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 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klingler (EP 1800918 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Klingler teaches an airflow control method (the operation of the assembly shown in FIG. 4) comprising at least one of: a first control step including controlling a flow velocity of a first airflow flowing through an internal space of a first outlet member (FIG. 4, inner air duct 3) toward a first outlet vent (FIG. 4, the outlet vent at the downstream end of the inner air duct 3) and a flow velocity of a second airflow flowing through a space between a second outlet member (FIG. 4, outer air duct 4) and the first outlet member toward a second outlet vent (FIG. 4, the outlet vent at the downstream end of the outer air duct 2), the first outlet member having the first outlet vent and a cylindrical shape, the second outlet member having the second outlet vent and surrounding the first outlet member (Klingler, FIG. 4, the ducts have cylindrical shapes); or a second control step including controlling a state where a functional component to be diffused in the air is supplied to at least one of the first airflow or the second airflow.
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, 2, 4, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler in view of Long (US 20200386422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klingler teaches an airflow control system (FIG. 4, the assembly shown) comprising: a first outlet member (FIG. 4, the walls of inner air duct 3) having a first outlet vent (FIG. 4, the outlet vent at the downstream end of the inner air duct 3) and a cylindrical shape; a second outlet member (FIG. 4, the walls of outer air duct 4) having a second outlet vent (FIG. 4, the outlet vent at the downstream end of the outer air duct 2) and surrounding the first outlet member; a flow velocity adjustment system (FIG. 4, the system of flaps 13 and 18) having ability to adjust a flow velocity of a first airflow flowing through an internal space of the first outlet member toward the first outlet vent and a flow velocity of a second airflow flowing through a space between the second outlet member and the first outlet member toward the second outlet vent (FIG. 4, the flaps 13 and 18 can control how large the entrance to air ducts 2 and 3 are, thereby determining the air velocity); and a controller (FIG. 4, actuating ring 7 and the surrounding assembly control the position of flaps 13 and 18) configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system.
Klingler fails to teach a supply system having ability to supply a functional component to be diffused in the air to at least one of the first airflow or the second airflow.
However, Long teaches a supply system having ability to supply a functional component to be diffused in the air to at least one of the first airflow or the second airflow (paragraph 37, multiple scented fragrance liquids may be released by the air freshener 20).
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 Klingler by including a multi-fragrance air freshener installed in the air vent, as taught by Long, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Long with the motivation of giving the user the ability to scent the air with their preferred scent.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Klingler and Long teaches that the flow velocity adjustment system includes at least one of: a first resistance unit (Klingler, FIG. 4, the air flaps 18 control air velocity by adjusting the angle of the flaps, therefore adjusting their resistance to oncoming air) configured to adjust the flow velocity of the first airflow by adjusting air resistance; or a second resistance unit configured to adjust the flow velocity of the second airflow by adjusting the air resistance.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Klingler and Long teaches that the supply system has ability to supply multiple types of the functional components (paragraph 37, one of multiple scents may be used), and the controller is configured to adjust, by controlling the supply system, any of the multiple types of the functional components to be supplied from the supply system to the first airflow and the second airflow (paragraph 37, one of multiple scents may be used).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Klingler and Long teaches that the first outlet member has a shape of a circular cylinder, the second outlet member has a shape of a circular cylinder, of which an inside diameter is larger than an outside diameter of the first outlet member, and the second outlet member is arranged to have a center axis of the second outlet member aligned with a center axis of the first outlet member (Klingler, FIG. 4, the outer air duct 2 surrounds the cylindrical inner air duct 3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Klingler and Long teaches that when measured in a direction parallel to the center axis of the first outlet member, a length of the first outlet member is less than a length of the second outlet member (Klingler, FIG. 4, the length of the inner air duct 2 is less than the length of the outer air duct 3), and an opening verge of the first outlet vent of the first outlet member and an opening verge of the second outlet vent of the second outlet member are located at the same position in the direction parallel to the center axis of the first outlet member (Klingler, FIG. 4, the openings of the ducts are positioned next to each other).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler and Long as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20190003727 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Klingler and Long fails to teach that the flow velocity adjustment system includes: a first fan configured to adjust the flow velocity of the first airflow; and a second fan configured to adjust the flow velocity of the second airflow.
However, Kim teaches that the flow velocity adjustment system includes: a first fan configured to adjust the flow velocity of the first airflow; and a second fan configured to adjust the flow velocity of the second airflow (FIG. 2, blowing fans 12L and 12R determine the airflow velocity of their respective vents).
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 Klingler by including multiple fans to control velocity in the air vents, as taught by Kim, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Kim with the motivation of giving the user precise control of the ducts.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Klingler and Long fails to teach a blower configured to let a gas flow through the first outlet member and the second outlet member.
However, Kim teaches a blower configured to let a gas flow through the first outlet member and the second outlet member (FIG. 2, owing fans 12L and 12R draw air through their respective vents).
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 Klingler by including multiple fans to control velocity in the air vents, as taught by Kim, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Kim with the motivation of giving the user precise control of the ducts.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler and Long as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 111380178 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Klingler and Long fails to teach an object information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a target object present in a target space, wherein the controller is configured to control, in accordance with the information acquired by the object information acquisition unit, at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system.
However, Xu teaches an object information acquisition unit (FIG. 11, user detection unit 150) configured to acquire information about a target object present in a target space (FIG. 11, the user detection unit 150 detects a number of users in a space), wherein the controller is configured to control, in accordance with the information acquired by the object information acquisition unit, at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system (“control unit 140 can determined by flow of smell generating assembly according to the user number, the odour concentration and air conditioning space size”, meaning that the control unit 140 may determine a necessary conditioning strategy to combat the odor).
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 Klingler by including a unit for detecting the number of users, as taught by Xu, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Xu with the motivation of adjusting the air conditioner based on a number of occupants.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Klingler, Long, and Xu teaches that the target object is one or more organisms, and the information about the target object is a numerical number of the one or more organisms (Xu, FIG. 11, the unit 150 detects the number of users).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler, Long, and Xu as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Yonezawa (JP 2018041032 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Klingler, Long, and Xu fails to teach that the target object is one or more tables, and the information about the target object includes at least one of a numerical number of the one or more tables or a size of the one or more tables.
However, Yonezawa teaches that the target object is one or more tables, and the information about the target object includes at least one of a numerical number of the one or more tables or a size of the one or more tables (“ In this embodiment, the CPU 28 uses the built-in camera 38 (a depth camera (not shown) can be used together), the built-in microphone 34, the video and sound from the sensor 82, and the detection signal, and the room of the user 14. Actions within the room 12 (using optical flow, etc.), changes in the environment of the room 12, changes in the number of objects (desks, furniture, home appliances, etc.) in the room 12, changes in the arrangement, and the RTC of the computer 16 Detects the current time, etc.”).
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 Klingler by including a unit for detecting the number of tables, as taught by Yonezawa, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Yonezawa with the motivation of adjusting the air conditioner based on a rooms maximum seating capacity based on the number of tables.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler and Long as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20160061472 A1; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Klingler and Long fails to teach a biometric information acquisition unit configured to acquire biometric information about an organism present in a target area, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system in accordance with the biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit.
However, Lee teaches a biometric information acquisition unit (paragraph 94, FIG. 1, temperature and humidity control device 100, which may detect biometric information from a user) configured to acquire biometric information about an organism present in a target area, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system in accordance with the biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit (paragraph 94, FIG. 1, the temperature and humidity control device 100 may adjust a temperature based on detected biometric information from a user).
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 Klingler by including a unit for detecting biometric information, as taught by Lee, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Lee with the motivation of allowing the system to custom fit its operation to the biometrics of a user.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler and Long as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Noor (US 20190368763 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Klingler and Long fails to teach an action information acquisition unit configured to acquire action information about an organism present in a target area, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system in accordance with the action information acquired by the action information acquisition unit.
However, Noor teaches an action information acquisition unit configured to acquire action information about an organism present in a target area, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system in accordance with the action information acquired by the action information acquisition unit (paragraph 52, the system may detect a hand motion and act in response).
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 Klingler by including a unit for detecting certain user activities (e.g., a hand motion), as taught by Noor, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Noor with the motivation of allowing the system to custom fit its operation to the desires of a user (as expressed through a hand motion).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Klingler and Long fails to teach an environmental information acquisition unit configured to acquire environmental information about a target area, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system in accordance with the environmental information acquired by the environment information acquisition unit.
However, Noor teaches an environmental information acquisition unit configured to acquire environmental information about a target area, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the flow velocity adjustment system or the supply system in accordance with the environmental information acquired by the environment information acquisition unit (paragraph 52, the system may detect a hand motion (i.e., an action performed in the environment) and act in response).
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 Klingler by including a unit for detecting certain environmental information (e.g., a hand motion performed in the environment), as taught by Noor, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Noor with the motivation of allowing the system to custom fit its operation to the desires of a user (as expressed through a hand motion).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingler as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Klingler fails to teach a non-transitory storage medium storing a program designed to cause a computer system to perform the airflow control method of claim 14.
However, Lee teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program designed to cause a computer system to perform the airflow control method of claim 14 (FIG. 1, the air conditioner is controlled by temperature and humidity control device 100).
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 Klingler by controlling the air system with a non-transitory storage medium, as taught by Lee, 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 Klingler with these aforementioned teachings of Lee with the motivation of allowing the system to perform complex processes to condition the air in an ideal manner.
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