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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and they are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection under 112(b) and they are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 incorporating subject matter of claim 11 into claim 10 has not distinguished over the prior art. The amendments have addressed the 112(b) issues but has also clarified that the recited external casing is intended use for the diffuser tube and not positively recited structure. Therefore, after further search and consideration rejection is maintained on the same grounds as the prior office action since the diffuser tube merely needs to be capable of being used with an external casing and does not need to teach the external casing.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomer (US 2013/0281003 A1) in view of Sello et al. (US 2015/0031281 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Newcomer teaches an extendable vent system (Newcomer 111) comprising an outlet tube (Newcomer 112-117) comprising a first elongated profile (see annotated figure) defining: a first surface (see annotated figure) extending along a longitudinal length of the first elongated profile; and a first enclosed space (examiner notes the tubular sections forming the elongated define an enclosed space), the outlet tube is configured to receive conditioned air within the first enclosed space via at least one inlet (see annotated figure), and wherein the longitudinal length of the outlet tube is changeable (see Newcomer figures 1-3). Examiner notes that the recited external casing is an intended use for the diffuser tube and that the diffuser tube need only be capable of use with an external casing.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Newcomer figure 1 (annotated)
Newcomer is silent regarding a plurality of openings on the first surface configured to allow movement of air through the first surface.
However, Sello teaches an airflow adjuster for air duct systems comprising a diffuser tube (Sello 1) comprising an elongated profile (see Sello figure 1) defining a first surface (see annotated figure) extend along a longitudinal length of the first elongated profile, the first surface comprising a first plurality of openings (Sello 2); and a first enclosed space (see annotated figure), wherein the diffuser tube is configured to receive conditioned air within the first enclosed space via at least one inlet (see annotated figure), wherein each of the first plurality of openings is configured to allow movement of air through the first surface (Sello [0023]). The plurality of outlets along the elongated profile allows airflow direction to be controlled and to also reduce pressure drop and noise created by regulating the airflow (Sello [0012]).
PNG
media_image2.png
251
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sello figure 1B (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Newcomer's extendable vent system to incorporate Sello's teachings of a plurality of openings along the surface of the elongated profile to produce a predictable result of allowing directional control of the airflow and reducing both pressure drop and noise produced by the airflow.
Regarding claim 12, Newcomer and Sello as applied to claim 10 teach the elongated profile is formed by an assembly of a plurality of telescopic tubes (Newcomer 112-117), wherein at least one of the telescopic tubes is slidable relative to the remaining of the plurality of telescopic tubes, to change the longitudinal length of the diffuser tube (see Newcomer figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Newcomer and Sello as applied to claim 12 teach the telescopic tubes can be manually slidable or retractable by any type of mechanism (Newcomer [0026]).
Newcomer and Sello are silent regarding the use of a first actuator to change the length of the diffuser tube.
However, Newcomer further teaches in a different embodiment an actuator (Newcomer 136, 137, and 138) configured to cause change of the longitudinal length of the tube (Newcomer [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Newcomer's first embodiment to incorporate another embodiment's teachings of an actuator for adjusting the length of the retractable tube to produce a predictable result of automating adjustment of the length.
Regarding claim 16, Newcomer and Sello as applied to claim 10 teach the at least one inlet is defined on a side-face of the diffuser tube (see Newcomer figure 1) and the diffuser tube is configured to receive the conditioned air via an input air duct (Newcomer 110) coupled with the at least one inlet (see Newcomer figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Newcomer and Sello as applied to claim 10 teach the plurality of openings are oblique to the first surface (see Sello figure 1) associated with the diffuser tube.
Regarding claim 18, Newcomer and Sello as applied to claim 10 teach the diffuser tube and it is capable of being used with an external casing that is rotated at any angle with respect to the longitudinal length of the diffuser tube.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 allowed.
Claim 14 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: Current prior art of record fails to teach a system for generating uniform.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights