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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15-28 objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 15 and 28, the terms “B”, “C”, and “suction box” are first introduced with a preceding “the,” with no antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Based on their dependence on claim 15, claims 16-27 are also objected to.
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 15-28 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. In claims 15 and 28, the pair of terms “diffusion element” and “diffuser element” appear. The Examiner read the claims and the specification, and it appears that the terms are likely synonymous. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to make this clearer. Based on their dependence on claim 15, claims 16-27 are also rejected.
Regarding claims 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 28, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Due to their dependence on claim 15, claims 16, 20, 21, and 24-27 are also rejected.
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) 15-21, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertin (US 20040157543 A1) in view of Edwards (US 3436016 A).
Regarding claims 15 and 28, Bertin teaches an automatic ceiling diffuser system of a room (FIG. 1, air diffuser 10), the system being suitable for heating, cooling and ventilating the room by radiation and thermal convection, the system comprising at least one modular island intended to be attached to the ceiling of the room (FIG. 1, the body of the air diffuser 10), the modular island comprising: a peripheral frame (FIG. 1, the side frame of the air diffuser 10) provided with at least one line attachment (FIG. 1, interchangeable bottom panel 18) of a diffuser element such as a taut fabric situated in its lower part opposite the ceiling; on one or more of its faces, the peripheral frame comprises a slit (FIG. 14, the opening of the deflection damper 14) for blowing air toward the room; a diffusion element such as a taut fabric, attached to the attachment line of the peripheral frame, visible from the room and forming the horizontal bottom face of the modular island (see above); a top cover (FIG. 1, the top of the frame 11) forming the top face of the modular island facing the ceiling; an air blowing connection outlet (FIG. 2, paragraph 47, the outlet of the grille 24, which take in return air) fixed to the suction box (FIG. 2, the bottom portion of the air diffuser 10 where return air is sucked in) of the modular island and allowing the injection of treated air into the internal volume of the modular island; a channel of articulated baffles formed by an upper articulated baffle and a lower articulated baffle (FIG. 14, the channel and trajectory vanes 16), fixed to the peripheral frame at the air blowing slit and making it possible to orient the blown air a thermostatic actuation means making it possible to actuate the channel of articulated baffles via a baffle actuation means (FIG. 14, the assembly surrounding axle pin 46 moves the vanes 16) such as an actuation rod and conferring on the channel a blowing angle dependent on the temperature of the treated air injected into the modular island (paragraph 7, the air may be angled based on the temperature of the air); the thermostatic actuation means comprising a piston (FIG. 14, axle pin 46), the outlet stroke of which depends on the temperature of air in which the thermostatic actuation means is immersed; and in which the channel of articulated baffles comprises an articulated means (FIG. 14, horizontal slits 70) for maintaining parallelism positioned in the channel and linking the upper and lower articulated baffles to the articulation points B and C respectively, the upper and lower articulated baffles fixed to the peripheral frame at articulation points A and D describing, with the articulation points B and C of the articulated means for maintaining parallelism, a parallelogram A-B-C-D imposing a parallelism on its opposite faces (FIG. 14, the ends of the vanes 16 form a series of parallelograms), wherein the modular island further comprises an air suction connection outlet fixed to the top cover of the modular island and communicating with a suction box provided with a filter sucking the ambient air from the room from the top cover of the modular island (see above).
Bertin fails to teach at an angle defined with respect to the ceiling varying from 0 degrees, and namely parallel to the ceiling when cold air is blown into the island, to a maximum of 70 degrees when hot air is blown into the modular island; a return spring making it possible to exert a force opposite the stroke of the piston of the thermostatic actuation means and thus make it revert to its minimal stroke when cold air is blown into the modular island.
However, Edwards teaches a return spring (FIG. 3, spring 40) making it possible to exert a force opposite the stroke of the piston of the thermostatic actuation means and thus make it revert to its minimal stroke when cold air is blown into the modular island (“The spring is a spiral coil leaf-type spring, having one end attached to the shutter assembly and the other end attached stationarily with respect to a frame. The spring itself is a thermostatic element and will expand and contract in response to temperature changes which expansion and contraction will cause the end thereof attached to the shutter assembly to move with a sufficient force to open and close the shutter assembly.”).
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 Bertin by making it so the vanes shut when the air is cold as driven by a spring, as taught by Edwards, 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 Bertin with these aforementioned teachings of Edwards with the motivation of reducing the amount of electricity necessary to control the device.
Edwards fails to teach at an angle defined with respect to the ceiling varying from 0 degrees, and namely parallel to the ceiling when cold air is blown into the island, to a maximum of 70 degrees when hot air is blown into the modular island.
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 minimum angle of the slit 0 degrees and the maximum angle 70 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Bertin, the angle of the vanes varies from 0 to 120 degrees), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that vane angle is a result effective variable because it affects the approach angle of conditioned air and may affect how easily air of different temperatures is distributed throughout a room. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the minimum angle of the slit 0 degrees and the maximum angle 70 degrees, 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 16, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the automatic system is configured so that: when hot air is blown into the modular island, the section of the channel of articulated baffles formed between the lower and upper articulated baffles decreases when the inclination thereof increases with respect to a horizontal plane generating a greater blown air velocity favoring the heating mode; when cold air is blown into the modular island, the section of the channel of articulated baffles formed between the lower and upper articulated baffles increases up to a maximum section of the channel when the two articulated baffles are in the horizontal position generating a low air velocity favoring the cooling mode (Bertin, FIG. 14, as the vanes 16 open and close, the cross-section of the openings change in size, affecting airflow velocity).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the modular island is further provided with an acoustic insulation (Bertin, paragraph 66, the features of the vane 16 that reduce sound power levels) as well as the diffusion element such as a taut fabric, optionally micro-perforated, allowing the acoustic treatment of the room (Bertin, the features of the diffuser 10 allow for acoustic treatment of the room).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the air suction connection outlet is connected to an air suction duct so as to route the ambient air from the room to an external air-conditioning unit such as a fan coil or an air-handling unit for treating air to be injected (Bertin, the grille 24 and the return air duct 29 lead air to conditioning device).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the treated air injected into the internal volume of the modular island via the air blowing connection outlet corresponds to the air heated or cooled (Bertin, the conditioned air is heated or cooled air) and optionally mixed with fresh ventilation air input by the external air-conditioning unit such as a fan coil or an air-handling unit for treating air to be injected.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the thermostatic actuation means deploys a stroke of its piston that is proportional to the temperature of the treated air injected into the modular island (Bertin, see above, the actuation means adjusts the vanes 16 depending on the temperature of the conditioned air).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the actuation means of the baffles linking the thermostatic actuation means to the channel of articulated baffles is fixed to the upper articulated baffle thus subjecting the channel of articulated baffles to an angle dependent on the temperature of treated air injected into the modular island (Bertin, FIG. 14, the upper vane is connected to the other vanes, which all rotate based on air temperature).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the modular island comprises attachment hangers or another fixing means allowing it to be fixed to the ceiling of the room (Bertin, FIG. 1, the top portion of the frame 11 hangs the remainder of the diffuser 10 from the ceiling).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Bertin and Edwards teaches that the thermostatic actuation means is a cylinder (Bertin, FIG. 14, the axle pin is a pin, which, geometrically, is a sort of cylinder).
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertin and Edwards as applied to claims 15-21, 25, and 26 above, and further in view of Gu (CN 108826631 A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Bertin and Edwards fails to teach that the modular island is further provided with at least one light source fixed inside the modular island and allowing illumination of the room, the light generated by the light source being distributed over the diffusion element, such as a taut fabric visible from the room.
However, Gu teaches that the modular island is further provided with at least one light source fixed inside the modular island and allowing illumination of the room, the light generated by the light source being distributed over the diffusion element, such as a taut fabric visible from the room (FIG. 1, indicator light 8).
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 Bertin by making it so the diffuser includes a light, as taught by Gu, 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 Bertin with these aforementioned teachings of Gu with the motivation of notifying users when the diffuser is active.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Bertin, Edwards, and Gu teaches that the modular island is further provided with a light diffusion element such as a taut fabric, and an upper attachment line for the peripheral frame making it possible to attach the light diffusion element below the level of the light source (Gu, FIG. 1, the diffuser’s front surface helps diffuse the light and is placed ahead of the indicator light 8).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Bertin, Edwards, and Gu teaches that the lower articulated baffle serves as a barrier to the light so as not to make the light source visible and/or prevent light from exiting through the blowing slit (Gu, the indicator light 8 is positioned such that the vanes 16 of Bertin are not lit up).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertin and Edwards as applied to claims 15-21, 25, and 26 above, and further in view of Mrozek (WO 2005012806 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Bertin and Edwards fails to teach that several modular islands are attached to one another allowing the treated air to circulate from one modular island to the other by means of an inter-module connection slit disposed on the small sides of the peripheral frame of each modular island.
However, Mrozek teaches that several modular islands are attached to one another allowing the treated air to circulate from one modular island to the other by means of an inter-module connection slit disposed on the small sides of the peripheral frame of each modular island (“As described above (see Figs. 2-6), the ports 350 can be used to couple the control device to a main controller, and/or to daisy chain multiple damper units together”).
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 Bertin by making it so the diffuser may be connected to a series of other diffusers, as taught by Mrozek, 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 Bertin with these aforementioned teachings of Mrozek with the motivation of making it so the system may accommodate many different room sizes by being modular.
Conclusion
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