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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the window fan by positing the air duct panel behind” which should be “the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind”.
Claim 3 recites “the window fan by positing the air duct panel behind” which should be “the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind”.
Claim 7 recites “the closed position by positing the air duct panel behind” which should be “the closed position by positioning the air duct panel behind”.
Claim 14 recites “the window fan by positing the air duct panel behind” which should be “the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind”.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 15-20 are objected to for being dependent from and objected to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “where the air outlet and air inlet are formed as a fan grill” where the Examiner is unclear if the Applicant is requiring the air inlet and air outlet to be on a single grill or if the air inlet and the air outlet each are formed on their own grill. If the air inlet and air outlet are formed on a singular grill then the Examiner is unclear how the air inlet and the air outlet are on opposing sides of the fan housing. A review of the specification makes it appear that the air inlet and air outlet are each formed with individual grills and therefore this is the interpretation that will maintained through out the claims. Independent claim 7 will also be interpreted in such a manner.
Claims 2-6, 8, and 9 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0039490 (Weise hereinafter) in view of US 2337325 (Hach hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Weise teaches a window fan (Figure 1) that discloses a fan housing having a front panel with an air outlet and a rear panel with an air inlet (Fan housing shown in Figures 1/4/5 with the front panel 12 and outlet 18, the rear panel featuring the inlet 32), where the air inlet and the air outlet are formed as a fan grill (Per the interpretation in the 112(b) rejection, the air inlet at 32 is a grill and the outlet at 18 is a grill), the fan housing defining a central chamber (Internal area between 32 and 12 for the fan to reside); a chamber assembly including a fan rotatably mounted within the chamber and driven by a fan motor (Fan assembly 70 with motor 72 in Figure 7) and air duct assembly rotatably mounted within the chamber (Duct assembly seen in Figures 9, 13, and 14), where the air duct assembly is rotatable within the fan housing about the fan and has an air duct panel moveable from an open position to a closed position where the air duct panel in the closed position blocks the airflow through the window fan when in a closed position (Figures 9, 13, and 14 per ¶ 57-59 and 61 where the duct is broadly interpreted as around the fan) by blocking either the air inlet on the front panel or blocking the air outlet on the rear panel (Figure 1 with Figure 9 and the louvres blocking 18 as being interpreted above in the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections).
Weise is silent with respect that the air duct assembly is rotated about the fan between at the air inlet and the air outlet, where the air duct panel on the closed position blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind either the air inlet on the rear panel or the air outlet on the front panel to block airflow through either the air inlet or the air outlet.
However, Hach teaches a window fan unit (Figure 15/16) that discloses an air duct assembly (Damper 66) and that the air duct assembly is rotated about the fan between at the air inlet and the air outlet (Evident from the Figure 13-16 with rear panel air inlet 60 and front panel air outlet 61), where the air duct panel on the closed position blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind either the air inlet on the rear panel or the air outlet on the front panel to block airflow through either the air inlet or the air outlet (Figure 13 shows this instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the individual grill control surfaces of Weise with the unitary airflow control duct/damper of Hach to minimize the need for individual control components and allow air directing surfaces to move together.
Regarding claim 2, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Weise and Hach would further disclose a second motor for moving the air duct panel from the open position to the closed position (Weise Motor 102 per ¶ 61 and Figures 13/14 as applied to the manual driving of Hach’s damper).
Regarding claim 3, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Weise and Hach would further disclose that the air duct panel in the closed position blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind the air inlet on the rear panel to block the flow of air through the air inlet (Figure 13 of Hach at equivalent air inlet 60).
Regarding claim 5, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Weise and Hach would further disclose that the air panel has a first closed position and second closed positioned, where in the first closed position the air duct panel blocks the air outlet on the front panel (¶ 57-59 and 61 of Weise discloses an embodiment closing the air outlet on the front panel which would be applied to the combination of Wiese/Hach) and where in the second closed position the air duct panel blocks the air inlet on the rear panel (Hach Figure 13).
Regarding claim 7, Weise teaches a window fan (Figure 1) that discloses a fan housing having an air outlet on a front panel and an air inlet on a rear panel of the fan housing (Fan housing shown in Figures 1/4/5 with the front panel 12 and outlet 18, the rear panel featuring the inlet 32), where the air inlet and the air outlet are formed as a fan grill (Per the interpretation in the 112(b) rejection, the air inlet at 32 is a grill and the outlet at 18 is a grill); a cross flow blower fan mounted within the fan housing and driven by a fan motor (Fan 70 with motor 72 per Figure 7 and ¶ 51); and an air duct panel positioned within the fan housing and rotatably mounted around the cross flow blower driven by a panel motor (Figures 9, 13, and 14), where the air duct assembly is rotatable around about the fan (Broadest reasonable interpretation of the louvres being around the fan), where the panel motor is configured to rotate the air duct panel independent of the cross flow blower fan from an open position to a closed position, where the motor rotates the air duct panel to blocks the airflow through the window fan when in the closed position (Figures 9, 13, and 14 per ¶ 57-59 and 61) by aligning the air duct panel over either the air inlet on the front panel or the air outlet on the rear panel (Evident of the louvres in Figures 9, 13, and 14).
Weise is silent with respect that the air duct assembly is rotated about the fan between at the air inlet and the air outlet, where the air duct panel on the closed position blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind either the air inlet on the rear panel or the air outlet on the front panel to block airflow through either the air inlet or the air outlet.
However, Hach teaches a window fan unit (Figure 15/16) that discloses an air duct assembly (Damper 66) and that the air duct assembly is rotated about the fan between at the air inlet and the air outlet (Evident from the Figure 13-16 with rear panel air inlet 60 and front panel air outlet 61), where the air duct panel on the closed position blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind either the air inlet on the rear panel or the air outlet on the front panel to block airflow through either the air inlet or the air outlet (Figure 13 shows this instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the individual grill control surfaces of Weise with the unitary airflow control duct/damper of Hach to minimize the need for individual control components and allow air directing surfaces to move together.
Regarding claim 9, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where Weise further discloses that the panel motor is a reversible motor (Inherent of the louvre design of Weise for the motor to be reversible and as also taught in the reversible movement of Hach in Figures 13-16).
Regarding claim 11, Weise teaches a window fan having a top and bottom (Figure 1) that discloses a fan housing having an air outlet and an air inlet (Fan housing shown in Figures 1/4/5 with the front panel 12 and outlet 18, the rear panel featuring the inlet 32); a cross flow blower fan mounted within the fan housing and driven by a fan motor (Fan 70 with motor 72 per Figure 7 and ¶ 51); and an air duct panel rotatably mounted around the cross flow blower within the fan housing driven by a panel motor, where the panel motor is configured to rotate the air duct panel about the fan independent of the cross flow blower fan from an open position to an closed position (Broadest reasonable interpretation of the louvres being around the blower), where the motor rotates the air duct panel to block the airflow through the window fan when in the closed position by aligning the air duct panel over either the air inlet on the front panel or the air outlet on the rear panel (Figures 9, 13, and 14 per ¶ 57-59 and 61 and evident of the louvres in Figures 9, 13, and 14); and a sill insert positioned on the bottom of the fan housing (Evident of the structure shown in Figure 1 for mounting the fan to the window).
Weise is silent with respect that the air duct assembly is rotated about the fan between at the air inlet and the air outlet and between at least behind the air inlet to at least behind the air outlet of the fan housing and from an open to a closed position, where the motor rotated the air duct panel to position the air duct panel behind and either the air outlet or the air inlet.
However, Hach teaches a window fan unit (Figure 15/16) that discloses an air duct assembly (Damper 66) and that the air duct assembly is rotated about the fan between at the air inlet and the air outlet and between at least behind the air inlet to at least behind the air outlet of the fan housing and from an open to a closed position (Evident from the Figure 13-16 with rear panel air inlet 60 and front panel air outlet 61), where the motor rotated the air duct panel to position the air duct panel behind and either the air outlet or the air inlet (Figure 13 shows this instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the individual grill control surfaces of Weise with the unitary airflow control duct/damper of Hach to minimize the need for individual control components and allow air directing surfaces to move together.
Regarding claim 12, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Weise and Hach would further disclose that the fan housing has first and second end caps (Figure 1, left and right side panels of the housing featuring 14/16 of Weise) and where the window fan further includes at least one modular block for positioning on the side of at least one of the first or second end caps (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Weise, the expandable side structures are viewed as the modular blocks due to them being able to be resized).
Regarding claim 13, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Weise and Hach would further disclose that the at least one modular block for positioning on the side of at least one of the first or second end caps includes a block sill insert for aligning with the sill insert positioned on the bottom of the fan housing (Evident from Figure 1 of Weise).
Regarding claim 14, Weise teaches a window fan have a top and a bottom (Figure 1) that discloses a fan housing having a front panel with an air outlet, a rear panel with an air inlet (Fan housing shown in Figures 1/4/5 with the front panel 12 and outlet 18, the rear panel featuring the inlet 32) and first and second end caps (Figure 1, left and right side panels of the housing featuring 14/16), the fan housing defining a central chamber (Internal area between 32 and 12 for the fan to reside); a chamber assembly mounted within the housing including a fan rotatably mounted within the central chamber and driven by a fan motor and an air duct assembly rotatably mounted within the central chamber having an air duct panel rotatable around the fan to move from an open position to a closed position where, in the closed position, the air duct panel blocks the airflow through the window fan by aligning the air duct panel over either the air inlet on the front panel or the air outlet on the rear panel (Figures 9, 13, and 14 per ¶ 57-59 and 61, Figure 1 with Figure 9 and the louvres blocking 18); and at least one modular block for positioning on at least one of the first or second end caps (Evident from Figure 1).
Weise is silent with respect to the air duct panel rotatable around the fan to rotate from the front panel of the fan housing to the rear panel of the fan housing, where in the closed position, the air duct panel blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind and aligning the air duct panel over either air outlet on the front panel or air inlet on the rear panel.
However, Hach teaches a window fan unit (Figure 15/16) that discloses an air duct assembly (Damper 66) and that the air duct panel rotatable around the fan to rotate from the front panel of the fan housing to the rear panel of the fan housing (Evident from the Figure 13-16 with rear panel air inlet 60 and front panel air outlet 61), where in the closed position, the air duct panel blocks the airflow through the window fan by positioning the air duct panel behind and aligning the air duct panel over either air outlet on the front panel or air inlet on the rear panel (Figure 13 shows this instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the individual grill control surfaces of Weise with the unitary airflow control duct/damper of Hach to minimize the need for individual control components and allow air directing surfaces to move together.
Regarding claim 15, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Weise and Hach further discloses a sill insert positioned on the bottom of the fan housing (Evident of the structure shown in Figure 1 of Weise for mounting the fan to the window).
Regarding claim 16, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Weise and Hach further discloses the at least one modular block for positioning on the side of at least one of the first or second end caps includes a block sill insert for aligning with the sill insert positioned on the bottom of the fan housing (Evident from the adjustability of the modular blocks shown in Figure 1 of Weise).
Regarding claim 17, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Weise and Hach further discloses the at least one modular block for positioning on the side of at least one of the first or second end caps includes a plurality of modular blocks (There are two discrete blocks shown by Weise, one on the left and one on the right side of the window unit).
Regarding claim 18, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Weise and Hach further discloses the at least one modular block for positioning on the side of at least one of the first or second end caps includes a plurality of modular blocks having pairs of modular blocks of various lengths (There are two discrete blocks shown of Weise, one on the left and one on the right side of the window unit).
Regarding claim 20, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Weise and Hach further discloses that the air panel has a first closed position and second closed positioned, where in the first closed position the air duct panel blocks the air outlet on the front panel (¶ 57-59 and 61 of Weise discloses an embodiment closing the air outlet on the front panel which would be applied to the combination of Wiese/Hach) and where in the second closed position the air duct panel blocks the air inlet on the rear panel (Hach Figure 13).
Claims 4, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0039490 (Weise) in view of US 2337325 (Hach) and further in view of US 2951634 (Koch hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Weise further discloses that the fan is a cross flow blower (¶ 51 with Figures 5 and 7).
Weise is silent with respect that the fan motor is a reversible motor.
However, Koch teaches a window fan unit (Figures 1-3) that discloses the use of a reversible motor (Column 2 Lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the non-descript motor of Weise with the reversible motor of Koch via simple substitution to allow for the fan of Weise to be driven in reverse.
Regarding claim 8, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where Weise further discloses that the fan is a cross flow blower (¶ 51 with Figures 5 and 7).
Weise silent with respect that the fan motor is a reversible motor.
However, Koch teaches a window fan unit (Figures 1-3) that discloses the use of a reversible motor (Column 2 Lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the non-descript motor of Weise with the reversible motor of Koch via simple substitution to allow for the fan of Weise to be driven in reverse.
Regarding claim 19, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where Weise further discloses that the fan is a cross flow blower (¶ 51 with Figures 5 and 7).
Weise is silent with respect that the fan motor is a reversible motor.
However, Koch teaches a window fan unit (Figures 1-3) that discloses the use of a reversible motor (Column 2 Lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the non-descript motor of Weise with the reversible motor of Koch via simple substitution to allow for the fan of Weise to be driven in reverse.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0039490 (Weise) in view of US 2337325 (Hach) and further in view of US 2017/0067681 (Kim hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where Weise further discloses that the second motor is offset from the fan motor (Evident from Figures 7, 9, 13, and 14 of Weise).
Weise is silent with respect that the chamber assembly further includes a gear assembly driven by the second motor for rotating the air duct panel.
However, Kim teaches a crossflow blower and louvre controller that discloses a chamber assembly that further includes a gear assembly driven by the second motor for rotating the air duct panel (Figures 15 and 16 per ¶ 110-113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second motor and air duct panel connections of Weise with the gearing taught by Kim to increase the torque transferred during operation while reducing noise and vibrations per ¶ 113 of Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Weise’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where Weise further discloses that the second motor is offset from the fan motor (Evident from Figures 7, 9, 13, and 14 of Weise).
Weise is silent with respect that the chamber assembly further includes a gear assembly driven by the second motor for rotating the air duct panel.
However, Kim teaches a crossflow blower and louvre controller that discloses a chamber assembly that further includes a gear assembly driven by the second motor for rotating the air duct panel (Figures 15 and 16 per ¶ 110-113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second motor and air duct panel connections of Weise with the gearing taught by Kim to increase the torque transferred during operation while reducing noise and vibrations per ¶ 113 of Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762