposite to the air permeable ceiling surface area (Fig. 10);
an air supply (see Annotated Figure 1) connected with an air supply inlet (see Annotated Figure 1) to the floor space for supplying air into the floor space (see Annotated Figure 1); and
an air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1), connected to the ceiling space for exiting air from the ceiling space (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the air permeability of the raised flooring varies in dependence on distance from the air supply inlet (Fig. 10 – the air permeability of the raised flooring 2 varies in dependence on a distance from the air supply inlet, as the longer a fluid is from a source, the more pressure is lost due to friction) for forming a substantial vertical air flow in which air entering the room through the floor surface area displaces air in the room in the vertical direction and forces air out through the ceiling surface area (Fig. 10).
However, Kubo lacks showing the raised flooring being supported by a support frame.
Kaneda (JPH0794915), a raised flooring ventilation system, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is a raised flooring ventilation system.
Kaneda teaches the raised flooring (11, Fig. 3) being supported by a support frame (12, Fig. 3).
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 raised flooring of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the support frame of Kaneda, which would provide a structure to be able to position a large number of flooring tiles flatly (Page 4, Lines 15-17).
PNG
media_image2.png
388
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 8, Kubo shows wherein the floor surface area of the raised flooring comprises a protective zone (see Annotated Figure 1 – the floor surface area of the raised flooring comprises of a protective zone for reducing the transverse transfer of aerosols within the room; of which the protective zone has an increased permeability with respect to the surrounding floor surface area that is not air permeable), the protective zone having an increased permeability with respect to the surrounding floor surface area (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kubo shows further comprising a diffuser (see Annotated Figure 1), located at the air supply inlet (see Annotated Figure 1) and adapted to direct incoming air into multiple radial directions in the floor space (Fig. 5/10 – the diffuser is adapted to direct incoming air into multiple radial directions in the floor space, as the diffuser directs the incoming air into the multiple radial directions that exist in the area of the floor space)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), in further view of Naughton et al (US 2018/0356119), hereinafter referred to as Naughton.
Regarding claim 2, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the raised flooring comprises a plurality of floor tiles (2, Fig. 9/10) with through-holes (4, Fig. 10), and the air supply inlet.
However, Kubo lacks showing wherein the number of through-holes per cm2 and/or size of the through-holes is adapted as a function of the distance from the air supply inlet.
Naughton (US 2018/0356119), a HVAC diffuser, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is an HVAC diffuser.
Naughton teaches wherein the number of through-holes per
c
m
2
and/or size of the through-holes is adapted as a function of the distance from the air supply inlet (¶0015, Fig. 2 – the number of the through-holes per
c
m
2
is adapted as a function of the distance from the air supply inlet 16, as the through-holes 18 vary in distribution under the footprint of the air supply inlet 16, as opposed to outside of the footprint of the air supply inlet 16).
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 through-holes of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the through-holes of Naughton, which would create a more efficient forced air flows while also being of low cost to manufacture (¶0004).
Claims 3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), in further view of Naughton et al (US 2018/0356119), hereinafter referred to as Naughton, in further view of Shin (US 2020/0077853).
Regarding claim 3, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including each floor tile (Fig. 9/10).
However, Kubo lacks showing wherein each floor tile is provided with a moveable blocking member that is displaceable along a surface area of the tile for at least partly blocking off the through-holes.
Shin (US 2020/0077853), a floor with air passages, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is a floor with air passages.
Shin teaches wherein the floor tile (120, Fig. 3) is provided with a moveable blocking member (300, Fig.4/5 ) that is displaceable along a surface area of the tile for at least partly blocking off the through-holes (121, Fig. 4/5). Examiner notes that the claimed moveable blocking member is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), above. The Applicant’s disclosed corresponding structure for carrying out the claimed function, as noted above, is a plate-shaped structure. While Shin’s balls 330 aren’t plate-shaped, per se, it is the Examiner’s position that Shin’s balls 330 carry out the same or identical claimed function and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification, and is therefore considered an equivalent.
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 through holes of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the through-holes of Shin, which would provide enhanced dust collecting efficiencies (¶0009).
Regarding claim 6, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the each floor tile and the through-holes.
Shin teaches wherein each of the through-holes (121, Fig. 4/5) in the floor tile (120, Fig. 3) is provided with a logarithmic valve for automatically adjusting a size of the through-opening in dependence on air pressure (Fig. 4/5 – each through hole comprises of its own relative logarithmic valve 200/300, which is functional for adjusting the size of the through-holes, which involves air pressure within element 111, air pressure in the room above, and the pressure represented by the weight of the shoe/body in the shoe).
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 through holes of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the through-holes of Shin, which would provide enhanced dust collecting efficiencies (¶0009).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), in further view of Naughton et al (US 2018/0356119), hereinafter referred to as Naughton, in further view of Shin (US 2020/0077853), in further view of Bastow (US 2012/0129443).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 3 including each floor tile (2, Fig. 10), and the through-holes having a first diameter in a predefined pattern (Fig. 10 – the through-holes 4 comprise of a first diameter in a predefined pattern).
However, Kubo lacks showing wherein each floor tile is provided with upper through-openings of a first diameter in a predefined pattern and wherein the blocking member is provided with lower through-openings in a predefined pattern matching the predefined pattern of the upper through-openings, each lower through-opening having a second diameter which is larger than the first diameter or being slot-shaped, having a length which is larger than the first diameter and a width at least equal to the first diameter, the upper and lower through-openings forming the through-holes of the floor tile.
Bastow (US 2012/0129443), an air supply device for a building HVAC, which is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is an air supply device for a building HVAC.
Bastow teaches wherein the floor tile is provided with upper through-openings (see Annotated Figure 3) of a first diameter in a predefined pattern (see Annotated Figure 3) and
wherein the blocking member (1b, Fig. 3b) is provided with lower through-openings (see Annotated Figure 3) in a predefined pattern matching the predefined pattern of the upper through-openings see (Annotated Figure 3), each lower through-opening having a second diameter which is larger than the first diameter (see Annotated Figure 3) or being slot-shaped, having a length which is larger than the first diameter and a width at least equal to the first diameter (The following limitation is understood as a Markush claim in which the option of “or being slot-shaped, having a length which is larger than the first diameter and a width at least equal to the first diameter” was not selected),
the upper and lower through-openings forming the through-holes of the tile (10, Fig. 2a-b /3a-b).
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 floor tiles and the through-holes of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of upper and lower through-openings of Bastow, which would provide a slender, functional air terminal on exterior walls to compensate for heat gain and loss through the walls(¶0011).
PNG
media_image3.png
725
1123
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), in further view of Naughton et al (US 2018/0356119), hereinafter referred to as Naughton, in further view of Kelpentidjian (US 2012/0115409).
Regarding claim 9, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 3 including a section of the ceiling surface area has a permeability (Fig. 10), and a section of the floor surface area that is opposite (Fig. 10) and is air permeable (Fig. 10).
However, Kubo lacks showing wherein a section of the ceiling surface area has a permeability that is equal or higher than a section of the floor surface area that is opposite.
Kelpentidjian (US 2012/0115409), a ventilated enclosure with airflow through the floor, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is a ventilated enclosure with airflow through the floor.
Kelpentidjian teaches a section of the ceiling surface area has a permeability that is equal or higher than a section of the floor surface area that is opposite (¶0021 / 0050 – the ceiling surface area 9 has a permeability higher than a section of the floor surface area 13 that is opposite of the ceiling surface area, as the flow rate of the suction means 20 will be greater than the flow rate of the blower means that pressurizes supply duct 18).
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 air permeability of the ceiling surface area and the air permeability of the floor surface area of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the air permeability of the ceiling surface area and the air permeability of the floor surface area of Kelpentidjian, which would provide a relaxation space in which air is fed in from the entire area of the floor and drawn off from the entire area of the ceiling without the supply of air generating either draughts or predictable air flow noise (¶0010).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), in further view of Fischer (US 3,277,811).
Regarding claim 7, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the raised flooring.
However, Kubo lacks showing wherein the raised flooring comprises a sound proofing material, which in the floor surface area –
forms a resistance against air flow through the floor surface area and varies in thickness and/or density as a function of the distance from the air inlet;
and/or - is provided with through-holes, wherein the number of through-holes per cm2 and/or size of the through-holes is adapted as a function of the distance from the air supply inlet.
Fischer (US 3,277,811), a floor structure for transferring air, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is a floor structure for transferring air.
Fischer teaches wherein the raised flooring comprises a sound proofing material (Col. 1, Lines 12-16), which in the floor surface area –
forms a resistance against air flow through the floor surface area (Fig. 1 – the physical structure of the floor surface area itself forms the resistance against the air flow through the floor surface area) and varies in thickness and/or density as a function of the distance from the air inlet (see Annotated Figure 2).
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 raised flooring material of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the sound proofing material of Fischer, which would provide a floor material that would prevent or reduce the penetration of noises into the passenger compartment (Col. 1, Lines 12-16).
PNG
media_image4.png
542
824
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claims 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 3,277,811), in view of Shin (US 2020/0077853).
Regarding claim 16, Fischer shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 15 including comprising a plurality of through-holes (14, Fig. 1).
However, Fischer lacks showing each through hole being provided with a logarithmic valve for automatically adjusting a size of the through-opening in dependence on air pressure on either side of the floor tile.
Shin (US 2020/0077853), a floor with air passages, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is a floor with air passages.
Shin teaches each through hole (121, Fig. 4/5) being provided with a logarithmic valve for automatically adjusting a size of the through-opening in dependence on air pressure on either side of the floor tile (Fig. 4/5 – each through hole comprises of its own relative logarithmic valve 200/300, which is functional for adjusting the size of the through-opening, which involves air pressure within element 111, air pressure in the room above, and the pressure represented by the weight of the shoe/body in the shoe).
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 through holes of Fischer to incorporate the teachings of the through-holes of Shin, which would provide enhanced dust collecting efficiencies (¶0009).
Regarding claim 17, Fischer shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 15 including comprising a plurality of through-holes (14, Fig. 1).
However, Fischer lacks showing a moveable blocking member that is displaceable along a surface area of the floor tile for at least partly blocking off the through-holes.
Shin teaches a plurality of through-holes (121, Fig. 5) and a moveable blocking member (300, Fig. 5) that is displaceable along a surface area of the floor tile for at least partly blocking off the through-holes (Fig. 4/5). Examiner notes that the claimed moveable blocking member is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), above. The Applicant’s disclosed corresponding structure for carrying out the claimed function, as noted above, is a plate-shaped structure. While Shin’s balls 330 aren’t plate-shaped, per se, it is the Examiner’s position that Shin’s balls 330 carry out the same or identical claimed function and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification, and is therefore considered an equivalent.
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 through holes of Fischer to incorporate the teachings of the through-holes of Shin, which would provide enhanced dust collecting efficiencies (¶0009).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), Moriya et al (JP2009180425), hereinafter referred to as Moriya.
Regarding claim 10, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including a ventilation unit (see Annotated Figure 1 - the unit for ventilating the room comprises of the outlined ventilation unit in the Annotated Figure 1 and element 48), the air supply, the air outlet, an air supply fan (14, Fig. 10).
However, Kubo lacks showing further comprising a ventilation unit which comprises the air supply and the air outlet, wherein the air supply comprises an outside-air inlet, arranged for receiving air from an outdoor environment, and an air supply fan, arranged between the outside-air inlet and the air supply inlet, to force air from the outdoor environment to the air supply inlet of the floor space, and wherein the air outlet comprises an inside-air inlet, connected to the ceiling space for exiting air from the ceiling space, an inside-air outlet, connected to the inside-air inlet and arranged for exiting air to the outdoor environment, and an air removal fan, arranged in between the inside-air inlet and the inside-air outlet, to force air from the ceiling space to the inside-air outlet.
Moriya (JP2009180425), a floor ventilated room, is in the same field of endeavor as Kubo which is a floor ventilated room.
Moriya teaches further comprising a ventilation unit which comprises the air supply and the air outlet (see Annotated Figure 4),
wherein the air supply comprises
an outside-air inlet (see Annotated Figure 4), arranged for receiving air from an outdoor environment (see Annotated Figure 4), and
an air supply fan (see Annotated Figure 4), arranged between the outside-air inlet and the air supply inlet (see Annotated Figure 4), to force air from the outdoor environment to the air supply inlet of the floor space (see Annotated Figure 4), and
wherein the air outlet comprises
an inside-air inlet (see Annotated Figure 4), connected to the ceiling space for exiting air from the ceiling space (see Annotated Figure 4), an inside-air outlet (see Annotated Figure 4), connected to the inside-air inlet and arranged for exiting air to the outdoor environment (see Annotated Figure 4), and
an air removal fan (see Annotated Figure 4), arranged in between the inside-air inlet (see Annotated Figure 4) and the inside-air outlet (see Annotated Figure 4), to force air from the ceiling space to the inside-air outlet (see Annotated Figure 4).
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 ventilation unit of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the ventilation unit of Moriya, which would provide a means to reduce the installation costs for underfloor air conditioning and easily equalize the volume of air blown out from each outlet (¶0010).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 11, Kubo shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 10 including the air supply inlet and the ventilation unit.
However, Kubo lacks showing wherein the ventilation unit further comprises a filter, arranged between the outside-air inlet and the air supply inlet and adapted to filter the incoming air from contaminants.
Moriya teaches wherein the ventilation unit further comprises a filter (21, Fig. 1), arranged between the outside-air inlet and the air supply inlet (see Annotated Figure 4) and adapted to filter the incoming air from contaminants (see Annotated Figure 4 - the filter is adapted to filter incoming air from contaminants).
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 ventilation unit of Kubo to incorporate the teachings of the ventilation unit of Moriya, which would provide a means to reduce the installation costs for underfloor air conditioning and easily equalize the volume of air blown out from each outlet (¶0010).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo (as evidenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation), in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), Moriya et al (JP2009180425), hereinafter referred to as Moriya.
Regarding claim 12, Kubo shows wherein the ventilation unit further comprises a mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) system (48, Fig. 10 – element 48 is a fixed plate heat exchanger, which is a type of Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery MVHR system, as evidenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation), connected to both the air supply and the air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1) and adapted to transfer heat from the air outlet to the air supply (Fig. 10), and a bypass arranged between the air supply and the MVHR system (see Annotated Figure 1) and to bypass air from the outside environment around the MVHR system when a temperature of air in the air outlet and/or in the air inlet is equal or higher than a predetermined temperature (¶0052).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (JPH08121851), hereinafter referred to as Kubo, in view of Kaneda (JPH0794915), Moriya et al (JP2009180425), hereinafter referred to as Moriya.
Regarding claim 13, Kubo shows wherein the ventilation unit is a modular unit comprising at least two modules of relative size and shape(see Annotated Figure 1 – the ventilation unit and element 48 are the modular units).
Regarding claim limitation “wherein the ventilation unit is a modular unit comprising at least four equally sized and shaped modules, preferably eight”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the ventilation unit being a modular unit comprising of at least four equally sized and shaped modules, preferably eight, instead of the ventilation unit being a modular unit comprising at least two modules of relative size and shape of Kubo (see Annotated Figure 1 – the ventilation unit and element 48 are the modular units), because applicant has not disclosed that having the ventilation unit being a modular unit comprising of at least four equally sized and shaped modules, preferably eight provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose , or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the ventilation unit being a modular unit comprising of at least four equally sized and shaped modules, preferably eight or the ventilation unit being a modular unit comprising at least two modules of relative size and shape, because both arrangements and shapes thereof performs the function of discharging conditioned air equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect IV.B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (as well as overcome any outstanding 112(b) rejections).
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record is Kubo (JPH08121851) and Shin (US 2020/0077853), however these references do not disclose a pressure sensor for sensing an air flow pressure through the floor tile and an electric actuator arranged for displacing the blocking member along the surface area of the tile, and wherein the ventilation system further comprises a controller which is with an input connected to each sensor, for receiving a measured pressure value, and adapted for determining an air pressure distribution over the surface of the flooring surface area, and which controller is with an output connected to each electric actuator, and adapted for operating each electric actuator to displace the blocking member adjusting the size of the through-holes of a respective floor tile in dependence of the received pressure value of the respective floor tile and the calculated pressure distribution. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kubo and Shin as it would use impermissible hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Kubo and Shin.
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