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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species ie, iic, iiia, ivb, and vb (claims 1 – 7, 9 – 11, and 15 – 20) in the reply filed on September 5, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that (inter alia):
the Restriction Requirement has not established a proper basis for restriction for all of the species, because the Restriction Requirement does not establish that claims to the respective species do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive, as required by MPEP § 806.04(f); and
the search and examination of all the claims can be made without serious burden…(as the examiner provided) … conclusory statements that copy language from the standard set forth in MPEP § 808.02 and not an explanation why search and examination of all the claims cannot be made without serious burden.
This is not found to be persuasive, for at least the following.
Regarding the remark that the Restriction Requirement does not establish that claims to the respective species do not overlap in scope, the examiner respectfully notes that a test to assess whether two or more related inventions would overlap is that there is no product (or process) that would infringe both of the identified inventions. In other words, not overlapping in scope means that the inventions have mutually exclusive limitations, or the limitations of one claimed invention would not read on the limitations of the other claimed invention (and vice versa).
For example, if Group I discloses (A, B, C) and if Group II discloses (A, B, D):
in Group I, the disclosure of “C” excludes the disclosure of Group II, and
in Group II, the disclosure of “D” excludes the disclosure of Group I.
the limitations “C” and “D” being exclusive to Groups I and II, respectively;
Groups I and II do not overlap, as limitations of Group I do not read on the limitations of Group II
In other words, if Group III discloses (A, B, C, a, b, c) and if Group IV discloses (a, b, c):
the limitations (A, B, C,) are exclusive to Group III, and
Group III overlaps Group IV, as the product (or process) of Group III would infringe on both Group III and IV.
Scope “overlap”, in this context, is not as one would visualize an area of overlap among circles of a Venn diagram. In a Venn diagram, “overlapping” elements are shared, or common, elements. More accurately visualized by a Euler diagram, “overlapping” claimed elements are those that are completely within another claim. As explained in MPEP §805.05, if a first invention scope overlapped a second invention scope, the first invention would infringe on (completely disclose) the second invention.
While each of the species has common shared elements, each species discloses at least one unique element and therefore the species do not “overlap” as defined by the MPEP.
Regarding the remark that the Restriction Requirement does not establish that claims to the respective species do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive, as required by MPEP § 806.04(f), the examiner respectfully notes:
MPEP §806.04(f) states “a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. This may also be expressed by saying that to require restriction between claims limited to species, the claims must not overlap in scope.”
In the restriction requirement dated July 7, 2025, paragraph 2 discusses five different species: fans, loops, operation, air diversion, and exterior exhaust corridors. Paragraph 3 clearly delineates unique limitations for each of the five species, exactly as required within MPEP §806.04(f).
Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or are not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention. In terms of the Restriction Requirement dated July 7, 2025, the examiner maintains that (e.g.:) an invention drawn to (fig 8)1 air mixing boxes mounted external to building would not infringe on an invention drawn to (figs 1, 2)2 where supply air (at 215) communicates with exhaust air (at 220) via passive uncontrolled vents and openings.
Regarding the remark that “an explanation why search and examination of all the claims cannot be made without serious burden” was not provided by the examiner, and that instead conclusory statements that copy language from the standard set forth in MPEP § 808.02, the examiner respectfully notes the following:
MPEP 808.02 Burden can be established by one of (A) separate classification, (B) separate status in the art, or (C) a different field of search
Establishing Burden includes (B) Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
Establishing Burden includes (C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Each of the species were provided with explicit unique mechanical features on pages 2/9 – 6/9 of the restriction requirement. While the examiner did not provide the CPC group/subgroups for each of the twenty species, the explanation of each species clearly delineated their differences.
For example, the fan species alone comprises (ia) no fans, (ib) recirculation fans with speed drives, and (id) fans external to a building. Currently, this is no group/subgroup in F24F that would provide art for each of those fan species
It must be noted that the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional feature addressed. Issues relevant to one invention may not be relevant to another invention, due to their divergent nature. Concurrent examination of the multiple inventions claimed would thus involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive, which they are not. See MPEP 808.02.
It is the policy of The Office to present any restriction or election requirements at the onset of prosecution, which may have bearing on any future amendments or newly submitted claims that may occur during prosecution. The objective of this directive is to provide as compact a prosecution process as possible. Accordingly, even though the claims submitted November 16, 2022 may not recite all of the structure disclosed in the figures, the election of species is still appropriate.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Please note: Claims 8 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “automated grate”3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Beresford (GB 2576571).
In re Claims 1 and 2, Beresford discloses a system comprising:
multiple buildings (fig 5: (13) “stacked modular housings”) including a first building and a second building (annotated, below) disposed in close proximity to each other, each of the buildings having a first end configured (at (12)) to receive ambient supply air from an exterior environment and a second end (at (18)) configured to output exhaust air to the exterior environment, each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices (Title),
wherein the computing devices in each building are configured to generate thermal energy that is transmitted to the supply air (pg 8/23, lns 30 – 34), thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air before the exhaust air exits that building,
PNG
media_image1.png
419
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first end (12) of the first building is a closest end to the second building and the first end (12) of the second building is a closest end to the first building (annotated, above), and
wherein the first end of the first building and the first end of the second building form portions of a supply air corridor (annotated, above) between the first building and the second building,
and
wherein each of the buildings (13) is a multi-floor building (“stacked”; pg 16/23, lns 29 – 30) and each floor contains some of the multiple computing devices4.
In re Claim 7, Beresford discloses wherein each building comprises one or more fans (pg 15/23, ln 27 – pg 16/23, ln 4) configured to promote movement of the supply air into that building or movement of the exhaust air out of that building.
In re Claim 11, Beresford discloses wherein the second end of the first building and an end of an adjacent third building form portions of an exhaust air corridor (annotated fig 5, above: (19)) between the first building and the third building.
Regarding Claims 15, 16, and 20, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claims 15 and 16, Beresford discloses a method (pg 13/23, lns 26 – 31) comprising:
at each of multiple buildings (fig 5: (13) “stacked modular housings”) including a first building and a second building disposed in close proximity to each other (annotated in fig 5, above):
receiving ambient supply air from an exterior environment at a first end (12) and outputting exhaust air to the exterior environment at a second end (18), each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices (Title);
generating thermal energy (during normal operation) by multiple computing devices (pg 8/23, lns 12 – 13; pg 15/23, lns 21 – 23) disposed in that building; and
transmitting the thermal energy to the supply air, thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air before the exhaust air exits that building (pg 8/23, lns 31 – 34),
wherein the first end of the first building is a closest end to the second building and the first end of the second building is a closest end to the first building (annotated in fig 5, above), and
wherein the first end (12) of the first building and the first end (12) of the second building form portions of a supply air corridor (annotated in fig 5, above)) between the first building and the second building;
and
wherein each of the buildings (13) is a multi-floor building (“stacked”; pg 16/23, lns 29 – 30) and each floor contains some of the multiple computing devices5.
In re Claim 20, Beresford discloses further comprising: at each building, operating one or more fans (pg 15/23, ln 27 – pg 16/23, ln 8) to promote movement of the supply air into that building or movement of the exhaust air out of that building.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Parizeau et al (CA 2904518).
In re Claims 1 and 2, Parizeau et al discloses a system (fig 4: (400)) comprising:
multiple buildings (100) including a first building (402) and a second building (403) disposed in close proximity to each other, each of the buildings having a first end (327) configured to receive ambient supply air from an exterior environment and a second end (329) configured to output exhaust air to the exterior environment, each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices (211),
wherein each of the buildings is a multi-floor building (“four levels 204” [0051]), and each floor contains some of the multiple computing devices6;
PNG
media_image2.png
411
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the computing devices (211) in each building are configured to generate thermal energy that is transmitted to the supply air, thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air (“The air is warmed by the passage from the cold aisle 333 through the rack 211…As the air goes through the cabinets 211, the air absorbs the heat dissipated by the computing systems and exits in the hot-aisles 334.” [0056, 0057]) before the exhaust air exits that building,
wherein the first end (327) of the first building (402) is a closest end to the second building and the first end of the second building (403) is a closest end to the first building [0070], and
“a first type of module 402 comprises (figs 3a, b: (101) disposed on the right side of (102)
“a second type of module 403 is a mirror from the first type of module 402, as the first area 101 is disposed on the left side of (102) [0070]
wherein the first end of the first building (402) and the first end of the second building (403) form portions of a supply air corridor between the first building and the second building (annotated in fig 4, above).
In re Claim 4, Parizeau et al discloses wherein at least one of the buildings comprises at least one grate (212) disposed between adjacent floors, the at least one grate configured to allow a portion of the supply air to flow from a lower floor to a higher floor of the adjacent floors (as seen in fig 3a).
In re Claim 7, Parizeau et al discloses wherein each building comprises one or more fans (fig 3b: (324)) [0061] configured to promote movement of the supply air [0052] into that building or movement of the exhaust air [0055] out of that building.
Claims 8, and 12 – 14, have been withdrawn as being directed to an unclaimed species.
In re Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20: Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claims 15 and 16, Parizeau et al discloses a method comprising:
at each of multiple buildings (fig 4: (100)) including a first building ((402) annotated fig 4, above) and a second building (403) disposed in close proximity to each other:
receiving ambient supply air from an exterior environment at a first end (327) and outputting exhaust air to the exterior environment at a second end (329), each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices (211);
generating thermal energy by multiple computing devices [0056] disposed in that building; and
transmitting the thermal energy to the supply air, thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air before the exhaust air exits that building(“The air is warmed by the passage from the cold aisle 333 through the rack 211…As the air goes through the cabinets 211, the air absorbs the heat dissipated by the computing systems and exits in the hot-aisles 334.” [0056, 0057]),
wherein the first end (327) of the first building (402) is a closest end to the second building (403), and the first end (327) of the second building (403) is a closest end to the first building (327) [0070],
“a first type of module 402 comprises (figs 3a, b: (101) disposed on the right side of (102)
“a second type of module 403 is a mirror from the first type of module 402, as the first area 101 is disposed on the left side of (102) [0070]
wherein the first end of the first building (402) and the first end of the second building (403) form portions of a supply air corridor between the first building and the second building (annotated in fig 4, above,.
wherein each of the buildings is a multi-floor building (“four levels 204” [0051]), and each floor contains some of the multiple computing devices7.
In re Claim 18, Parizeau et al discloses wherein at least one of the buildings comprises at least one grate (212) disposed between adjacent floors, the at least one grate configured to allow a portion of the supply air to flow from a lower floor to a higher floor of the adjacent floors (as seen in fig 3a).
In re Claim 20, Parizeau et al discloses wherein, at each building, operating one or more fans (fig 3b: (324)) [0061] to promote movement of the supply air [0052] into that building or movement of the exhaust air [0055] out of that building.
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Papen et al (US 2020/0042054), in view of Parizeau et al (CA 2904518).
In re Claim 1, Papen et al discloses a system (fig 12) comprising:
multiple buildings (600a-d) including a first building (600a) and a second building (600b) disposed in close proximity to each other [0116], each of the buildings having a first end (at (612)) configured to receive ambient supply air (TC) from an exterior environment (at “exterior wall”) and a second end (at (620)) configured to output exhaust air (TH) to the exterior environment (fig 12: at (608)), each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices (fig 11: (540), [0115]),
[0116] “The facilities 600a, 600b are also arranged spaced apart from one another a sufficient distance to prevent an outflow of exhaust air TH from the facility 600a from interfering with the opposing outflow of exhaust air TH from facility 600b, and vice versa.”
wherein the computing devices (540) in each building are configured to generate thermal energy that is transmitted to the supply air, thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air before the exhaust air exits that building,
[0004] “The exhaust air space is configured to exhaust or vent heated air generated from the computing devices inside the facility to the external environment.”
wherein the second end (at (620)) of the first building (600a) is a closest end to the second building (600b) and the second end (at (620)) of the second building (600b) is a closest end to the first building, and
wherein the second end of the first building (600a) and the second end of the second building (600b) form portions of an exhaust air corridor (608) between the first building and the second building.
Papen et al is silent as to a disposition of a supply air corridor,
wherein the first end of the first building (608a) is a closest end to the second building (608b) and the first end of the second building (608b) is a closest end to the first building (608a), and
wherein the first end of the first building (608a) and the first end of the second building (608b) form portions of a supply air corridor between the first building and the second building.
Parizeau et al teaches a system (fig 4: (400)) comprising:
multiple buildings (100) including a first building (402) and a second building (403) disposed in close proximity to each other, each of the buildings having a first end (at (327)) configured to receive ambient supply air from an exterior environment and a second end (at (329)) configured to output exhaust air to the exterior environment, each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices (211),
PNG
media_image2.png
411
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first end (at (327)) of the first building (402) is a closest end to the second building (403) and the first end (at (327)) of the second building (403) is a closest end to the first building (402) [0070], and
“a first type of module 402 comprises (figs 3a, b: (101) disposed on the right side of (102)
“a second type of module 403 is a mirror from the first type of module 402, as the first area 101 is disposed on the left side of (102) [0070]
wherein the first end of the first building (402) and the first end of the second building (403) form portions of a supply air corridor (at seen in fig 4) between the first building and the second building.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Papen et al, as taught by Parizeau et al, such that the system comprises a supply air corridor,
wherein the first end of the first building is a closest end to the second building and the first end of the second building is a closest end to the first building, and
wherein the first end of the first building and the first end of the second building form portions of a supply air corridor between the first building and the second building,
so that exhaust air from the first building (“module”) does not feed wasted or exiting air into the second building (“neighbor module”) [0070].
In re Claim 2, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Papen et al discloses wherein each of the buildings is a multi-floor building (fig 6: (256a, 256b)) and each floor contains some of the multiple computing devices (241, 242) [0056].
In re Claim 3, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein Papen et al (fig 12) discloses, for each building (600a, b, c, d): the first end of the building comprises a first damper or vent (612)8 disposed on an exterior wall of a first floor, the first damper or vent (612) configured to allow the supply air to enter the building [0116], the second end of the building comprises a second damper or vent (620) disposed on an exterior wall of another floor [0117], the second damper or vent configured to allow the exhaust air to exit the building, and the other floor is higher(“a roof with open side walls that extends above either facility”) than the first floor.
Please note that Papen et al discloses that “as shown by way of element 620b, cowls may be used, which may provide additional protection from environmental conditions. In other examples, a roof with open side walls that extends above either facility 500… may also provide additional protection from environmental conditions”. [0017] Accordingly, as Papen et al discloses wherein the side wall vent (is) configured to allow the exhaust air to exit the building “above the other facility”, it has been understood to disclose an exterior exhaust vent, higher than the first floor.
In re Claims 15 – 17, Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claim 15, see above, In re Claim 1, wherein Papen et al in view of Parizeau et al disclose a method comprising:
at each of multiple buildings including a first building and a second building disposed in close proximity to each other:
receiving ambient supply air from an exterior environment at a first end and outputting exhaust air to the exterior environment at a second end, each of the buildings containing multiple computing devices;
generating thermal energy by multiple computing devices disposed in that building; and
transmitting the thermal energy to the supply air, thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air before the exhaust air exits that building,
wherein the first end of the first building is a closest end to the second building and the first end of the second building is a closest end to the first building, and
wherein the first end of the first building and the first end of the second building form portions of a supply air corridor between the first building and the second building.
In re Claim 16, see above In re Claim 2, wherein Papen et al discloses wherein each of the buildings is a multi-floor building (fig 6: (256a, 256b)) and each floor contains some of the multiple computing devices (241, 242) [0056].
In re Claim 17, see above In re Claim 3, wherein Papen et al in view of Parizeau et al disclose for each building: the first end of the building comprises a first damper or vent disposed on an exterior wall of a first floor, the first damper or vent configured to allow the supply air to enter the building, the second end of the building comprises a second damper or vent disposed on an exterior wall of another floor, the second damper or vent configured to allow the exhaust air to exit the building, and the other floor is higher than the first floor.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Parizeau et al (CA 2904518) in view Slessman et al (US 2014/0190191).
In re Claim 5, the Parizeau et al has been discussed (in re Claim 4, above), wherein at least one of the buildings comprises at least one grate (212) disposed between adjacent floors, configured to allow a portion of the supply air to flow from a lower floor to a higher floor of the adjacent floors (as seen in fig 3a).
Parizeau et al further discloses wherein a controller configured to automatically adjusts a plurality of actuators to regulate temperature, wherein the actuators are configured to control opening and closing of dampers. [0032]
However, Parizeau et al is silent as to whether the at least one grate comprises an automated grate configured to open when a temperature of the portion of the supply air meets a temperature requirement for the higher floor of the adjacent floors.
Slessman et al teaches a system for cooling equipment in a data center [0044 – 0053] containing multiple computing devices, the system configured to receive ambient supply air (via intake damper (fig 2: (250))) and to output exhaust air (via damper (fig 3: (310)), wherein the computing devices in each building are configured to generate thermal energy [0033] that is transmitted to the supply air thereby heating the supply air into the exhaust air before the exhaust air exits the data center, the system comprising:
at least one grate (fig 3: (335)) disposed within a floor,
the at least one grate configured to allow a portion of the supply air to flow from below the floor (120a), to a space above the floor (325),
wherein the at least one grate (335) comprises an automated grate (via controller (305)) configured to open when a temperature of the supply air meets a temperature requirement for the space above the floors [0156].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Parizeau et al, as taught by Slessman et al, such that the system comprises an automated grate configured to open when a temperature of the portion of the supply air meets a temperature requirement, for the benefit of providing a damper modulation that brings the temperature within a controlled space to a predetermined temperature setpoint, improving system efficiency.
In re Claim 19, see above In re Claim 5, Parizeau et al in of view Slessman et al discloses wherein the at least one grate comprises an automated grate; and the method further comprises: opening the automated grate when a temperature of the portion of the supply air meets a temperature requirement for the higher floor of the adjacent floors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In re Claim 6, the limitation of wherein a system comprises “an arrangement of the supply air side and the exhaust air side alternates between adjacent floors, and the at least one grate is configured to allow the portion of the supply air to flow from the exhaust air side of the lower floor to the supply air side of the higher floor” is not reasonably disclosed, either alone or in combination, in the prior art of record.
In re Claim 9, the limitation of wherein a system comprising multiple buildings, further comprises a frame installed at or near a roof level between the first building and the second building and mounted to at least one of the first building or the second building, the frame configured to support one or more devices that operate in conjunction with a flow of the ambient supply air, in the supply air corridor, between the first building and the second building, is not reasonably disclosed, either alone or in combination, in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Applicant is provided 3 months to reply to any office action on the merits; the maximum statutory period for a reply is 6 months. 35 USC 113, 37 CFR 1.134.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on T – Th: 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang, can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Species id
2 Species ia
3 Claims 5, 19
4 Claim 2
5 Claim 16
6 Claim 2
7 Claim 16
8 While supply air vent (612) is not shown in figure 12, please see fig 11, where a supply air vent (512) is on a first end and an exhaust air exit (520) is on a second end.