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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 5/4/26 response to the Office Action dated 2/5/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks regarding the use of Runstedtler to reject claim 1 on Pgs. 6-8 of the Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Runstedtler is not analogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2141.01(a) I., a reference is analogous art if “the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.” As explained on Pg. 12 of the Final dated 2/5/26, Runstedtler discloses a solution to the problem of protecting the contents of a double wall enclosure from extreme outside temperatures. In particular, Par. 0008 of Runstedtler states, “One method to lower this heat flux and to thereby insulate the inner tank from the outside temperatures of a raging fire is to add insulation to the rail tank car. In some tank cars, the gap between the inner tank and the outer jacket is filled with an insulation blanket, such as a ceramic fiber blanket, that acts as an insulating layer between the inner tank and the outer jacket.” This is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Applicant of protecting the motor and actuator from extreme temperatures, as exemplified by Par. 0041 of the Applicant’s as-filed specification: “The one or more insulation layers 140 and their insulation properties may allow the enclosure 104 to withstand extreme temperature conditions…“. Therefore, per MPEP 2141.01(a) I., Runstedtler is analogous art.
Applicant states there is no motivation to combine Bhongade and Runstedtler because Runstedtler teaches away from the use of an insulation layer between inner and outer shells. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained on Pg. 12 of the Final dated 2/5/26, a motivation for this combination was provided: “insulate the components inside the enclosure from excessive heat outside the enclosure, as suggested in Par. 0008 of Runstedtler, for more reliable operation of the actuator and/or so a cheaper actuator with a lower temperature rating could be used within the enclosure”. Examiner acknowledges Runstedtler’s invention provides advantages over insulation layers, but those advantages are specific to the tank car of Runstedtler. For example, Runstedtler disclose “However, insulation blankets can significantly increase the cost of the tank car, particularly when it comes to retrofitting existing tank cars as this requires the removal of all the jackets from a fleet of tank cars. In addition, such measures have mechanical drawbacks as insulation blankets and wraps are prone to shifting due to the heavy vibrations caused by the train's movement “ (Par. 0008). The high cost is directed to retrofitting tank cars and the degradation of the insulation blankets is caused by the heavy vibrations arising from the train’s movement, situations that are applicable to tank cars but not the smaller envelope and stationary housing of Bhongade. Applicant further alleges the insulating layer of Runstedtler would not increase the reliability of Bhongade or decrease costs because the insulation layers degrade over time and Runstedtler discloses insulation layers increase costs. Again, these two features are specific to the tank cars disclosed by Runstedtler. In addition, Examiner notes the motivation of increased reliability and decreased costs were specifically noted for the actuator, as shown on Pg. 12 of the Final: “insulate the components inside the enclosure from excessive heat outside the enclosure, as suggested in Par. 0008 of Runstedtler, for more reliable operation of the actuator and/or so a cheaper actuator with a lower temperature rating could be used within the enclosure “ (emphasis added). Modifying Bhongade in view of Runstedtler utilizes a known technique to provide heat protection between the inner and outer shells.
Applicant’s remarks on Pgs. 8-12 with respect to claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection made of Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1, hereafter Nanjappa) in view of Dobson (US20090261091A1), Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1, hereafter Bhongade), and Field (US 4275762 A). See the prior art section below for more details. Given the new grounds of rejection for claim 20, this office action is a non-final. Base shell 326 (as shown in Fig. 6 and described in Par. 0047), cover shell 242 (as shown in Fig. 6 and described in Par. 0047), latch 164 (as described in Par. 0045), and the portion of the hollow member 114 that can be peered through (as described in Par. 0039) appear to be distinguishing from the prior art of record that has been applied to claim 20. Applicant is invited for an interview.
Applicant’s remarks on Pg 12 with respect to claim 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments with respect to independent claim 20 do not pertain to the actuator with a driveshaft extending through an opening of the cover as recited in claim 17. Therefore, the arguments presented with respect to independent claim 20 are not persuasive when applied to the rejection of claim 17.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 20, line 11, “a exterior surface” should read “an exterior surface” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “the mount” (emphasis added) which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed “the mount” refers to the “actuator mounting bracket”. Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
NOTE: Although the “actuator mounting bracket” is recited in claim 11, which is not part of the same claim tree as “the mount” (recited in claim 12 which is dependent on claim 1), “the actuator mounting bracket” is the closest recitation to a ‘mount’ in the as-filed claim set, so Examiner presumes the structures are the same. In the context of the Applicant’s invention, it also makes sense for there to be a port in the “actuator mounting bracket” and this appears to be shown in Fig. 3.
Claim 16 line 3 recites “the housing” (emphasis added) which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed “the housing” refers to the “hollow member”. Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler.
Regarding claim 1, Bhongade discloses an enclosure (Fig. 5, housing 502 and cover assembly 504. Examiner notes portions of housing 502 form the hollow member and base, as explained below) for an actuator (Fig. 5, actuator 500 and Par. 0087, in particular, “Actuator 500 is shown to include a housing 502. The housing 502 may contain the mechanical and processing components of actuator 500 when assembled”) of an HVAC unit (Par. 0088, “Actuator 500 may generally provide a mechanical output to various devices in the HVAC, waterside, airside, or BMS systems 100, 200, 300, 400.”), the enclosure comprising:
a hollow member (annotated Fig. B, the vertical walls of housing 502 comprise the hollow member and Par. 0092, “the housing 502 may contain other types of motors that are controllable (e.g., by the various processing components of the actuator 500 and/or implemented systems)”. In order to contain motors, housing 502, and therefore the hollow member labeled in annotated Fig. B, must necessarily enclose a hollow and is therefore a ‘hollow member’) comprising an inner shell (Fig. 5, interior housing surface 512), an outer shell (Fig. 5, outer surface 510);
a cavity (annotated Fig. B, hollow space within hollow member) within the inner shell configured to receive the actuator (Par. 0087, in particular, “Actuator 500 is shown to include a housing 502. The housing 502 may contain the mechanical and processing components of actuator 500 when assembled”) of the HVAC unit (Par. 0088, “Actuator 500 may generally provide a mechanical output to various devices in the HVAC, waterside, airside, or BMS systems 100, 200, 300, 400.”);
an exterior surface (Fig. 5, exterior surface of outer surface 510) of the hollow member having curvilinear shape configured to (capable of) limit resistance to airflow over the exterior surface (Fig. 5, the exterior surface of outer surface 510 is curvilinear. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the curvilinear shape of the exterior surface of outer surface 510 would limit resistance to airflow because the lack of sharp corners decreases turbulence and associated drag. Therefore, the curvilinear shape of the exterior surface of outer surface 510 will limit resistance to airflow as compared to other shapes that have sharp corners, such as boxes);
a base (annotated Fig. B, channel wall 514 and the bottom of the housing 502 comprise the base. A base is a first layer of something on which other elements are added, therefore the base in Fig. B is a ‘base’ because it is the first layer on which the hollow member and cover assembly 504 are added) connected to a first end (annotated Fig. B, bottom end of hollow member) of the hollow member; and
a cover (Fig. 5, cover assembly 504) detachably coupled (Fig. 5 and Par. 0094, “A plurality of snapping surfaces 518 are disposed along the interior housing surface 512…Each snap indentation in the plurality of cantilever snap indentations 532 is configured to receive a complementary snap in a plurality of snaps 540 on the middle cover 508 and facilitate the engagement of the middle cover 508 and the housing 502.” One of ordinary skill would understand middle cover 508 (and thereby the rest of cover assembly 504) could be removed from the hollow member by pushing indentations 532 out of snaps 540) to a second end (annotated Fig. B, top end of hollow member) of the hollow member opposite the first end.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
435
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Hollow member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Figures 5 and 10 from Bhongade showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Bhongade does not disclose the hollow member has an insulation layer disposed between the inner shell and the outer shell.
Runstedtler discloses an insulation blanket in between an inner tank and an outer jacket (Par. 0008, “One method to lower this heat flux and to thereby insulate the inner tank from the outside temperatures of a raging fire is to add insulation to the rail tank car. In some tank cars, the gap between the inner tank and the outer jacket is filled with an insulation blanket, such as a ceramic fiber blanket, that acts as an insulating layer between the inner tank and the outer jacket.”). Examiner considers this disclosure to be analogous since its disclosure is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even though it’s not in the same field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a). For example, Par. 0041 of the as-filed specification describes the purpose of the insulation as, “The one or more insulation layers 140 and their insulation properties may allow the enclosure 104 to withstand extreme temperature conditions…“. In other words, Runstedtler discloses an insulation layer that would provide a predicable solution for the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure of Bhongade to include the insulation between an inner and outer layer as disclosed by Runstedtler. While not in the same field of endeavor, the insulation blanket in between an inner tank and an outer jacket is analogous art (See MPEP 2141.01(a)) as it protects the tank interior from high temperature environments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this teaching reference in an area of non-analogous art to have an insulation layer disposed between the inner shell and the outer shell and thereby insulate the components inside the enclosure from excessive heat outside the enclosure, as suggested in Par. 0008 of Runstedtler, for more reliable operation of the actuator and/or so a cheaper actuator with a lower temperature rating could be used within the enclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the base (annotated Fig. B, base, as explained above in claim 1) and the cover (From Bhongade: Fig. 5, cover assembly 504) each comprise an outer layer (From Bhongade: Base- Fig. 5, outside surface of channel wall 514 and annotated Fig. B, visible surface of base and Cover- Fig. 5, outside surface of top cover 506), inner layer (From Bhongade: Base- Fig. 5, inside surface of channel wall 514 and annotated Fig. B, not visible surface of base and Cover- inside surface of middle cover 508), and insulation disposed between the outer layer and the inner layer (From Runstedtler, as explained above in claim 1. Given the enclosure of Bhongade includes the base and cover assembly 504 and the enclosure of Bhongade was modified by Runstedtler to include insulation between an inner and outer layer, this necessarily means the base and cover assembly 504 (i.e., cover) will also have insulation disposed between the outer layer and the inner layer as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the inner shell (From Bhongade: Fig. 5, interior housing surface 512), the outer shell (From Bhongade: Fig. 5, outer surface 510), and the insulation layer (From Runstedtler: Par.0008, as explained in claim 1 above) combine to form a single wall (A wall is designed to act as a barrier or defense, therefore the inner and outer shells of Bhongade modified with the insulation of Runstedtler necessarily form a ‘single wall’ because they form a single instance of a barrier between the inside and outside of the hollow member of Bhongade) that defines the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, hollow member and Par. 0092, as explained in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the curvilinear shape is tubular (From Bhongade: Fig. 5, exterior surface of outer surface 510).
Regarding claim 8, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, comprising an attachment (From Bhongade: Fig. 9, bracket 930) that operates as a bracket coupled to the base (annotated Fig. B, base + From Bhongade: Fig. 10, bracket locators 1004 and Par. 0117, “The plurality of bracket locators 1004 are configured to provide ease and accuracy of installation of the bracket 930 and gear train 906 within the housing 902”), wherein the base comprises a plate (annotated Fig. B, base, specifically the portion identified in Fig. 10 of Bhongade) integral with the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, hollow member, as explained above in claim 1 + From Bhongade: Fig. 10 and Par. 0109, “housing 902 includes a housing base 1002”).
Regarding claim 9, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the insulation layer comprises a ceramic fiber layer (From Runstedtler: Par. 0008, “an insulation blanket, such as a ceramic fiber blanket”).
Regarding claim 10, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, comprising a gasket (From Bhongade: Fig. 5, O-ring 552 and Par. 0090, “As will be appreciated, the O-ring 552 is configured to provide IP54 ingress protection”) coupled between the cover (From Bhongade: Fig. 5, cover assembly 504) and the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, hollow member, as explained in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, comprising one port (From Bhongade: Fig. 10, channel wall 914 and Par. 0111, “ The channel wall 914 defines an output channel 916 that allows access to the interior housing surface 912 from outside the actuator 900.”) in the base (annotated Fig. B, base, as explained in claim 1) wherein the one port is configured to (capable of) allow a mechanical operator of the actuator to extend outside of the enclosure through the port (Examiner notes the limitation “configured to” denotes functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. Per Par. 0111, “The channel wall 914 is configured to receive and facilitate engagement of the actuator 900 with linear and rotary valves.” Therefore, the implicit mechanical operator of the actuator would be capable of extending outside of the housing 902 through the port to engage with linear and rotary valves).
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler, and further in view of McClure et al (US 20190377388 A1), hereafter McClure .
Regarding claim 3, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, hollow member, as explained above in claim 1 and Par. 0092, as explained in claim 1 above) comprises a unibody structure.
However, Bhongade, as modified above, does not clearly disclose the hollow member comprises a unibody structure.
McClure discloses a single piece seamless housing (Par. 0046, “The portable computing device can be formed of a single piece seamless housing… This simplicity of design can accrue many advantages to the portable computing device besides those related to aesthetic look and feel. For example, fewer components and less time and effort can be required for assembly of the portable computing device, and the absence of seams in the single piece housing can provide good protection against environmental contamination of internal components. Moreover, the ability of the portable computing device to successfully withstand applied loads (such as from day to day use) as well as those from less frequent but potentially more damaging events such as being dropped can be substantially improved over conventional portable computing devices.” and Par. 0047, “…the single piece seamless housing can be formed from plastic or metal. In the case where the single piece seamless housing is formed of metal, the metal can take the form of a single sheet (such as aluminum)…The single piece seamless housing can be forged, molded, or otherwise processed into a desired shape.”).). Examiner considers this disclosure to be analogous since its disclosure is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even though it’s not in the same field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a). For example, Par. 0050 of the as-filed specification describes the purpose of the unibody shape as, “limit parts count with the curvilinear (e.g., unibody) shape of the hollow member“. In other words, McClure discloses a unibody construction of a housing that would provide a predicable solution for the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hollow member of Bhongade, as modified above, with the unibody construction of a housing as disclosed by McClure. While not in the same field of endeavor, unibody construction of a housing is analogous art (See MPEP 2141.01(a)) as it reduces the number of components. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this teaching reference in an area of non-analogous art to have a unibody housing and thereby improve the aesthetic look and feel, protection against environmental contamination of internal components, and ability to withstand applied loads from day to day use and more damaging events such as being dropped, as suggested in Par. 0046 of McClure, that the hollow member has, resulting in more reliable operation of the actuator and/or so a cheaper actuator with a lower temperature and/or ingress protection rating can be used within the enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 3, wherein the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, hollow member, as explained above in claim 1 and Par. 0092, as explained in claim 1 above) is molded or comprises a single wall coupled to itself (From McClure: Par. 0047, “…the single piece seamless housing can be formed from plastic or metal. In the case where the single piece seamless housing is formed of metal, the metal can take the form of a single sheet (such as aluminum)…The single piece seamless housing can be forged, molded, or otherwise processed into a desired shape.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler, and further in view of Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1), hereafter Nanjappa.
Regarding claim 7, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, hollow member, as explained above in claim 1 and Par. 0092, as explained in claim 1 above) comprises a plurality of sides (annotated Fig. B; left, right, front, and back sides of hollow member), at least one side of the plurality of sides being curved, non-perpendicular to adjacent sides (annotated Fig. B; left and right sides of the hollow member are curved and non-perpendicular to adjacent front, and back sides of hollow member), and the hollow member is in a ventilation system (From Bhongade: Par. 0088, “Actuator 500 may generally provide a mechanical output to various devices in the HVAC, waterside, airside, or BMS systems 100, 200, 300, 400.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand an HVAC system comprises a ventilation system).
However, Bhongade, as modified above, does not disclose the hollow member is facing a direction of airflow in a ventilation system.
Nanjappa discloses an enclosure for an actuator (annotated Fig. C, enclosure and Fig. 16, actuator 332. As noted in annotated Fig. C, the presence of fasteners and the restricted view of the functional components of the actuator such as the driveshaft indicate an enclosure surrounds actuator 332) similar to the present invention and Nanjappa further discloses it is known for a hollow member (annotated Fig. C. In order for actuator 332 to fit within the enclosure, the enclosure must necessarily have at least one hollow portion. Therefore, the enclosure must necessarily have at least a ‘hollow member”) to be facing a direction of airflow (Fig. 16, first direction of airflow 174) in a ventilation system (Par. 0002, “This disclosure relates generally to heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) systems.”).
PNG
media_image5.png
870
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Enclosure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fasteners)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Driveshaft)]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 16 from Nanjappa showing location of prior art and auxiliary elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hollow member of Bhongade, as modified above, with the same as disclosed by Nanjappa so the hollow member is facing a direction of airflow in the ventilation system and thereby better optimizes ventilation performance because this orientation will minimize turbulence and associated drag.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, then the Examiner takes the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the orientation of the enclosure since it has been held that rearranging the location of a claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 VI-C, including:
“In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler and further in view of Modine (US 1769707 A).
Regarding claim 11, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1.
However, Bhongade, as modified above, does not disclose an actuator mounting bracket extending from the cover into the hollow member and configured to support the actuator.
Modine discloses a housing (Figs. 1 and 3, housing 11) similar to the present invention and Modine further discloses it is known for an actuator mounting bracket (Fig. 3, bracket 30 and Pg. 1, lines 61-63, “Mounted upon the manifold member 13 is a bracket 30 which supports an electric motor 31 adapted to drive a fan 32”. An actuator mounting bracket is a bracket designed to mount an actuator to a surface, therefore bracket 30 is an ‘actuator mounting bracket’ because it mounts electric motor 31 to manifold member 13) to be extending from a cover (Figs. 1 and 3, manifold member 13. A cover is designed to spread over something, therefore manifold member 13 is a ‘cover’ because it spreads over the bottom of housing 11) into a hollow member (Fig. 1, side plates 14, which are members that must necessarily form a hollow in order to accommodate structures such as electric motor 31) and configured to support the actuator (Fig. 3, electric motor 31 and Pg. 1, lines 61-63, “Mounted upon the manifold member 13 is a bracket 30 which supports an electric motor 31 adapted to drive a fan 32”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the cover of Bhongade, as modified above, to include the actuator mounting bracket of Modine in order to have an actuator mounting bracket extending from the cover into the hollow member and configured to support the actuator and thereby provide a redundant means of supporting the actuator for increased reliability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler and further in view of Boedecker et al. (US 6192974 B1), hereafter Boedecker.
Regarding claim 13, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1, wherein the hollow member is formed from a single wall (A wall is designed to act as a barrier or defense, therefore the inner and outer shells of Bhongade modified with the insulation of Runstedtler necessarily form a ‘single wall’ because they form a single instance of a barrier between the inside and outside of the hollow member of Bhongade).
However, Bhongade, as modified above, does not disclose the hollow member only couples to itself about a single seam.
Boedecker discloses a housing with a conical portion that has a single seam (Abstract, “A heat exchanger housing…Joined to the substantially circular inlet and outlet are conical transitions that join to circular carrier lines.” and Col. 5, lines 3-9, “The first and second conical transition members each have a single longitudinal seam. This single seam is much easier to produce than the prior art square-to-round transitions that often required two, and even four, scams. The decrease in seam numbers allows for increased savings in labor costs to manufacture the transition members as well as increased strength.”). Examiner considers this disclosure to be analogous since its disclosure is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even though it’s not in the same field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a). For example, Par. 0022 of the as-filed specification describes the purpose of the single seam as, “the hollow member is constructed with a limited need for fasteners by, for example, coupling a single housing wall to itself (forming only one seam of the housing wall)”. In other words, Boedecker discloses a single seam construction of a housing component that would provide a predicable solution for the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the hollow member of Bhongade, as modified above, with the single seam construction of a housing component as disclosed by Boedecker. While not in the same field of endeavor, a single seam construction of a housing component is analogous art (See MPEP 2141.01(a)) as it reduces the number of seams (i.e., fasteners). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this teaching reference in an area of non-analogous art to have a housing component with a single seam and thereby benefit from savings in labor costs and increased strength, as suggested in Col. 5, lines 3-9 of Boedecker, that the hollow member has, resulting in cost-savings and more reliable operation of the actuator.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler and further in view of Eranosian (US 2771283 A).
Regarding claim 14, Bhongade, as modified above, discloses the enclosure of claim 1.
However, Bhongade, as modified above, does not disclose a clamp configured to attach the hollow member to a support at a position along the hollow member and a bracket extending from the base configured to facilitate attachment to the support.
Eranosian discloses a housing (Col. 1, lines 35-36, “a casing 10 preferably formed of sheet metal”) similar to the present invention and Eranosian further discloses it is known to have a clamp (Fig. 2, rings 22 and Col. 2, lines 24-28, “The unit 24 is supported relative to the casing by means of bearing rings 22 having inner rubber sleeves 23 which embrace the exterior of the motor bearings 25. The rings 22 are of the clamp type so that they may be released and the motor removed therefrom”) configured to (capable of) attach a hollow member (Fig. 2, exterior surface of motor 24a and motor bearings 25. In order to contain a motor and bearings, the exterior surfaces of motor 24a and motor bearings 25 must enclose a hollow and therefore comprise a ‘hollow member’) to a support (Fig. 2, motor bearings 25. A support is designed to keep something going, therefore motor bearings 25 are a ‘support’ because they keep the motor 24a and fan 24b going) at a position along the hollow member (Fig. 2, end of the exterior surface of motor 24a (i.e., hollow member)) and a bracket (Fig. 2, bracket arms 26) extending from a base (annotated Fig. D. A base is a first layer of something on which other elements are added, therefore the base in Fig. D is a ‘base’ because it is the first layer on which the bracket arms 26, motor bearings 25, motor 25a, etc. are added) configured to facilitate attachment to the support (Fig. 2, bracket arms 26 connect the base to the motor bearings 25 (i.e., support)).
PNG
media_image7.png
349
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Figure 2 from Eranosian showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure of Bhongade, as modified above, with the clamp and bracket as disclosed by Eranosian in order to have a clamp configured to attach the hollow member to a support at a position along the hollow member and a bracket extending from the base configured to facilitate attachment to the support and thereby provide a firm and rigid mount that still supports removal, as suggested by Col. 24-38, of the enclosure from the HVAC unit for increased reliability and easier and/or faster maintenance of the enclosure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1), hereafter Nanjappa, in view of Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade. Evidenced by A&B Die Casting (https://www.abdiecasting.com/die-casting/design-geometry-considerations-for-die-casting/, note the July 7, 2020 date) and LE Claire Manufacturing Co (https://www.leclairemfg.com/about-us/blog/die-castings-the-benefits/, note the September 23, 2021 date).
Regarding claim 15, Nanjappa discloses a ventilation system (Abstract), comprising:
a damper (Fig. 16, air bypass damper 152) configured to be opened and closed by an actuator (Fig. 16, actuator 332) to control airflow through a flow path of the ventilation system (Par. 0096, “The outdoor air bypass damper 152 may include an actuator 332, which is configured to transition louvers 334 of the outdoor air bypass damper 152 between closed positions, in which air flow through the outdoor air bypass damper 152 is substantially blocked, and open positions, in which air flow through the outdoor air bypass damper 152 is substantially unrestricted.”);
an enclosure (annotated Fig. C. As noted in annotated Fig. C, the presence of fasteners and the restricted view of the functional components of the actuator such as the driveshaft indicate an enclosure surrounds actuator 332) mounted on the damper (annotated Fig. C and Fig. 16. The enclosure is shown at a vertical height on the side of air bypass damper 152 which inherently discloses the enclosure is mounted to the air bypass damper 152) and
a hollow member (annotated Fig. C, exterior, vertical walls of the enclosure) of the enclosure defining a cavity (annotated Fig. C, space enclosed by vertical walls of the enclosure) configured to (capable of) receive the actuator (annotated Fig. C, actuator 332 is received in the interior of the enclosure);
a base (annotated Fig. C, bottom, horizontal walls of the enclosure. A base is a first layer of something on which other elements are added, therefore the bottom, horizontal walls of the enclosure comprise a ‘base’ because they are the first layers on which the vertical walls and top walls of the enclosure are added) connected to a first end (annotated Fig. C, bottom of the exterior, vertical walls of the enclosure) of the hollow member; and
a cover (annotated Fig. C, top, horizontal walls of the enclosure. A cover is designed to spread over something, therefore the top, horizontal walls of the enclosure comprise a ‘cover’ because they spread over the top of the enclosure).
However, Nanjappa, does not disclose an exterior surface of the hollow member having a curvilinear shape configured to limit resistance to the airflow passing over the enclosure; and
a cover detachably coupled to a second end of the hollow member opposite the first end.
Bhongade discloses an actuator housing for an HVAC system (Par. 0086) similar to the present invention and Bhongade further discloses a hollow member (annotated Fig. B, the vertical walls of housing 502 comprise the hollow member and Par. 0092, “the housing 502 may contain other types of motors that are controllable (e.g., by the various processing components of the actuator 500 and/or implemented systems)”. In order to contain motors, housing 502, and therefore the hollow member labeled in annotated Fig. B, must necessarily enclose a hollow and is therefore a ‘hollow member’) of the enclosure defining a cavity (annotated Fig. B, hollow space within hollow member) configured to receive the actuator (Par. 0087, in particular, “Actuator 500 is shown to include a housing 502. The housing 502 may contain the mechanical and processing components of actuator 500 when assembled”);
an exterior surface (Fig. 5, exterior surface of outer surface 510) of the hollow member having curvilinear shape configured to (capable of) limit resistance to airflow passing over the enclosure (Fig. 5, the exterior surface of outer surface 510 is curvilinear. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the curvilinear shape of the exterior surface of outer surface 510 would limit resistance to airflow because the lack of sharp corners decreases turbulence and associated drag. Therefore, the curvilinear shape of the exterior surface of outer surface 510 will limit resistance to airflow as compared to other shapes that have sharp corners, such as boxes);
a base (annotated Fig. B, channel wall 514 and the bottom of the housing 502 comprise the base. A base is a first layer of something on which other elements are added, therefore the base in Fig. B is a ‘base’ because it is the first layer on which the hollow member and cover assembly 504 are added) connected to a first end (annotated Fig. B, bottom end of hollow member) of the hollow member; and
a cover (Fig. 5, cover assembly 504) detachably coupled (Fig. 5 and Par. 0094, “A plurality of snapping surfaces 518 are disposed along the interior housing surface 512…Each snap indentation in the plurality of cantilever snap indentations 532 is configured to receive a complementary snap in a plurality of snaps 540 on the middle cover 508 and facilitate the engagement of the middle cover 508 and the housing 502.” One of ordinary skill would understand middle cover 508 (and thereby the rest of cover assembly 504) could be removed from the hollow member by pushing indentations 532 out of snaps 540) to a second end (annotated Fig. B, top end of hollow member) of the hollow member opposite the first end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure of Nanjappa with the same of Bhongade in order to 1) have an exterior surface of the hollow member having a curvilinear shape configured to limit resistance to the airflow passing over the enclosure; 2) a cover detachably coupled to a second end of the hollow member opposite the first end and thereby 1) increase the strength, as evidenced by the “Fillets and corners” section of A&B Die Casting, of the enclosure when it is die cast, so the enclosure can support increased reliability of the actuator and benefit from the advantages of die casting such as cost-savings, lower labor costs, simplified stock control and greater consistency, as evidenced by the “Advantages of Casting Process” section of LE Claire Manufacturing Co and 2) make maintenance easier and/or faster for increased reliability of the ventilation system.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1), hereafter Nanjappa, in view of Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade and further in view of Barton et al. (US 20130333502 A1), hereafter Barton and Pingale et al. (US 20210190369 A1), hereafter Pingale. Evidenced by A&B Die Casting (https://www.abdiecasting.com/die-casting/design-geometry-considerations-for-die-casting/, note the July 7, 2020 date) and LE Claire Manufacturing Co (https://www.leclairemfg.com/about-us/blog/die-castings-the-benefits/, note the September 23, 2021 date).
Regarding claim 16, Nanjappa, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 15, wherein the actuator (From Nanjappa: Fig. 16, actuator 332) is housed within the hollow member (annotated Fig. B, the vertical walls of housing 502 comprise the hollow member and Par. 0092, as explained in claim 15 above) and a mechanical operator (annotated Fig. B, driveshaft) extending out of a housing (annotated Fig. B, enclosure).
However, Nanjappa, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the actuator is mounted to the cover, and a mechanical operator of the actuator extends out of the housing to operably engage with the damper.
Barton discloses an HVAC system (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Barton further discloses it is known for an actuator (Fig. 5, actuator 20) to be mounted to a cover (Fig. 5, top of outer surface 12. A cover is designed to spread over something, therefore the top of outer surface 12 comprises a ‘cover’ because it spreads over the top of the duct 2), and a mechanical operator (Figs. 2, 13, damper shaft 18) of the actuator (Figs. 2, 13, actuator 20) extends out of a housing (Figs. 2, 13, housing 60) to operably engage with the damper (Fig. 2, damper blade 15 and Par. 0034, “Illustratively, the damper shaft 18 may extend from the damper actuator 20 through standoff 70, duct 2, one or more damper clamps 11 attached to damper blade 15 and to a shaft receiving area adjacent the other side of duct 2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation system of Nanjappa, as modified above, with the actuator mounted to a cover and mechanical operator as disclosed by Barton in order to have 1) the actuator mounted to the cover, and 2) a mechanical operator of the actuator extends out of the housing to operably engage with the damper and thereby 1) make maintenance easier and/or faster for increased reliability of the ventilation system and 2) enable the actuator to control the damper, as suggested by Par. 0035 of Barton, and thereby bypass air as desired, as suggested by Par. 0004 of Barton, for greater control over the ventilation system.
However, Nanjappa, as modified above, with the mechanical operator of Barton would only enable control of one damper, rather than the series of damper blades shown in Fig. 16 of Nanjappa. Therefore, a linkage coupling the driveshaft to all of the damper blades to facilitate transitioning the damper system between an open configuration and a closed configuration would be necessary.
Pingale discloses an HVAC system (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Pingale further discloses a linkage (linkage assembly, Par. 0054, “one or both of the pivot rods 134 may be coupled to the one or more actuators 114 via a linkage assembly, a gearing assembly, or another suitable mechanism.”) coupling the driveshaft (pivot rods 134, Par. 0054) to the damper (damper blades 102, Par. 0052, “one or more actuators 114 may be coupled to the damper blades 102 via suitable linkages or gearing mechanisms and configured to transition the damper blades 102 between the respective closed positions 103 and the respective open positions 104 or the partially open positions.”) to facilitate transitioning the damper between an open configuration (open position 104, Par. 0052) and a closed configuration (closed position 103, Par. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation system of Nanjappa, as modified above, with the linkage as disclosed by Pinagle in order to actuate the damper blades simultaneously and thereby enable the actuator to have greater control over the ventilation system for more effective regulation of airflow along the flow path and/or throughout other sections of the ventilation system, as suggested by Par. 0004 of Pingale.
Regarding claim 17, Nanjappa, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 16, wherein the mechanical operator (From Barton: Figs. 2, 13, damper shaft 18) comprises a driveshaft extending through an opening of the cover (From Barton: Figs. 2, 5, top of outer surface 12, as explained in claim 16 above. The top of outer surface 12 must necessarily have an opening for the damper shaft 18 to extend from housing 60 to damper blade 15 as shown in Fig. 2) and a linkage (From Pingale: linkage assembly, Par. 0054, “one or both of the pivot rods 134 may be coupled to the one or more actuators 114 via a linkage assembly, a gearing assembly, or another suitable mechanism.”) coupling the driveshaft to the damper (From Nanjappa: Fig. 16, air bypass damper 152) to facilitate transitioning the damper between an open configuration and a closed configuration (From Nanjappa: Par. 0096, “The outdoor air bypass damper 152 may include an actuator 332, which is configured to transition louvers 334 of the outdoor air bypass damper 152 between closed positions, in which air flow through the outdoor air bypass damper 152 is substantially blocked, and open positions, in which air flow through the outdoor air bypass damper 152 is substantially unrestricted.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1), hereafter Nanjappa, in view of Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, and further in view of Runstedtler (US 20190270582 A1), hereafter Runstedtler and Matthies et al. (US 20100292848 A1), hereafter Matthies. Evidenced by A&B Die Casting (https://www.abdiecasting.com/die-casting/design-geometry-considerations-for-die-casting/, note the July 7, 2020 date) and LE Claire Manufacturing Co (https://www.leclairemfg.com/about-us/blog/die-castings-the-benefits/, note the September 23, 2021 date).
Regarding claim 18, Nanjappa, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 15, wherein the hollow member, the cover, and the base comprise an inner layer (From Bhongade: Hollow member - Fig. 5, interior housing surface 512; Cover- inside surface of middle cover 508; and Base- Fig. 5, inside surface of channel wall 514 and annotated Fig. B, not visible surface of base), an outer layer (From Bhongade: Hollow member- Fig. 5, outer surface 510; Cover- Fig. 5, outside surface of top cover 506; and Base- Fig. 5, outside surface of channel wall 514 and annotated Fig. B, visible surface of base).
However, Nanjappa, as modified above, does not disclose an insulation layer disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer such that after 2 hours spent in an environment at approximately 430 degrees Celsius, an average temperature in the enclosure remains below 90 degrees Celsius.
Runstedtler discloses an insulation blanket in between an inner tank and an outer jacket (Par. 0008, “One method to lower this heat flux and to thereby insulate the inner tank from the outside temperatures of a raging fire is to add insulation to the rail tank car. In some tank cars, the gap between the inner tank and the outer jacket is filled with an insulation blanket, such as a ceramic fiber blanket, that acts as an insulating layer between the inner tank and the outer jacket.”). Examiner considers this disclosure to be analogous since its disclosure is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even though it’s not in the same field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a). For example, Par. 0041 of the as-filed specification describes the purpose of the insulation as, “The one or more insulation layers 140 and their insulation properties may allow the enclosure 104 to withstand extreme temperature conditions…“. In other words, Runstedtler discloses an insulation layer that would provide a predicable solution for the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure of Bhongade to include insulation between an inner and outer layer as disclosed by Runstedtler. While not in the same field of endeavor, the insulation blanket in between an inner tank and an outer jacket is analogous art (See MPEP 2141.01(a)) as it protects the tank interior from high temperature environments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this teaching reference in an area of non-analogous art to have an insulation layer disposed between the inner shell and the outer shell and thereby insulate the components inside the enclosure from excessive heat outside the enclosure, as suggested in Par. 0008 of Runstedtler, for more reliable operation of the actuator and/or so a cheaper actuator with a lower temperature rating could be used within the enclosure.
Nanjappa, as modified above, does not disclose that after 2 hours spent in an environment at approximately 430 degrees Celsius, an average temperature in the enclosure remains below 90 degrees Celsius. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Runstedtler discloses an inner layer (inner tank, Par. 0008), an outer layer (outer jacket, Par. 0008) and an insulation layer (insulation blanket, Par. 0008) in between the inner and outer layers (gap between the inner tank and the outer jacket is filled with an insulation blanket, Par 0008) but does not specifically recite a that after 2 hours spent in an environment at approximately 430 degrees Celsius, an average temperature of the enclosure remains below 90 degrees Celsius as claimed. Achieving an average temperature of the enclosure below 90 degrees Celsius after 2 hours spent in an environment at approximately 430 degrees Celsius is a results-effective variable because Matthies states “Within systems having heat-sensitive actuators…overheating of the system components and devices has to be avoided as far as possible” (Par 0003) and “On account of a long-term loading or given excessively quick successive switch-on operations, motors or compressors, in particular, can be excessively heated, depending on the ambient conditions of the respective actuator or the device, these conditions including, for example, the actual ambient temperature, existing insulating materials or adjacent heat sources, to such an extent that functional faults may occur” (Par. 0004). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claimed after 2 hours spent in an environment at approximately 430 degrees Celsius, an average temperature in the enclosure remains below 90 degrees Celsius, because the selection of a lower temperature in the enclosure to avoid overheating of the actuator and associated functional faults constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1), hereafter Nanjappa, in view of Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1), hereafter Bhongade, and further in view of Boedecker et al. (US 6192974 B1), hereafter Boedecker and Simmons (US 2043450 A). Evidenced by A&B Die Casting (https://www.abdiecasting.com/die-casting/design-geometry-considerations-for-die-casting/, note the July 7, 2020 date) and LE Claire Manufacturing Co (https://www.leclairemfg.com/about-us/blog/die-castings-the-benefits/, note the September 23, 2021 date).
Regarding claim 19, Nanjappa, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 15, wherein the hollow member has a single wall (A wall is designed to act as a barrier or defense, therefore the inner and outer shells of Bhongade modified with the insulation of Runstedtler necessarily form a ‘single wall’ because they form a single instance of a barrier between the inside and outside of the hollow member of Bhongade) and is mounted to the damper (annotated Fig. C and Fig. 16 of Bhongade. The enclosure is shown at a vertical height on the side of air bypass damper 152 which inherently discloses the enclosure is mounted to the air bypass damper 152).
However, Nanjappa, as modified above, does not disclose the hollow member has a unibody structure formed from a single wall that is coupled to itself at only one seam, and wherein the hollow member is mounted to the damper via one or more clamps.
Boedecker discloses a housing with a conical portion that has a single seam (Abstract, “A heat exchanger housing…Joined to the substantially circular inlet and outlet are conical transitions that join to circular carrier lines.” and Col. 5, lines 3-9, “The first and second conical transition members each have a single longitudinal seam. This single seam is much easier to produce than the prior art square-to-round transitions that often required two, and even four, scams. The decrease in seam numbers allows for increased savings in labor costs to manufacture the transition members as well as increased strength.”). Examiner considers this disclosure to be analogous since its disclosure is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even though it’s not in the same field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a). For example, Par. 0022 of the as-filed specification describes the purpose of the single seam as, “the hollow member is constructed with a limited need for fasteners by, for example, coupling a single housing wall to itself (forming only one seam of the housing wall)”. In other words, Boedecker discloses a single seam construction of a housing component that would provide a predicable solution for the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the hollow member of Bhongade, as modified above, with the single seam construction of a housing component as disclosed by Boedecker. While not in the same field of endeavor, a single seam construction of a housing component is analogous art (See MPEP 2141.01(a)) as it reduces the number of seams (i.e., fasteners). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this teaching reference in an area of non-analogous art to have a housing component with a single seam and thereby benefit from savings in labor costs and increased strength, as suggested in Col. 5, lines 3-9 of Boedecker, that the hollow member has, resulting in cost-savings and more reliable operation of the actuator.
It’s understood that modified Nanjappa would result in the hollow member having a unibody structure formed from a single wall that is coupled to itself at only one seam as claimed.
However, Nanjappa, as modified above, does not disclose the hollow member is mounted to the damper via one or more clamps.
Simmons discloses an air conditioning apparatus (Col. 1, lines 1-5) similar to the present invention and Simmons further discloses it is known for a hollow member (Fig. 2, outside of electric motor 60. In order to contain an electric motor, the outside of electric motor 60 must necessarily enclose a hollow and is therefore a ‘hollow member’) to be mounted to a damper (Fig. 2, air conditioning apparatus (entire figure). A damper is a device that damps, therefore the air conditioning apparatus is a ‘damper’ because it includes air louvers 56 that dampen airflow) via one clamp (Fig. 2, motor bracket 58 and Col. 2, lines 13-14, “A motor bracket 58 is suitably secured to the casing 10 and supports an electric motor 60”. A clamp is designed to hold tightly, therefore motor bracket 58 is a ‘clamp’ because it holds electric motor 60 tightly enough against the casing 10 to overcome the force of gravity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation system of Nanjappa with the clamp as disclosed by Simmons in order to mount the hollow member to the damper via a clamp and thereby suspend the hollow member off the ground so it is less susceptible to damage from environmental hazards such as flooding.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjappa et al. (US20210247097A1, hereafter Nanjappa) in view of Dobson (US20090261091A1), Bhongade et al. (US 20200191431 A1, hereafter Bhongade), and Field (US 4275762 A).
Regarding claim 20, Nanjappa discloses a tunnel ventilation system (Abstract), comprising:
an airflow path (Fig. 16, first direction of airflow 174) for ventilation of an interior space (Par. 0004, “A heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system may be used to thermally regulate an environment, such as a building, home, or other structure.”);
a damper (Fig. 16, air bypass damper 152) configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration to control airflow through the airflow path (Par. 0096, “The outdoor air bypass damper 152 may include an actuator 332, which is configured to transition louvers 334 of the outdoor air bypass damper 152 between closed positions, in which air flow through the outdoor air bypass damper 152 is substantially blocked, and open positions, in which air flow through the outdoor air bypass damper 152 is substantially unrestricted.”);
an actuator (Fig. 16, actuator 332) configured to (capable of) transition the damper between the open configuration and the closed configuration via a mechanical operator directly or indirectly coupled to the damper (Examiner notes the limitation “configured to” denotes functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. Per Par. 0096, “actuator 332, which is configured to transition louvers 334 of the outdoor air bypass damper 152 between closed positions…and open positions”. Therefore, the actuator would be capable of transitioning the damper between the open and closed configuration via the driveshaft (i.e., mechanical operator) shown in annotated Fig. C whether the driveshaft was directly or indirectly coupled to the damper);
an enclosure (annotated Fig. C. As noted in annotated Fig. C, the fasteners and partial view of the functional components of the actuator, such as the driveshaft, indicate an enclosure surrounds actuator 332) mounted on the damper (annotated Fig. C and Fig. 16. The enclosure is shown at a vertical height on the side of air bypass damper 152 which inherently discloses the enclosure is mounted to the air bypass damper 152) and positioned within the airflow path (Fig. 16, first direction of airflow 174 and actuator 332), the enclosure including;
a hollow member (annotated Fig. D, hollow member) of the enclosure, wherein the hollow member defines a cavity (annotated Fig. C, space enclosed by the walls of the hollow member) in which the actuator is disposed;
an exterior surface of the hollow member having a curvilinear shape (annotated Fig. D, curvilinear shape) that is configured to (capable of) limit resistance to the airflow passing over the enclosure (Examiner notes the limitation “configured to” denotes functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the curvilinear shape of the exterior surface would limit resistance to airflow because the lack of sharp corners decreases turbulence and associated drag. Therefore, the curvilinear shape of the exterior surface will limit resistance to airflow as compared to other shapes that have sharp corners, such as boxes);
a base (annotated Fig. D, base. A base is a something that provides support, therefore the structure identified in annotated Fig. D is a ‘base’ because it provides support for the actuator) connected to a first end (annotated Fig. D, left end) of the hollow member; and
a cover (annotated Fig. D, cover. A cover is designed to spread over something, therefore the structure identified in annotated Fig. D is a ‘cover’ because it covers the functional components of the actuator, such as the driveshaft. Note it appears that there is a seam separating the cover from the hollow member and that the hollow member and cover are attached via fasteners, which implies the cover is detachably coupled to a right end of the hollow member (i.e., second end of the hollow member) opposite the left end (i.e., first end)), wherein the cover comprises a port (annotated Fig. D, port) through which the mechanical operator extends (annotated Fig. D).
NOTE: Examiner interprets “tunnel ventilation system” as a ventilation system with an airflow path in alignment with Applicant’s as-filed specification. In particular, Par. 0031, “block or open to control a tunnel effect” and Par. 0042, “placed within an airflow path (e.g., a tunnel) of the ventilation system 100".
PNG
media_image5.png
870
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cover)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base (not visible))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Driveshaft)][AltContent: textbox (Hollow member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Curvilinear shape )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Port)]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 16 from Nanjappa showing location of prior art and auxiliary elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Nanjappa does not disclose a hollow member of the enclosure formed from an inner shell, an outer shell, and an insulation layer disposed between the inner shell and the outer shell.
Although it’s the Examiner’s position that Nanjappa discloses 1) a cover detachably coupled to a second end of the hollow member opposite the first end, as mapped above, and 2) wherein the cover comprises a port through which the mechanical operator extends, further rejections for these limitations are provided to support compact prosecution.
Dobson discloses an electrical socket back box (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Dobson further discloses it is known for a hollow member (Fig. 2, vertical walls of electrical socket back box 1) to be formed from an inner shell (Fig. 2, inner casing 2), an outer shell (Fig. 2, outer casing 4), and an insulation layer (Fig. 2, insulating material 6) disposed between the inner shell and the outer shell (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hollow member of Nanjappa to include an inner shell, outer shell, and insulation layer as taught by Dobson in order to increase the insulation properties of the hollow member (As suggested by Par. 0003 of Dobson: “The insulating material increases the insulation properties of the back box”) and thereby provide better acoustic and fire protection (As suggested by the Abstract of Dobson: “The insulating material 6 provides insulation of up to 64 dB acoustic rating and 2 hours fire rating”)
However, Nanjappa does not explicitly disclose a cover detachably coupled to a second end of the hollow member opposite the first end, as mapped above, and wherein the cover comprises a port through which the mechanical operator extends.
Bhongade discloses an actuator housing for an HVAC system (Par. 0086) similar to the present invention and Bhongade further discloses a cover (Fig. 5, cover assembly 504) detachably coupled (Fig. 5 and Par. 0094, “A plurality of snapping surfaces 518 are disposed along the interior housing surface 512…Each snap indentation in the plurality of cantilever snap indentations 532 is configured to receive a complementary snap in a plurality of snaps 540 on the middle cover 508 and facilitate the engagement of the middle cover 508 and the housing 502.” One of ordinary skill would understand middle cover 508 (and thereby the rest of cover assembly 504) could be removed from the hollow member by pushing indentations 532 out of snaps 540) to a second end (annotated Fig. B, top end of housing 502) of the hollow member opposite a first end (annotated Fig. B, bottom end of housing 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure of Nanjappa with the teachings of Bhongade in order to have a cover detachably coupled to a second end of the hollow member opposite the first end and thereby make maintenance easier and/or faster for increased reliability of the ventilation system. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the cover removable since it has been held that making a claimed element removable was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 V-C, including:
“In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).”
However, Nanjappa, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the cover comprises a port through which the mechanical operator extends.
Field discloses a control damper (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Field further discloses it is known for a cover (Fig. 2, cover plate 50) to comprise a port (Fig. 2, 43 and Col. 3, lines 11-14, “the shaft 30 can be made longer as shown by the broken-line extension 30a in FIG. 2 so that the said extension projects a substantial distance outside a cover plate 50”) through which a mechanical operator (Fig. 2, shaft 30) extends (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nanjappa with the teachings of Field in order to have the cover comprise a port through which the mechanical operator extends and thereby permit remote control of the blades (As suggested by Col. 3, lines 15-20 of Field: “That then permits the extension 30a of the shaft 30 to be coupled or otherwise connected to an hydraulic, pneumatic, electric or electro-magnetic motor (not shown) to permit the motor to turn the shaft 30. An advantage of using such a motor is that remote control of the blades then becomes possible.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 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, 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, 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights