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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 31-53 in the reply filed on 08/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the second portion is is angled relative” should read “wherein the second portion is angled relative”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherien” should read “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities: “accomodation” should read “accommodation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 52-53 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the temporary exhaust” should read “the inflatable exhaust”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31, 33, 35, 37-42 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paschke (US 5655963 A).
Regarding claim 31, Paschke teaches
an exhaust conduit (fabric tube 20) for a cargo vessel (intended use limitation; system configured to be applied to a cargo vessel), the exhaust conduit comprising a flexible conduit (“The static pressure and velocity pressure caused by this trapping of the air causes the tube 20 to inflate to the configuration shown in FIG. 1” [col. 4 lines 47-50]; thus, conduit is not rigid) having a first upstream opening adapted to engage with an exhaust structure (at air handling unit 10, fig. 1) and a second downstream opening for an exhausted air (distal end 25, fig. 1), wherein the exhaust conduit is inflatable due to the passage of exhausted air (“The static pressure and velocity pressure caused by this trapping of the air causes the tube 20 to inflate to the configuration shown in FIG. 1” [col. 4 lines 47-50]), and wherein the downstream opening has a cross-sectional area which is at least one of (i) smaller than the first opening (as shown on fig. 2) or (ii) adjustable
Regarding claim 33, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the exhaust conduit comprises at least one portion in which the cross-sectional area is progressively reduced along a length thereof (cross-sectional area of fabric tube 20 is progressively reduced at distal end 25 as shown on fig. 2)
Regarding claim 38, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 37,
wherein the first upstream opening of the first portion is configured to connect to a ventilation duct within a mechanical ventilator (coupling of fabricated baffle 22 configured to connect to a ventilation duct within a mechanical ventilator), and wherein the first portion is configured to extend out through one or more service doors (first end 21 configured to extend out through one or more service doors)
Regarding claim 40, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 37,
wherein the exhaust conduit is configured to connect around a service doorway of a vent house (open end of first end 21 configured to connect around a service doorway of a vent house)
Regarding claim 41, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 40,
wherien the exhaust conduit has a T-shape (as described in [col. 4 lines 17-22]), and comprises a tubular column with a peripheral branch to connect to the service doorway (fabric tube 20 with first end 21)
Regarding claim 45, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
further comprising tether points configured to tether the exhaust conduit to the cargo vessel (spaced supports 41, fig. 1; configured to tether fabric tube 20 to ceiling C)
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(s) 35, 37, 39 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Paschke (US5655963A).
Regarding claim 35, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit has a cylindrical form (fabric tube 20 as shown on fig. 1-2) with an open end being adjustable (via cinch 60) such that the exhaust conduit is conical in its inflated form (as shown on fig. 2, distal end 25 appears to have a conical shape)
However, in the event applicant disagrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure distal end 25 of Paschke to have a conical shape when in the open configuration of fig. 2 as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure. Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 37, the present embodiment of Paschke does not teach the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit is shaped as an elbow or a T-shape with at least two portions comprising a first portion which has the first upstream opening, and a second portion provided with the second downstream opening for exhaust of a fumigant
However, Paschke does teach “In the present embodiment, the distal end 25 of the tube 20 is at the end of a straight length of tube. However, as will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, other "distal ends" are also possible. For instance, the tube 20 could include a "T" member branching therefrom” [col. 4 lines 17-22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “t” member branching from tube 20 in order to provide outlet airflow in multiple directions, thus increasing the dispersion area in the treated space.
This embodiment teaches
wherein the flexible conduit is shaped as an elbow or a T-shape (“In the present embodiment, the distal end 25 of the tube 20 is at the end of a straight length of tube. However, as will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, other "distal ends" are also possible. For instance, the tube 20 could include a "T" member branching therefrom”) [col. 4 lines 17-22] with at least two portions comprising a first portion which has the first upstream opening (at first end 21, comprising cylindrical shape of fabric tube 20, fig. 2), and a second portion provided with the second downstream opening (at distal end 25,comprising closure 30, fig. 2) for exhaust of a fumigant (intended use limitation; system configured to exhaust fumigant at closure 30 if supplied at unit 10)
Regarding claim 39, Paschke does not teach the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 38,
wherein the second portion is is angled relative to an outlet of the first portion
However, Paschke does teach “In the present embodiment, the distal end 25 of the tube 20 is at the end of a straight length of tube. However, as will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, other "distal ends" are also possible. For instance, the tube 20 could include a "T" member branching therefrom” [col. 4 lines 17-22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “t” member branching from tube 20 in order to provide outlet airflow in multiple directions, thus increasing the dispersion area in the treated space.
Thus, this configuration teaches
wherein the second portion is is angled relative to an outlet of the first portion (in a T-shape configuration of distal end 25 as described, outlets of distal end 25 would be angled relative to first end 21)
Regarding claim 42, Paschke teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit has a height that is in the range of about 4m to 10m
While Paschke does not explicitly disclose the fabric tube 20 having a height that is in the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that changes in configuration are a matter of design choice such that using the recited dimensions as claimed is obvious when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) the Federal Circuit 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; applicant has not cited mechanical distinction of the recited dimensions to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure. Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paschke (US5655963A) in view of Kim (KR20110134600A).
Regarding claim 46, Paschke does not teach the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
further comprising at least one of internal vanes, baffles or inflatable ribs configured to direct the exhausted air
Kim teaches
further comprising at least one of internal vanes, baffles or inflatable ribs configured to direct the exhausted air (opening / closing member 144)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the opening / closing member 144 of Kim to the system of Paschke, in order to effectively further control the airflow rate out of the tube 20.
Claim(s) 31-34 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP2008265583A), referring to the English translation dated 09/03/2025, in view of Paschke (US5655963A).
Regarding claim 31, Watanabe teaches
an exhaust conduit (flexible tube 40) for a cargo vessel (ship S), the exhaust conduit comprising a flexible conduit (flexible tube 40) having a first upstream opening (at discharge hole 38, fig. 1) adapted to engage with an exhaust structure (cabin exterior air conditioner 14) and a second downstream opening for an exhausted air (at W2, fig. 1), and wherein the downstream opening has a cross-sectional area which is at least one of (i) smaller than the first opening (as shown on fig. 1) or (ii) adjustable
Watanabe does not teach
wherein the exhaust conduit is inflatable due to the passage of exhausted air
Paschke teaches
wherein the exhaust conduit is inflatable due to the passage of exhausted air (As shown between figs. 1 and 2, the closure 30 inflates between a closed and opened position; “The pressure of the forced air as exerted on the closure in the closed position may also assist in moving the closure members relative to each other in response to the compression of the end of the tube” [col. 3 lines 33-36])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure 30 of Paschke to flexible tube 40 Watanabe, in order to allow for the flexible tube 40 to reduce humidity intake from the air when not in use, thus preserving the longevity of the system.
Regarding claim 32, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit is configured to be inflatable (as modified by Paschke) to provide an upright exhaust with the second opening configured to be disposed at an upper end of the upright exhaust (“flexible tube 40 that can freely change the discharge angle of air. For example, the flexible tube can be bent freely to change the angle of the discharge port, and the angle can be maintained” [0022]; thus, configured to provide an upright exhaust with the second opening configured to be disposed at an upper end of the upright exhaust), with the first opening configured to be disposed (i) at a lower end (discharge hole 38 as shown on fig. 1), (ii) towards the lower end, or (iii) to a side of the upright exhaust
Regarding claim 33, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the exhaust conduit comprises at least one portion in which the cross-sectional area is progressively reduced along a length thereof (cross-sectional area of flexible tube 40 is progressively reduced from discharge hole 38 side to W2 side as shown on fig. 1)
Regarding claim 34, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit is at least one of (i) conical in its inflated form (truncated cone shape of flexible tube 40 shown on fig. 1), or (ii) has a first lower cylindrical portion and a second upper conical portion
Regarding claim 36, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the exhaust conduit is configured to at least one of (i) attach to and over a mechanical exhaust ventilator body (flexible tube 40 attach to and over hollow case body 28 comprising as shown on fig. 1), or (ii) facilitate venting through a service doorway of a mechanical exhaust ventilator or a vent housing
Regarding claim 37, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit is shaped as an elbow (as shown on fig. 1) or a T-shape with at least two portions comprising a first portion which has the first upstream opening (at discharge hole 38, fig. 1), and a second portion provided with the second downstream opening (at W2, fig. 1) for exhaust of a fumigant (intended use limitation; system configured to exhaust fumigant at W2 if supplied at W1)
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP2008265583A), referring to the English translation dated 09/03/2025, in view of Paschke (US5655963A), in further view of Xia (WO2018032734A1), referring to the English translation dated 09/03/2025.
Regarding claim 43, Watanabe, as modified, does not teach the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the flexible conduit comprises an insect net
Xia teaches
wherein the flexible conduit comprises an insect net (a filtering insecticidal net 7 is disposed at an air inlet of the fresh air inlet outdoor air inlet tube 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the filtering insecticidal net 7 of Xia to the flexible tube 40 of Watanabe at discharge hole 38, in order to effectively prevent insects from entering the hollow case body 28.
Regarding claim 44, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the exhaust conduit as claimed in claim 43,
wherein the insect net is removably attached to the flexible conduit
While Watanabe, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the insect net being removably attached to the flexible conduit, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make these components separable from one another, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Claim(s) 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg (EP2605956B1), in view of Huchzermeier (US4428318A).
Regarding claim 47, Lindberg teaches
a system for fumigating a roll-on/roll-off (RORO) vessel (“The present invention relates to a refrigerated-cargo vessel for transporting fruit and like foodstuffs, said vessel having a roll-on/roll-off ramp” [0001]; fig. 7), the system being ancillary to the vessel and comprising:
a fumigant delivery system configured to deliver a fumigant to a cargo area of the vessel (“On the upper deck 50 a ventilation unit comprising ventilating fans and air conditioning equipment 61 is provided at the side of the vessel possibly supplemented with a gas source” [0055]; supplemental gas source allows for fumigation); and
a exhaust configured to assist with a removal of the fumigant from the cargo area (second ventilation duct 63, fig. 7), wherein the exhaust has first (opening on the right side of ventilation equipment 64) and second openings (exit openings 66), and wherein the second opening has a cross-sectional area that is smaller than the first opening (as shown on fig. 7)
Lindberg does not teach
a temporary flexible exhaust
Huchzermeier teaches
a flexible exhaust (“the connections for coupling the air supply and exhaust ducts to the containers or the pallets can be flexible ducts”) [col. 5 lines 4-6]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second ventilation duct 63 of Lindberg as a flexible duct, as taught in Huchzermeier, since “Flexible ducts are especially useful with the pallets to enable the pallets to be supported at various elevations in their supporting frames” [col. 5 lines 6-8].
Additionally, Lindberg, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for flexible exhaust as temporary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the second ventilation duct 63 as separable from the rest of the system, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Regarding claim 48, Lindberg, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 47,
wherein the temporary flexible exhaust is fluidly connected around a service doorway of a vent house (entrance of second ventilation duct 63 into ventilation equipment 64)
Regarding claim 49, Lindberg, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 47,
wherein the temporary exhaust is in fluid communication with at least one of (i) a mechanical exhaust ventilator (“blown out by ventilation equipment 64” [0056]), or (ii) a vent house
Claim(s) 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg (EP2605956B1), in view of Lin (CN109186059A), referring to the English translation dated 09/03/2025.
Regarding claim 50, Lindberg teaches
a system for fumigating a roll-on/roll-off (RORO) vessel (“The present invention relates to a refrigerated-cargo vessel for transporting fruit and like foodstuffs, said vessel having a roll-on/roll-off ramp” [0001]; fig. 7) that has a cargo area (plurality of decks 10, 20, 30, 40) and an accomodation block (upper weather deck 50), the system being ancillary to the vessel and comprising:
a fumigant delivery system configured to deliver a fumigant to the cargo area (“On the upper deck 50 a ventilation unit comprising ventilating fans and air conditioning equipment 61 is provided at the side of the vessel possibly supplemented with a gas source” [0055]; supplemental gas source allows for fumigation); and
an exhaust configured to assist with a removal of the fumigant from the cargo area (second ventilation duct 63, fig. 7)
Lindberg does not teach
an inflatable exhaust
wherein the inflatable exhaust is inflatable to a height that exceeds the height of the accomodation block
Lin teaches
an inflatable exhaust (exhaust duct including a duct body 1; “The exhaust duct provided by the present invention adopts the tubular body including an outer tubular body and an inner tubular body, and the outer tubular body and the inner tubular body can be folded; the outer tubular body Nested on the outside of the inner tube body, the inner cavity of the inner tube body is the ventilation air passage, and the technical solution for forming an inflation space between the outer layer tube body and the inner layer tube body” [0024])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second ventilation duct 63 of Lindberg to comprise an inflatable body as taught in Lin, thus allowing to be “capable of reducing the space occupation rate of the exhaust duct when not in use” [007 of Lin], therefore allowing greater room to unload and load a cargo hold after travel.
The combination teaches
wherein the inflatable exhaust is inflatable to a height that exceeds the height of the accomodation block (height of second ventilation duct 63 greater than height of upper weather deck 50)
Regarding claim 51, Lindberg, as modified, teaches
the system as claimed in claim 50, wherein the inflatable exhaust is inflated by an exhausted air from the cargo area (from exit openings 66)
Claim(s) 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg (EP2605956B1), in view of Lin (CN109186059A), referring to the English translation dated 09/03/2025, in further view of Zhang (CN110056967A), referring to the English translation dated 09/03/2025.
Regarding claim 52, Lindberg, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 50,
wherein the temporary exhaust is fluidly connected to a ventilation duct within a mechanical ventilator (second ventilation duct 63 connected into inside of ventilation equipment 64)
Lindberg does not teach
fluidly connected through service doors of the mechanical ventilator
Zhang teaches
fluidly connected through service doors of the mechanical ventilator (wind plates 1161, figs. 1 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wind plates 1161 of Zhang to the entrance of second ventilation duct 63 into ventilation equipment 64 of Lindberg to comprise, thus allowing to be “to prevent dust from entering and maintain the appearance of the indoor unit” [0061 of Zhang] when not in use.
Regarding claim 53, Lindberg, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 52,
further comprising a support structure to support the temporary exhaust (hull 1, fig. 7)
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Washington (US20040188868A1), which teaches a similar exhaust conduit as claimed
Hultmark (WO9611348A1), which teaches a similar exhaust conduit as claimed
Teagle (US6402613B1), which teaches a similar exhaust conduit as claimed
Rowling (WO2019023759A1), which teaches a similar vessel fumigating system as claimed
Colby (US2160831A), which teaches a similar vessel fumigating system as claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/BRETT PETERSON MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762