DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 5, line 2, “ventilating plate” should read “a ventilating plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN204596758U to Hu.
A) As per Claim 1, Hu teaches a laminar flow device (Hu: Figure 4), comprising:
a housing defining a cavity (Hu: Figure 4, Items 1-2 cavity below top Item 3); at least one air inlet (Hu: Figure 4, Item 23), positioned within the housing;
at least one diffusion device (Hu: Figure 4, top Item 3), connected with the at least one air inlet and positioned within the cavity; and
at least one uniform flow structure (Hu: Figure 4, bottom Item 3), positioned within the bottom of the cavity;
wherein the at least one diffusion device comprises at least one diffusion frame (Hu: Figure 4, Item 3) and at least one connecting space portion (Hu: Figure 4, Item 31), and the at least one connecting space portion is connected with the cavity.
B) As per Claim 2, Hu teaches that the housing is defined as a top cover (Hu: Figure 4, Item 1), a partition (Hu: Figure 4, middle Item 3) and an outer shell (Hu: Figure 4, Items 2 & 4).
C) As per Claim 3, Hu teaches that the at least one diffusion frame having a hollow portion (Hu: Figure 4, Item 31).
D) As per Claim 4, Hu teaches that the at least one connecting space portion having an opening portion (Hu: Figure 4, Item 31).
E) As per Claim 5, Hu teaches that the uniform flow structure is ventilating plate (Hu: bottom Item 3), a porous plate, or a filter material layer.
F) As per Claim 7, Hu teaches that the outer shell comprises two supporting members (Hu: Figure 4, Items 4) and a connecting member (Hu: Figure 4, Item 2); wherein the connecting member is between the two supporting members.
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) 6 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of US Patent Publication Number 2020/0118810 A1 to Hu, hereafter referred to as Hu[810].
A) As per Claim 6, Hu teaches all the limitations except that the uniform flow structure has irregular boundary.
However, Hu[810] teaches the uniform flow structure has irregular boundary (Hu[810]: Figure 5, Item 42; Paragraph 0023).
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 Hu by having an irregular boundary, as taught by Hu[810], 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 Hu with these aforementioned teachings of Hu[810] with the motivation of providing more surface area for adhesive to bond and connect the pieces.
B) As per Claim 10, Hu teaches all the limitations except that the outer shell and the partition respectively have at least one second concave portion.
However, Hu[810] teaches the outer shell and the partition respectively have at least one second concave portion (Hu[810]: Figure 5, Item 42; Paragraph 0023).
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 Hu by having an irregular boundary, as taught by Hu[810], 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 Hu with these aforementioned teachings of Hu[810] with the motivation of providing more surface area for adhesive to bond and connect the pieces.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of TWM520194 to Hu, hereafter referred to as Hu[194].
A) As per Claim 8, Hu teaches all the limitations except that the top cover has at least one convex portion.
However, Hu[194] teaches the top cover has at least one convex portion (Hu[194]: Figure 6, Item 35).
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 Hu by having a convex portion, as taught by Hu[194], 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 Hu with these aforementioned teachings of Hu[194] with the motivation of providing more surface area for adhesive to bond and connect the pieces.
B) As per Claim 9, Hu in view of Hu[194] teaches that the partition and the outer shell respectively have at least one first concave portion which is aligned with the at least one convex portion (Hu[194]: Figure 4, Item 37; Figure 6, Item 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights