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 .
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 1-32 are objected to because of the following informalities: at lines 5 and 6 of claims 1 and 32, the claims read “the discharge unit”. There is not antecedent basis for this term. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets this to be a typo of “the diffuser unit”. Appropriate correction is required. Based on their dependence on claim 1, claims 2-31 are also objected to.
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, 2, 4-9, 13, 17-21, 24, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Nitori (JP 02136645 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nitori teaches a diffuser unit (FIG. 6, underfloor air conditioning outlet 2) for supplying air to a space, the diffuser unit comprising: a pressure plenum (FIG. 6, the volume surrounding the outlet 2) having an air inlet for receiving an airflow with a variable rate (the volume may receive air of different temperatures, and therefore air at different volumetric flow rates); at least one air deflector (FIG. 7, the vanes of cylindrical lid part 34) through which air is discharged into the space, the air deflector arranged to disperse the discharged air in a plane substantially parallel to a discharge face of the discharge unit (FIG. 7, the cylindrical lid part sends out air roughly parallel to its walls), the air deflector forming an outlet to the pressure plenum; a damper compartment (FIG. 7, cylindrical part 35) located within the pressure plenum and connected to the at least one air deflector so that the air deflector forms at least one facet of the damper compartment, the damper compartment having a plurality of damper apertures (FIG. 7, the spaces between the guides 37) forming inlets to the damper compartment, the damper compartment further comprising a plurality of damper doors (FIG. 7, guides 37), each damper door associated with at least one corresponding aperture and being operable between an open position and a closed position (FIG. 7, the guides 37 may open and close the spaces in between); and wherein the damper compartment and the damper apertures are arranged so that air entering the damper compartment through the damper apertures from the pressure plenum forms a swirl before exiting the damper compartment through the at least one air deflector (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Nitori teaches that the damper apertures are operable to achieve a higher distal and lower proximal tangential velocity of air discharged from the air deflector when the damper apertures are throttled (FIG. 8, as the guides 37 are closed, the cross-sectional area of the openings decreases, and the air flow velocity increases).
Regarding claim 4, Nitori teaches that the damper compartment is frusto-conical (FIG. 7, the assembly is frusto-conical).
Regarding claim 5, Nitori teaches that each damper door may be moved between an open position and a closed position (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Nitori teaches that one or more of the plurality of damper doors may comprise a vane extending tangentially to a surface of the damper compartment (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Nitori teaches that the damper compartment has a plurality of edges defining the apertures, the damper compartment having vanes formed at the edges (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Nitori teaches that the plurality of damper doors are formed by a sheath which engages with, and slides relative to, the damper compartment (FIG. 7, the guides 37 form a continuous sliding (rotating) sheath).
Regarding claim 9, Nitori teaches that one or more of the plurality of damper doors is mounted for pivoting movement about an axis relative to the damper compartment (FIG. 7, each guide 37 rotates about an axis relative to the rest of the assembly).
Regarding claim 13, Nitori teaches that one or more of the plurality of damper doors has a trailing edge and a profile of the trailing edge diverges from a profile of a portion of the damper door excluding the trailing edge (FIG. 5, the trailing edges of the guides have a different shape than the leading edges).
Regarding claim 17, Nitori teaches that the damper compartment comprises an inlet surface for forming a seal with a corresponding door (FIG. 7, the surfaces of the guides 37 that contact each other to seal the volume), the inlet surface describing a rounded inlet upstream of a sealing site (FIG. 7, the rounded surface of the guides 37 upstream of where they connect to one another).
Regarding claim 18, Nitori teaches that one or more of the plurality of damper doors comprises a lock for locking a position of the damper door relative to the at least one corresponding aperture (FIG. 1, guide pins 11 make all the guides move with one another, and lock the assembly in place when the guides have reached the limit of their movement range).
Regarding claim 19, Nitori teaches one or more blanking segments for obstructing a portion of airflow though the unit (FIG. 1, bottom plate 5).
Regarding claim 20, Nitori teaches that the damper apertures are substantially symmetrically arranged around a periphery of the compartment (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Nitori teaches at least one actuator for opening and closing the plurality of damper doors (FIG. 3, guide pins 11 are actuated to move the guides).
Regarding claim 24, Nitori teaches that the at least one actuator comprises one or more arms engaging with respective doors (FIG. 3, guide pins 11), wherein the actuator is arranged to translate the arms in a direction substantially parallel to a central axis of the compartment to thereby move the damper doors between the open and closed positions (FIG. 8, the actuator closes and opens the guides 37).
Regarding claim 32, Nitori teaches a method (the method of operating the assembly shown in FIG. 6) of diffusing an airflow using a diffuser unit (FIG. 6, underfloor air conditioning outlet 2), the diffuser unit comprising: a pressure plenum (FIG. 6, the volume surrounding the outlet 2) having an air inlet; an air deflector (FIG. 7, the vanes of cylindrical lid part 34) through which air is discharged into a space, the air deflector comprising a plurality of discharge elements arranged to disperse the discharged air in a plane substantially parallel to a discharge face of the discharge unit (FIG. 7, the cylindrical lid part sends out air roughly parallel to its walls), the air deflector forming an outlet to the pressure plenum; a damper compartment (FIG. 7, cylindrical part 35) located within the pressure plenum and connected to the air deflector so that the air deflector forms at least one facet of the damper compartment, the damper compartment having a plurality of damper apertures (FIG. 7, the spaces between the guides 37) forming inlets to the damper compartment, the damper compartment further comprising at least one damper door (FIG. 7, guides 37), the damper door associated with a corresponding aperture and being operable between an open position and a closed position (FIG. 7, the guides 37 may open and close the spaces in between); the method comprising: receiving a supply airflow with a variable supply airflow rate through the air inlet to the pressure plenum; opening one or more damper doors to allow an airflow into the damper compartment; creating a swirl airflow within the damper compartment; and allowing air to exit the diffuser unit into a space via the air deflector in a swirl in a plane substantially parallel to a discharge face of the discharge unit (the operation performed by the assembly of FIG. 6).
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) 3, 12, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitori as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 17-21, 24, and 32 above, and further in view of Badenhorst (WO 2011022788 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nitori fails to teach a perforated baffle plate associated with the air inlet of the pressure plenum.
However, Badenhorst teaches a perforated baffle plate associated with the air inlet of the pressure plenum (FIG. 3, perforated plate dampers 17a).
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 Nitori by surrounding the inlets of Nitori with perforated plates, as taught by Badenhorst, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Badenhorst with the motivation of preventing debris from damaging the guides 37 of Nitori.
Regarding claim 12, Nitori fails to teach that the one or more of the plurality of damper doors is formed from a perforated or porous material at the trailing edge.
However, Badenhorst teaches that the one or more of the plurality of damper doors is formed from a perforated or porous material at the trailing edge (FIG. 3, perforated plate dampers 17a).
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 Nitori by making the inlets of Nitori out of perforated plates, as taught by Badenhorst, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Badenhorst with the motivation of allowing non-swirled airflow when closed.
Regarding claim 25, Nitori fails to teach a core portion delimited from the damper compartment by a core conduit.
However, Badenhorst teaches a core portion delimited from the damper compartment by a core conduit (FIG. 3, pilot nozzle 11a).
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 Nitori by including a central pilot nozzle, as taught by Badenhorst, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Badenhorst with the motivation of mixing laminar and turbulent flow to give the user more options.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Nitori and Badenhorst teaches that the core conduit comprises a shroud (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, the outer shell of the pilot nozzle 11a), the shroud having an inlet into which air from the pressure plenum enters the shroud, and an outlet through which air exits the shroud.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitori as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 17-21, 24, and 32 above, and further in view of Covert (US 0663562 A).
Regarding claim 10, Nitori fails to teach that one or more of the plurality of damper doors has a trailing edge formed with serrations.
However, Covert teaches that one or more of the plurality of damper doors has a trailing edge formed with serrations (FIG. 3, serrated edge 12).
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 Nitori by having the blades of the guides 37 include serrated edges on their extremes to act as gears, as taught by Covert, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Covert with the motivation of including gears on the blades themselves to reduce the number of parts needed and improve durability.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nitori and Covert teaches that the serrations are one or more of saw-tooth (FIG. 3, the serrated edge is in a saw tooth pattern), sinusoidal or irregular.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitori as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 17-21, 24, and 32 above, and further in view of Noh (KR 101663127 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Nitori fails to teach that one or more of the plurality of damper doors has a surface upon which airflow impinges, the surface being formed with one or more protrusions to reduce a noise generated by air flowing over the surface.
However, Noh teaches that one or more of the plurality of damper doors has a surface upon which airflow impinges, the surface being formed with one or more protrusions to reduce a noise generated by air flowing over the surface (FIG. 6, the protrusions at the end of each wing 300 are used to prevent air from slipping through, therefore reducing noise).
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 Nitori by having the blades of the guides 37 connect with protrusions to keep air from leaking through, as taught by Noh, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Noh with the motivation of reducing air leakage and noise.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nitori and Noh teaches that the surface forms a trailing edge and/or a sealing edge (Noh, FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nitori and Noh teaches that the protrusions are one or more of substantially planar, a sawtooth, rectangles, triangles, truncated triangles, substantially sinusoidal or irregular (Noh, FIG. 6, the protrusions of the wings 300 are sinusoidal), or vortex generators shaped as a distorted pyramid with a triangular base, a blade shape or hemispheres.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitori as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 17-21, 24, and 32 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 106839213 B).
Regarding claim 22, Nitori fails to teach a sensor for measuring air temperature, the sensor being connected to the at least one actuator so that the plurality of damper doors may be opened or closed in response to measured air temperature.
However, Zhang teaches a sensor for measuring air temperature, the sensor being connected to the at least one actuator so that the plurality of damper doors may be opened or closed in response to measured air temperature (“when any one of the monitoring unit in the temperature average value is higher than in the other monitoring unit of the temperature average value, and exceeds the set threshold. outputting a control signal to the control chip of the base station air conditioner, controlling the fan 12 to high speed gear operation to generate a high speed gear operation signal after the motor receives control to the action of the first air door 18 signal sent by the control chip.”).
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 Nitori by having the blades of the guides 37 controlled in response to a temperature sensor, as taught by Zhang, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Zhang with the motivation of automating the operation of the system.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Nitori and Zhang teaches that the sensor for measuring air temperature comprises a supply air sensor arranged to measure supply air temperature and a room air sensor arranged to measure an air temperature of the space (“distributing a plurality of temperature sensors in the room with air conditioner, preferably in the upper part of each multi-layer frame or cabinet, lower and central position are respectively provided with a temperature sensor; and the temperature detection value generated by the temperature sensor in real time uploaded into a processing module”. The sensors detect the temperature of freshly supplied air as well as air elsewhere in the room).
Claim(s) 27-31 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitori and Badenhorst as applied to claims 3, 12, and 24-26 above, and further in view of Nesbitt (US 20190219427 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Nitori and Badenhorst teaches having a perforated cap (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, perforated plate dampers 17a) and wherein the core portion comprises a divider (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, perforated nozzle dampers 10a) dividing the core portion into an upper portion associated with the pressure plenum and a lower portion associated with the space into which the air is discharged by the diffuser unit during use, the divider being formed with one or more induction inlets (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, the inlets of the nozzle dampers 10a), the core portion further having a second inlet (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, the inlet of the pilot jet 11a) located above the venturi wall in the lower portion wherein airflow through the induction inlets causes an induced airflow through the perforations in the cap into the shroud through the second inlet to form a combined airflow which exits the shroud through the outlet (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, the air enters through the inlets and exits through the outlets).
The combination of Nitori and Badenhorst fials to teach the lower portion having a venturi wall.
However, Nesbitt teaches the lower portion having a venturi wall (FIG. 1).
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 Nitori by including a venturi section in the central nozzle of Badenhorst, as taught by Nesbitt, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Nesbitt with the motivation of allowing for certain sensing operations.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Nitori, Bedenhorst, and Nesbitt teaches that the induction inlet is configured to impart a swirl to the combined airflow (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, going through a porous damper causes turbulent flow (i.e., a swirl)).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Nitori, Bedenhorst, and Nesbitt teaches an induction damper operable between a closed position in which induced airflow is restricted or prevented and an open position in which induced airflow is permitted (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, the inlets of the nozzle dampers 10a may be opened or closed).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Nitori, Bedenhorst, and Nesbitt teaches an actuator for closing the damper doors and then moving the induction damper to a closed position, and opening the damper doors after moving the induction damper to an open position (Badenhorst, FIG. 3, the actuator of the nozzle dampers 10a).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Nitori, Bedenhorst, and Nesbitt teaches one or more pressure sensors for measuring a static pressure of the supply air relative to a static pressure of the space (Nesbitt, FIG. 1, pressure sensor tubes 26 and 36).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitori in view of Nesbitt.
Regarding claim 45, Nitori teaches a method of determining an airflow rate for a diffuser unit (FIG. 6, underfloor air conditioning outlet 2), the diffuser unit comprising: a pressure plenum (FIG. 6, the volume surrounding the outlet 2) having an air inlet receiving a supply airflow with a variable supply airflow rate (the volume may receive air of different temperatures, and therefore air at different volumetric flow rates); at least one air deflector (FIG. 7, the vanes of cylindrical lid part 34) through which air is discharged into a space, the at least one air deflector comprising a plurality of discharge elements arranged to disperse the discharged air (FIG. 7, the cylindrical lid part sends out air roughly parallel to its walls), the air deflector forming an outlet to the pressure plenum; a damper compartment (FIG. 7, cylindrical part 35) located within the pressure plenum and connected to the at least one air deflector so that the air deflector forms at least one facet of the damper compartment, the damper compartment having a plurality of damper apertures (FIG. 7, the spaces between the guides 37) forming inlets to the damper compartment, the damper compartment further comprising at least one induction damper or damper door (FIG. 7, guides 37), the induction damper or damper door associated with a corresponding aperture and being operable between an open position and a closed position (FIG. 7, the guides 37 may open and close the spaces in between).
Nitori fails to teach the method comprising: determining a static pressure in the pressure plenum ; determining a position of the induction damper or damper door; and calculating a supply airflow rate with reference to the determined static pressure and door position.
However, Nesbit teaches the method comprising: determining a static pressure in the pressure plenum (FIG. 3, the sensors 26 and 36 determine static pressure); determining a position of the induction damper or damper door (FIG. 3, an actuator monitors and controls the position of the damper 14); and calculating a supply airflow rate with reference to the determined static pressure and door position (abstract, the damper and the pressure sensors are used to determine a flow rate).
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 Nitori by including a venturi section in the central nozzle of Badenhorst, as taught by Nesbitt, 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 Nitori with these aforementioned teachings of Nesbitt with the motivation of allowing for certain sensing operations.
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