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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/7/26 are entered.
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) 1, 13-21, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castello (US 3325193 A).
Regarding claim 1, Castello teaches an air orientation device (FIG. 2, connector C) to be coupled to an air discharge opening (FIG. 2, the opening in sheet metal wall 10) provided in a wall (FIG. 2, sheet metal wall 10) of a main air duct (FIG. 1, bonnet B), the air orientation device comprising a guide portion (FIG. 2, the conical portion of the connector C) configured to guide a secondary air flow originating from said discharge opening; and a removable fastener (FIG. 3, sections 15, 17, and 18) which reversibly fastens said guide portion to said wall of the main air duct, wherein said guide portion has a tubular outer peripheral wall (FIG. 2, the body of connector C is roughly tubular (note that while the body is slightly conical, so is the guide portion of FIG. 1C of the present application)) and said removable fastener comprises first and second flanges parallel to one another and integral with said outer peripheral wall of said guide portion so as to define an upper flange spaced apart from a lower flange (FIG. 2, sections 17 and 18 form an upper flange), said lower flange having a notch to allow said wall of the main air duct to pass between said upper and lower flanges (FIG. 2, one of the notches between sections 15, 17, and 18).
Regarding claim 13, Castello teaches that said flanges are at a distance from one another along an axis of said guide portion and delimit a space therebetween suitable for housing a peripheral edge of said wall (FIGS. 2 and 3, the sheet metal wall 10 ends up wedged between sections 17 and 15).
Regarding claim 14, Castello teaches that said guide portion has an annular section (FIG. 2, the connector C is ring shaped).
Regarding claim 15, Castello teaches that said lower flange is flush with one end of said guide portion (FIG. 2, section 15 is flush with a bottom surface of the connector C).
Regarding claim 16, Castello teaches that the air orientation device is made in one piece (FIG. 2, the connector C assembly is all one piece).
Regarding claim 17, Castello teaches that said lower flange has two free ends (FIG. 2, the two ends of section 15), delimiting said notch (FIG. 2, the ends of the section 15 help bound the gap formed between section 15 and sections 17 and 18), and said ends are symmetrical relative to a median plane passing through an axis of said guide portion located between said ends (FIG. 2, the two ends of section 15 are symmetrical).
Regarding claim 18, Castello teaches that that said lower flange has two free ends (FIG. 2, the two ends of section 15), delimiting said notch (FIG. 2, the ends of the section 15 help bound the gap formed between section 15 and sections 17 and 18), and said ends are symmetrical relative to a median plane passing through an axis of said guide portion located between said ends (FIG. 2, the two ends of section 15 are asymmetrical if split by a plane that passes through the central axis of connector C but not through a center line of the section 15).
Regarding claim 19, Castello teaches that said ends converge towards one another in the direction of said outer peripheral wall of the guide portion (FIG. 2, the ends of the section 15 converge in a circular direction toward one another).
Regarding claim 20, Castello teaches that said ends are convex in shape (FIG. 2, the ends of the section 15 are rounded and convex).
Regarding claim 21, Castello teaches a duct and air distribution assembly (the assembly of FIG. 1) comprising: a main air duct (FIG. 1, bonnet B) comprising a wall (FIG. 2, sheet metal wall 10) which has a plurality of secondary air discharge openings (FIG. 1, the openings in sheet metal wall 10) therethrough; and at least one secondary air orientation device (FIG. 2, connector C) coupled to one of said discharge openings, each air orientation device comprising a guide portion (FIG. 2, the conical portion of the connector C) for guiding a secondary air flow originating from said discharge opening associated with said air orientation device and a removable fastener (FIG. 3, sections 15, 17, and 18) which removably fastens said guide portion to said wall of the air duct, wherein said guide portion has a tubular outer peripheral wall (FIG. 2, the body of connector C is roughly tubular (note that while the body is slightly conical, so is the guide portion of FIG. 1C of the present application)) and said removable fastener comprises first and second flanges parallel to one another and integral with said outer peripheral wall of said guide portion so as to define an upper flange spaced apart from a lower flange (FIG. 2, sections 17 and 18 form an upper flange), said lower flange having a notch to allow said wall of the main air duct to pass between said upper and lower flanges (FIG. 2, one of the notches between sections 15, 17, and 18).
Regarding claim 23, Castello teaches that said plurality of discharge openings are distributed along said main air duct having a predetermined length, and each discharge opening located in a first longitudinal area of said main air duct carries an air orientation device (FIG. 1, the connectors C are located on one side of the bonnet B).
Regarding claim 27, Castello teaches that said ends converge towards one another in the direction of said outer peripheral wall of the guide portion (FIG. 2, the ends of the section 15 converge in a circular direction toward one another).
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) 24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castello as applied to claims 1-21, 23, and 27 above, and further in view of Castello.
Regarding claim 24, Castello teaches that said first longitudinal area is located at a longitudinal end of the main air duct, said longitudinal end of the main air duct being intended to be coupled to a central air conditioning unit (FIG. 1, the area of the side of the bonnet B that the connectors C are located on is connected to the furnace F).
Castello fails to teach that said first longitudinal area has a length comprised between one fifth and one half of the length of said main air duct.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the area on the sheet metal wall 10 containing the connectors C between one fifth and one half of the length of the bonnet B, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the connectors C take up a portion of the sheet metal wall 10), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the length that the connectors C take up is a result effective variable because it affects the profile of the system which may be stored in a cramped space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the area on the sheet metal wall 10 containing the connectors C between one fifth and one half of the length of the bonnet B, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 28, Castello teaches a main air duct (FIG. 1, bonnet B) to be implemented in a duct and air distribution assembly (the assembly of FIG. 1), said main air duct comprising: a wall (FIG. 2, sheet metal wall 10) which has a plurality of secondary air discharge openings (FIG. 1, the openings in sheet metal wall 10) therethrough, wherein said plurality of discharge openings are distributed along said main air duct, which has a predetermined length, and each discharge opening located in a first longitudinal area of said main air duct is able to carry an air orientation device (FIG. 2, connector C), and said first longitudinal area is located at a longitudinal end of the main air duct, said longitudinal end of the main air duct being intended to be coupled to a central air conditioning unit (FIG. 1, the area of the side of the bonnet B that the connectors C are located on is connected to the furnace F).
Castello fails to teach that said first longitudinal area has a length comprised between one fifth and one half of the length of said main air duct.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the area on the sheet metal wall 10 containing the connectors C between one fifth and one half of the length of the bonnet B, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the connectors C take up a portion of the sheet metal wall 10), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the length that the connectors C take up is a result effective variable because it affects the profile of the system which may be stored in a cramped space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the area on the sheet metal wall 10 containing the connectors C between one fifth and one half of the length of the bonnet B, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castello as applied to claims 1-21, 23, and 27 above, and further in view of Sway (NL 76439 C).
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Castello teaches that said main air duct comprises a second longitudinal area, which is separate from said first longitudinal area, wherein certain discharge openings respectively carry an air orientation device, and a third longitudinal area, which is separate from said first and second longitudinal areas, wherein the discharge openings are devoid of any air orientation device.
However, Sway teaches that said main air duct comprises a second longitudinal area (FIG. 1, the far side containing additional ports 12), which is separate from said first longitudinal area, wherein certain discharge openings respectively carry an air orientation device, and a third longitudinal area, which is separate from said first and second longitudinal areas, wherein the discharge openings are devoid of any air orientation device (FIG. 1, the third area on the right side that contains panels 17, which are closed off port sections).
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 Castello by making the bonnet B modular, so as to give a user the ability to add ports to adjust the system, as taught by Sway, 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 Castello with these aforementioned teachings of Sway with the motivation of allowing the system to be adapted to a number of different situations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7 and 8, the Applicant argues that the furnace assembly of Castello is not analogous to the air duct of the present application. Specifically, the Applicant argues that because the boiler cover of Castello cannot, by definition, produce a secondary air flow. However, the Examiner notes that using broadest reasonable interpretation, the language of a “secondary air flow” may be interpreted in many ways. One reasonable reading of the phrase might be “a second of multiple air flows,” which is in line with Castello, which sends air down at least two bonnets (FIG. 1). Similar arguments apply to the arguments regarding the rejections under 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights