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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
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 1-10 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.
A) In Claim 1, line 17, “both sides” renders the claim indefinite because there are more than two sides to a cabinet. For the purposes of examination, “both sides” has been construed to be two opposite sides.
B) There are two Claim 9s. For the purposes of examination, the second Claim 9 will be referred to as Claim 10.
C) In Claim 10, line 9, “far smaller” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, “far smaller” has been construed to be “smaller”.
D) Claims 2-10 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 3,364,838 to Bradley in view of US Patent Number 12,300,976 B2 to Inamasa and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2021/0328396 A1 to Crighton and even further in view of Patent Number 10,765,035 B2 to Cacho Alonso.
A) As per Claim 1, Bradley teaches a cabinet for precise air supply control (Bradley: Figure 3), comprising:
a cabinet body, a supporting mechanism is arranged in the cabinet body, a plurality of guiding mechanisms are fixedly connected with the cabinet body inside at equal intervals along a vertical direction, different electronic components are respectively arranged in the guiding mechanisms, and the guiding mechanisms (Bradley: Figure 3; Col. 7, lines 10-14) and
an air inlet device, wherein the air inlet device comprises a communicated pipeline (Bradley: Figure 3, Item 212), a top of the communicated pipeline is provided with an air inlet mechanism (Bradley: Figure 3, Item 240), a bottom of the air inlet mechanism is communicated with the top of the communicated pipeline (Bradley: Figure 3, bottom of 240 is in fluid communication with Item 212), the air inlet mechanism is communicated with an external air conditioner (Examiner notes that the external air conditioner is not part of the cabinet and therefore the inlet mechanism must merely be capable of use with an external air conditioner, which in this case is certainly true), and a bottom of the communicated pipeline is provided with a filter mechanism (Bradley: Figure 3, Item 228);
an air collecting device arranged at a bottom of an inner cavity of the cabinet body (Bradley: Figure 3, area around Item 273 just before air exits Item 218); and
an air outlet device arranged on a bottom side of the cabinet body (Bradley: Figure 3, Item 218).
Bradley does not teach that cabinet doors are arranged on one side of the cabinet body, a sealing mechanism is arranged between a frame of the cabinet door and a frame of cabinet body;
the electronic components are connected with the supporting mechanism by bolts; and
two air outlet devices respectively arranged on both sides of a bottom of the cabinet body.
However, Inamasa teaches two air outlet devices respectively arranged on both sides of a bottom of the cabinet body (Inamasa: Figure 1, Items 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bradley by having two outlets on opposite sides, as taught by Inamasa, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bradley with these aforementioned teachings of Inamasa since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the outlet location of Inamasa for the outlet location of Bradley.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Bradley in view of Inamasa does not teach that cabinet doors are arranged on one side of the cabinet body, a sealing mechanism is arranged between a frame of the cabinet door and a frame of cabinet body;
the electronic components are connected with the supporting mechanism by bolts.
However, Crighton teaches the electronic components are connected with the supporting mechanism by bolts (Crighton: Paragraph 0035).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bradley in view of Inamasa by using bolts to attach, as taught by Crighton, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bradley in view of Inamasa with these aforementioned teachings of Crighton since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the Crighton fasteners for the Bradley in view of Inamasa fasteners.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Bradley in view of Inamasa and Crighton does not teach cabinet doors are arranged on one side of the cabinet body, a sealing mechanism is arranged between a frame of the cabinet door and a frame of cabinet body.
However, Cacho Alonso teaches cabinet doors are arranged on one side of the cabinet body, a sealing mechanism is arranged between a frame of the cabinet door and a frame of cabinet body (Cacho: Figures 1 & 6, Items 14; Col. 5, lines 18-23).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bradley in view of Inamasa and Crighton by having doors with seals on the front of the cabinet, as taught by Cacho Alonso, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bradley in view of Inamasa and Crighton with these aforementioned teachings of Cacho Alonso with the motivation of preventing air leakage through the drawers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762