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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the objections to claim 1-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claim 1-4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “In Tokunaga, the arc-shaped blow-out guide surfaces (363, 375) guide air toward the air outlets 4, 5 from the bottom surfaces (364, 376). See Tokunaga at [0011] and Fig. 4 (reproduced below). These guide surfaces are positioned upstream of the air outlets and function to direct air toward the outlets for expulsion”. However, Tokunaga teaches “an air conditioner is also provided at the rear of the vehicle, and the end of a duct arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction on the floor or ceiling in the vehicle compartment is connected to this air conditioner” [001]; thus, while fig. 4 shows arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 directing air upwards, an arrangement with duct 3 on the ceiling would direct air downwards. Additionally, claim 1 states “a plurality of curved flaps operably connected respectively to at least some of the plurality of cold air outlets at the downstream edge of the cold air outlets”. As shown on fig. 4 of Tokunaga, arc-shaped blow-out guide surfaces 363, 375 are connected to air outlets 4 and 5 at the downstream edge in a flow direction. Thus, Tokunaga reads on the claim.
Applicant argues “Further, claim 1, as amended, recites that "the plurality of curved flaps are arranged to form a plurality of air-curtains within the cargo space..." Tokunaga fails to disclose the downstream curved flaps, as noted above, nor even a single air curtain, let alone the claimed plurality of air-curtains. Thus, claim 1 distinguishes over Tokunaga for this second reason”. However, while Tokunaga does not teach the air curtain, this is taught in evidence of Gast, which comprises a similar structure.
Applicant argues “Further, claim 1, as amended, recites that " Even if Tokunaga's two guide surfaces (363, 375) disclosed the claimed plurality of curved flaps (which Applicant does not concede for the reasons discussed above), these same guide surfaces do not correspond to the claimed "continuous and elongated arch-shaped strip for location in the rear end region, and for extending along the ceiling at a spaced distance from a location of the cargo doors." Treating one feature as fulfilling two unrelated limitations disregards the requirement that the prior art disclose the claimed invention "in as complete detail as is contained in the claim."”. However, one feature is not taught to read on two unrelated limitations, as Tokunaga teaches a plurality of guide surfaces 363, 375 wherein one guide surface can read on the claimed elongated strip and the remainder can read on the flaps. Regardless, this is considered moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “In Tokunaga, the air conditioner 2 is located in the rear end of the vehicle 1. See Tokunaga Fig. 1. In contrast, claim 1 recites that the refrigerator unit is for "location in the front end region," which is the opposite of what Tokunaga teaches. Because Tokunaga positions the air conditioner in the rear end region, it fails to disclose the claimed refrigerator unit for location in the front end region”, “Tokunaga fails to disclose a plurality of fans for location adjacent any arch shaped strip. Indeed, Tokunaga lacks any disclosure of fans. Thus, Tokunaga also cannot teach the claimed configuration in which the elongated refrigeration duct is configured for location adjacent a continuous and elongated arc-shaped strip”, “Tokunaga fails to teach any fans directing cold air downward in a region of cargo doors” and “Tokunaga fails to disclose this claimed subject matter either. Because Tokunaga is silent on any such fan, Tokunaga cannot suggest the specific claimed arrangement in which a plurality of fans is located adjacent to the continuous arch-shaped strip”. This is considered moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claim 8 because the Office has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed modification… A mere assertion that a change is a "matter of design choice" is insufficient unless the modification would have been obvious to achieve a predictable result and the prior art provides a clear reason to make such a change. Here, the Office has not explained why a skilled artisan would alter Tokunaga's radius to fall within the claimed range, nor has it identified any benefit, problem-solving purpose, or design consideration that would motivate such a modification. Without such reasoning, the rejection lacks the required "articulated reasoning with rational underpinning." See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, the Office's assertion that changing the radius is a matter of design choice oversimplifies the technical considerations involved. The radius of the arc in Tokunaga's guide surfaces directly affects airflow dynamics, pressure distribution, and overall system performance. Altering this parameter is not a trivial adjustment; it requires balancing aerodynamic efficiency, structural constraints, and functional objectives, none of which are considered in the Office's rationale. The claimed radius of curvature range is not arbitrary; it achieves a specific airflow pattern and cargo space cooling effect that Tokunaga does not contemplate. There is no evidence that Tokunaga's design could be modified to the claimed radius without impacting its intended operation, nor that such a modification would have been obvious to achieve predictable results”. However, applicant’s disclosure ([026] of applicant’s specification) provides no explanation for how such a radius “directly affects airflow dynamics, pressure distribution, and overall system performance” or “achieves a specific airflow pattern and cargo space cooling effect” in a beneficial way as applicant argues. Thus, since criticality is absent from the disclosure, the specific radius claimed is still regarded as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 11-13, applicant argues “the combination of Tokunaga and Handley fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the additional features of claims 11-13”. This is considered moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 1, each” should read “The system of claim 1, wherein each”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Hoogen (WO2017074179A1), in view of Tokunaga (JP2003034121A), referring to the English translation dated 04/25/2025, and Aubert (FR2983127A1), referring to the English translation dated 02/16/2026, in further evidence of Gast (US6508076B1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Den Hoogen teaches
a cooling system (figs. 4-5) for a transportation vehicle (“vehicle with a cargo space unit 1”) [page 5 line 29] having a cargo space with a front end region, a rear end region (within cargo space unit 1 on fig. 5), a ceiling (“a position right beneath the ceiling of the cargo space”) [page 9 lines 2-3] and cargo doors in the rear end region (inherent to a cargo vehicle), the cooling system comprising:
a refrigerator unit for location in the front end region (housing 22 of the heat pump 4, fig. 5);
an elongated refrigeration duct (air guides 38, 39) for disposal adjacent to the ceiling of the cargo space (“The air outlet unit 35 comprises a upright channel 36 leading the cooled or heated air upwards, for instance to a position right beneath the ceiling of the cargo space. The upright channel 36 connects to a generally U-shaped set of channels leading to air to several position along the length and width of the cargo space. The set of channels comprises a distribution channel 37 configured to distribute the air over a first air guide 38 and a second air guide 39”) [page 9 lines 1-6] and having a proximal end (end proximate distribution channel 37) and a distal end (end distal distribution channel 37), the elongated refrigeration duct including a plurality of cold air outlets arranged along the length of the elongated refrigeration duct in which each of the plurality of cold air outlets has a downstream edge (one or more ventilation openings 40); and
Van Den Hoogen does not teach
a plurality of curved flaps operably connected respectively to at least some of the plurality of cold air outlets at the downstream edge of the cold air outlets in which the curved flaps are configured to direct cold air from the refrigerator unit in a downward direction, wherein the plurality of curved flaps are arranged to form a plurality of air-curtains within the cargo space
a continuous and elongated arch-shaped strip for location in the rear end region, and for extending along the ceiling at a spaced distance from a location of the cargo doors, and configured to direct air in a downward direction; and
a plurality of fans for location adjacent the continuous and elongated arch- shaped strip for directing cold air downward in a region of the cargo doors, wherein the elongated refrigeration duct is configured to extend between the refrigerator unit in the front end region and the plurality of fans and the continuous and elongated arch-shaped strip in the rear end region
Tokunaga teaches
a plurality of curved flaps operably connected respectively to at least some of the plurality of cold air outlets at the downstream edge of the cold air outlets (arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375, shown on fig. 4) in which the curved flaps are configured to direct cold air from the refrigerator unit in a downward direction (“an air conditioner is also provided at the rear of the vehicle, and the end of a duct arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction on the floor or ceiling in the vehicle compartment is connected to this air conditioner” [001]; thus, while fig. 4 shows arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 directing air upwards, an arrangement with duct 3 on the ceiling would direct air downwards), wherein the plurality of curved flaps are arranged to form a plurality of air-curtains within the cargo space (since the arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 direct air directly downward through air outlets 4 and 5, an air curtain is formed within the space as airflow out of air outlets 4 and 5 is blown in a perpendicular direction from a direction of airflow in or out of a rear door of vehicle 1; this is evidenced by Gast, which discloses “Rear panel 154 is angled to direct air from rear air discharge structures 158 downward, to create an air curtain” [col. 6 lines 32-34]; thus, this downward flow of air created in Tokunaga creates an air curtain)
Van Der Hoogen teaches one or more ventilation openings 40, but does not further teach the structure of the openings 40. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 of Tokunaga to the openings 40 of Van Der Hoogen, “for guiding the conditioned air from the bottom surfaces 364 and 376 to the air outlets 4 and 5, respectively” [0017 of Tokunaga], thus improving air distribution from the refrigerator unit into the cargo space.
Aubert teaches
a continuous and elongated arch-shaped strip for location in the rear end region (longitudinal peripheral wall 17, fig. 4), and for extending along the ceiling at a spaced distance from a location of the cargo doors (fig. 1, wherein device 10 is located adjacent door 9; fig. 4 wherein longitudinal peripheral wall 17 extends along the ceiling at a spaced distance from door), and configured to direct air in a downward direction (“guide air into the air outlet chamber 22 between the outlet of the fans 23 and the lower air outlet slot 19 by being deflected downwards by means of a curved longitudinal internal face”) [0016]; and
a plurality of fans (fans 23, fig. 3) for location adjacent the continuous and elongated arch-shaped strip (fig. 4) for directing cold air downward in a region of the cargo doors (“guide air into the air outlet chamber 22 between the outlet of the fans 23 and the lower air outlet slot 19 by being deflected downwards by means of a curved longitudinal internal face”) [0016]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the device 10 of Aubert to Van Der Hoogen, as modified, in order “to create an aerodynamic barrier across the width and height of the opening of the interior space, in order to minimize heat exchange between the interior and exterior spaces during the loading/unloading of goods” [001 of Aubert].
The combination teaches
wherein the elongated refrigeration duct is configured to extend between the refrigerator unit in the front end region and the plurality of fans and the continuous and elongated arch-shaped strip in the rear end region (wherein device 10 of Aubert is applied to the rear end region of Van Der Hoogen, air guides 38 and 39 configured to extend between housing 22 of the heat pump 4 and device 10, as shown on fig. 5 of Van Der Hoogen)
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of the plurality of curved flaps is respectively associated with one of the plurality of cold air outlets (guide surface 363 of Tokunaga associated with air outlet 4 and guide surface 375 associated with air outlet 5, wherein guide surfaces are applied to each opening 40 of Van Der Hoogen)
Regarding claim 3, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of the plurality of curved flaps is respectively associated with 40% - 60% of the plurality of cold air outlets (guide surfaces 363 and 375 associated with each of openings 40 of Van Der Hoogen, thus also associated with 40% - 60% of the cold air outlets, as claim does not limit remaining outlets to not comprise a curved flap)
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of the plurality of curved flaps is respectively associated with every other one of the plurality of cold air outlets (guide surfaces 363 and 375 associated with each of openings 40 of Van Der Hoogen, thus also associated with every other one of the cold air outlets, as claim does not limit remaining outlets to not comprise a curved flap)
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plurality of curved flaps is arranged diagonally (fig. 4 of Van Der Hoogen shows first opening 40 on left side diagonal with second through fifth openings 40 on right side, first opening 40 on right side diagonal with second through fifth openings 40 on left side)
Regarding claim 6, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plurality of curved flaps is arranged in alternate rows (guide surfaces 363 and 375 associated with each of openings 40 of Van Der Hoogen, thus also associated with cold air outlets of alternate rows, as claim does not limit remaining outlets to not comprise a curved flap)
Regarding claim 7, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein at least some flaps of the plurality of curved flaps have a curvature consistent with an arc of a circle (as shown on fig. 4 of Tokunaga)
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, does not teach the system as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the arc of the circle has a radius of curvature of 15-18 cm
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of the arc of the circle of arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 of Tokunaga as applied to Van Der Hoogen to fall within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the radius of the arc of the circle of arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 would result in a difference in function of the Tokunaga device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 of Tokunaga, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem (see [026] of applicant’s specification), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plurality of cold air outlets are uniformly spaced apart along the length of the elongated refrigeration duct (openings 40 spaced apart uniformly, fig. 4 of Van Der Hoogen)
Regarding claim 11, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plurality of fans are disposed at the distal end of the elongated refrigeration duct (wherein device 10 of Aubert is applied to the rear end region of Van Der Hoogen, fans 23 disposed on the distal side of air guides 38, 39)
Regarding claim 13, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the plurality of fans are arranged transversely with respect to the elongated refrigeration duct (as shown on fig. 3 of Van Der Hoogen, fans 23 arranged in direction from sides 4 to 5)
Regarding claim 14, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system of claim 13,
wherein the plurality of fans are configured to direct the cold air toward the elongated arch-shaped strip (as shown on fig. 4 of Aubert)
Regarding claim 15, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system of claim 13,
wherein the plurality of fans are configured for disposal between the plurality of curved flaps and the cargo doors (wherein device 10 of Aubert is applied to the rear end region of Van Der Hoogen, fans 23 are configured for disposal between the plurality of curved flaps of openings 40 and the cargo doors)
Regarding claim 16, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, does not teach the system of claim 1,
wherein the elongated arch-shaped strip is positioned at a distance of 1.5 meters from the cargo doors
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the elongated arch-shaped strip at a distance of 1.5 meters from the cargo doors of Van Der Hoogen to fall within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the distance between the strip and cargo doors would result in a difference in function of the Van Der Hoogen device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the position of the device 10 of Aubert as applied to Van Der Hoogen, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem (see [028] of applicant’s specification), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 17, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the elongated arch-shaped strip is configured to create an air curtain of the cold air at the distal end of the cargo space (“a device 10 to generate an air curtain in the area of the access opening 7, which extends between the sides 4 and 5 and along this access opening 7”) [0013 of Aubert]
Regarding claim 18, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the elongated arch-shaped strip is configured to extend from the ceiling of the cargo space (fig. 4 of Aubert)
Regarding claim 20, Van Der Hoogen, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1,
each curved flap of the plurality of curved flaps extends along a portion of a width of each associated cold air outlet of the plurality of cold air outlets (arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 of Tokunaga extend in the width direction in order to form a guiding surface)
Regarding claim 21, Van Der Hoogen teaches
a method for refrigerating a cargo space of a transportation vehicle (figs. 4-5, “vehicle with a cargo space unit 1”) [page 5 line 29]), the method comprising:
directing cold air from a refrigeration unit region (housing 22 of the heat pump 4, fig. 5) along an elongated refrigeration duct (air guides 38, 39) and through a plurality of cold air outlets arranged along a length of the elongated refrigeration duct, wherein each of the plurality of cold air outlets has a downstream edge (one or more ventilation openings 40);
Van Den Hoogen does not teach
directing the cold air in a downward direction using a plurality of curved flaps each operably connected to a downstream edge of a respective cold air outlet, to thereby form at least one air-curtain within the cargo space;
directing additional cold air in a downward direction using an elongated arch-shaped strip extending along a ceiling of the cargo space at a space distance from a location of a cargo door; and
propelling the cold air in a downward direction using a plurality of fans located adjacent the elongated arch-shaped strip, wherein the elongated refrigeration duct extends between the refrigeration unit in a front end region and the plurality of fans and the elongated arch-shaped strip in a rear end region
Tokunaga teaches
directing the cold air in a downward direction using a plurality of curved flaps (arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375, shown on fig. 4; “an air conditioner is also provided at the rear of the vehicle, and the end of a duct arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction on the floor or ceiling in the vehicle compartment is connected to this air conditioner” [001]; thus, while fig. 4 shows arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 directing air upwards, an arrangement with duct 3 on the ceiling would direct air downwards) each operably connected to a downstream edge of a respective cold air outlet (fig. 4), to thereby form at least one air-curtain within the cargo space (since the arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 direct air directly downward through air outlets 4 and 5, an air curtain is formed within the space as airflow out of air outlets 4 and 5 is blown in a perpendicular direction from a direction of airflow in or out of a rear door of vehicle 1; this is evidenced by Gast, which discloses “Rear panel 154 is angled to direct air from rear air discharge structures 158 downward, to create an air curtain” [col. 6 lines 32-34]; thus, this downward flow of air created in Tokunaga creates an air curtain);
Van Der Hoogen teaches one or more ventilation openings 40, but does not further teach the structure of the openings 40. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the arc-shaped outlet guide surfaces 363 and 375 of Tokunaga to the openings 40 of Van Der Hoogen, “for guiding the conditioned air from the bottom surfaces 364 and 376 to the air outlets 4 and 5, respectively” [0017 of Tokunaga], thus improving air distribution from the refrigerator unit into the cargo space.
Aubert teaches
directing additional cold air in a downward direction using an elongated arch-shaped strip (longitudinal peripheral wall 17, fig. 4; “guide air into the air outlet chamber 22 between the outlet of the fans 23 and the lower air outlet slot 19 by being deflected downwards by means of a curved longitudinal internal face” [0016]) extending along a ceiling of the cargo space at a space distance from a location of a cargo door (fig. 1, wherein device 10 is located adjacent door 9; fig. 4 wherein longitudinal peripheral wall 17 extends along the ceiling at a spaced distance from door)
propelling the cold air in a downward direction using a plurality of fans (fans 23, fig. 3) located adjacent the elongated arch-shaped strip (fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the device 10 of Aubert to Van Der Hoogen, as modified, in order “to create an aerodynamic barrier across the width and height of the opening of the interior space, in order to minimize heat exchange between the interior and exterior spaces during the loading/unloading of goods” [001 of Aubert].
The combination teaches
wherein the elongated refrigeration duct extends between the refrigeration unit in a front end region and the plurality of fans and the elongated arch-shaped strip in a rear end region (wherein device 10 of Aubert is applied to the rear end region of Van Der Hoogen, air guides 38 and 39 configured to extend between housing 22 of the heat pump 4 and device 10, as shown on fig. 5 of Van Der Hoogen)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 19 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the subject matter not found includes “wherein the plurality of fans are configured for location at a spaced apart distance from the rear end region of the cargo space”, in combination with the other elements of the claim and claims 1 and 11 from which claim 12 depends. The closest art of record is Van Der Hoogen (WO2017074179A1), in view of Tokunaga (JP2003034121A), and Aubert (FR2983127A1), as applied in the office action, however a modification to include the amended claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the plurality of fans of Aubert are located in the rear end region of the cargo space, and therefore cannot be “configured for location at a spaced apart distance from the rear end region of the cargo space”. No other prior art was found to teach the claim in its entirety.
Regarding claim 19, the subject matter not found includes “a third plurality of curved flaps arranged in a third column lengthwise along the elongated refrigeration duct”, in combination with the other elements of the claim and claims 1 and 11 from which claim 12 depends. The closest art of record is Van Der Hoogen (WO2017074179A1), in view of Tokunaga (JP2003034121A), and Aubert (FR2983127A1), as applied in the office action, however a modification to include the amended claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as both Van Der Hoogen and Tokunaga only teach two lengthwise columns of outlets in the system. No other prior art was found to teach the claim in its entirety.
Conclusion
The art of record not relied upon includes Kim (US20160324114A1) and Hara (JPH11201618A), which teach similar duct systems to the claimed invention.
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, 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762