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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 01/14/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. The Applicant has overcome the claim objection of record and they have been withdrawn. The Applicant in their response was silent on addressing the Examiners issues the 112(b) rejection of record. The Applicant is still required to respond to issues of clarity.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on page 8 regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
A ceiling
A separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling
The luminaire chilled beam connected in parallel or in a series to a plurality of other chilled beams
The luminaire chilled beam and the plurality of other chilled beams operating as a single unit
Pin latch
Primary air handler
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) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 1 & 11 similarly have been amended to recite “a water coil comprising a discrete heat exchanger positioned within the induction chamber”, to which upon a review, the Examiner is unclear as the disclosure seems to be bereft of any positively identified element of a heat exchanger, however, the Examiner was able to locate subject matter pertaining to “The water coil 115 can treat air within the induction chamber 111 by heating or cooling the air with heated or cooled water running through the water coil 115” within the disclosure. The Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that the function of the water coil itself can exchange heat, performing the functions of a heat exchanger, as similarly outlined by the Applicant themselves. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for being dependent form a rejected claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the luminaire chilled beam and the plurality of other luminaire chilled beams operating as a single unit”, however, this is unclear as while the Examiner was able to locate two recitations of the term single unit both located in ¶0012 of the Specifications filed 03/31/2023 which outlines “the luminaire chilled beam can integrate a luminaire with a chilled beam in a single unit with a same profile as a chilled-beam-only unit.” and “In addition, the luminaire chilled beam can receive seismic certification as a single unit.”,
the Examiner was unable to locate subject matter that would shed light upon the limitation of “the luminaire chilled beam and the plurality of other luminaire chilled beams operating as a single unit”, as not only has the Applicant not shown a plurality of other luminaire chilled beams, much less there being disclosure for them to operate “as a single unit”. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as “the luminaire chilled beam operates as a single unit”, as there is disclosure, as outlined above, for the luminaire chilled beam can be a single unit with a light and a chilled beam. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benson et al (US 3,090,434), hereinafter referred to as Benson.
Regarding claim 1, Benson (US 3,090,434) shows a luminaire chilled beam (F, Fig. 8), comprising:
a pressure chamber (see Annotated Figure 1 – the pressure chamber is a space within the device that functions as a plenum) configured to receive primary air from an upstream air supply system through a primary air inlet (96, Fig. 2/8, Col. 5, Lines 1-4) – the pressure chamber is configured to receive primary air from an upstream air supply system, which can be seen in Fig. 8 comprising of at least elements enclosed within element 115 and element 117, of which is controlled by the damper, through the primary inlet 96);
an induction chamber (see Annotated Figure 1 – the) adjacent to the pressure chamber comprising an induction face (see Annotated Figure 1/2) at a lower portion of the induction chamber (see Annotated Figure 1);
a nozzle plate (14, Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 1) affixed to an underside of the pressure chamber (see Annotated Figure 1) and configured to expel the supplied air from the pressure chamber (Col. 8, Lines 24-30 – the nozzle plate 14, which comprises of elements 153 that pass air, is configured to expel the supplied air from the pressure chamber, and since the structure of the prior art has been established (MPEP 2115), the same claimed benefit of thereby causing an induction of air from an external setting, of the pressure chamber, into the induction chamber through the induction face) and thereby cause an induction of air from an external setting into the induction chamber through the induction face (Col. 8, Lines 24-30 / Col. 5, Lines 58-68 - MPEP 2114.II. states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”, to which the Applicant has outlined the nozzle plate, with the limitations after the phrase, “and thereby cause” is elaborating on the field of intended use and how the device is used, rather than what the device is as claimed, in which claim 1 is only positively reciting the nozzle plate as claimed; of which, the nozzle plate of Benson is configured to expel the supplied air from the pressure chamber and thereby cause an induction of air from an external setting, from the room the device is in via elements 21, into the induction chamber through the induction face);
a water coil (Fig. 2/3/5/7 – the water coil comprises of the elements that carry water through the system, comprising of components 17/74/58/75/76/77/78/79/80/81, Col. 4, Lines 15-33) comprising a discrete heat exchanger (As the Applicant states “The water coil 115 can treat air within the induction chamber 111 by heating or cooling the air with heated or cooled water running through the water coil 115”, as does Benson also show a heat exchanger discretely formed within the structure featured at least in Figs. 1-3, in the form of the water coil) positioned within the induction chamber (Fig. 1/3 – the discrete heat exchanger of the water coil is positioned within the induction chamber, as Figs. 1 & 3 shows components 17 within the induction chamber) and configured to treat the induced air as it flows through and within the induction chamber (Fig. 2 – the water coil is configured to treat the induced air within the induction chamber);
a discharge channel (26, Fig. 2) configured to expel the induced air and the primary air from the induction chamber and into the external setting (Col. 5, Lines 58-68); and
a luminaire assembly (Fig. 2) positioned between the induction face and the discharge channel at the lower portion of the induction chamber (Fig. 2/3), the luminaire assembly comprising a luminaire (34, Fig. 2) configured to illuminate the external setting (Fig. 2 – the luminaire 34 is a light tube).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
430
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Benson shows wherein the induction face comprises a grille, a plurality of perforations, or a plurality of louvers (Fig. 2 – the induction face comprises of at least a plurality of perforations 21 on each side of the device).
Regarding claim 3, Benson shows wherein treating the primary air and the induced air comprises cooling or heating the primary air and the induced air (Col. 5, Lines 58-68 – treating the primary air and the induced air comprises of cooling and/or heating the primary and induced air).
Regarding claim 4, Benson shows wherein the water coil is further configured to treat induced air that is undesirably heated by the luminaire (Fig. 2, Col. 8, Lines 70-75).
Regarding claim 7, Benson shows wherein the luminaire assembly comprises a frame (35, Fig. 1) to which the luminaire is detachably attached (Fig. 1 – the light tubes 34 are detetchably attached to the frame 35), and the luminaire comprises an incandescent lamp, a fluorescent lamp (Col. 2, Lines 71-72 / Col. 3, Lines 1-3), or a light-emitting diode lamp.
Regarding claim 10, Benson shows wherein the induction face comprises a pin latch (Col. 2, Lines 6-13 – the caps 12 are removably secured to the housing for removal, however, the caps are removably secured to the housing in any known manner, which includes a pin latch, of which the Applicant has additionally failed to show; see Drawing Objection above) configured to provide toolless access to internal components of the luminaire chilled beam from the external setting (Fig. 1/2/3).
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.
Claims 5-6 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson et al (US 3,090,434), hereinafter referred to as Benson, in view of Lys et al (US 2021/0059123), hereinafter referred to as Lys.
Regarding claim 5, Benson shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the luminaire.
However, Benson lacks showing further comprising a control module configured to control an operation of the luminaire.
Lys (US 2021/0059123), a cooled lighting fixture, is in the same field of endeavor as Benson which is a cooled lighting fixture.
Lys teaches further comprising a control module (90, ¶0115, Lines 14-31) configured to control an operation of the luminaire (¶0115, Lines 14-31).
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 Benson to incorporate the teachings of the control module of Lys, which would provide a means to connect and control a single device or series of devices to be used in a leased lighting system (¶0010).
Regarding claim 6, Benson shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 5 including the luminaire.
However, Benson lacks showing wherein the control module is configured to wirelessly control the operation of the luminaire.
Lys teaches wherein the control module is configured to wirelessly control the operation of the luminaire (¶0115, Lines 14-31 / 0140 – the control module 90 is configured to wirelessly control the operation of the luminaire 1000, as the device comprises of Wi-Fi technology).
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 Benson to incorporate the teachings of the control module of Lys, which would provide a means to connect and control a single device or series of devices to be used in a leased lighting system (¶0010).
Regarding claim 9, Benson shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein the luminaire chilled beam (F, Fig. 2/8) is connected in parallel or in series to a plurality of other luminaire chilled beams (Fig. 8).
However, Benson lacks showing the luminaire chilled beam and the plurality of other luminaire chilled beams respectively operating as single units.
Lys teaches the luminaire chilled beam and the plurality of other luminaire chilled beams, respectively, operating as a single unit (¶0172, Lines 1-11 – the series of luminaire chilled beams 1000 operate as a single cooling unit; see 112(b) rejection above).
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 Benson to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of the luminaire chilled beams of Lys, which would provide a means to connect and control a single device or series of devices to be used in a leased lighting system (¶0010).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson et al (US 3,090,434), hereinafter referred to as Benson.
Regarding claim 8, Benson shows wherein the luminaire chilled beam is installed in a ceiling of the external setting (Col. 4, Lines 48-54), and the luminaire chilled beam occupies the same space within the ceiling as a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling (Fig. 2/3/8, Col. 4, Lines 48-54 – as the Applicant shows a ceiling, much less a space within the ceiling to even place a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam, as does Benson show the luminaire chilled beam occupies the same space within the ceiling as a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation “the luminaire chilled beam occupies less space within the ceiling than a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the luminaire chilled beam occupying less space within the ceiling than a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling instead of the luminaire chilled beam occupying the same space within the ceiling as a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling (Fig. 2/3/8, Col. 4, Lines 48-54) of Benson, because applicant has not disclosed that the luminaire chilled beam occupying less space within the ceiling than a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose , or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the luminaire chilled beam occupying less space within the ceiling than a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling or the luminaire chilled beam occupying the same space within the ceiling as a separate luminaire and a separate chilled beam installed in the ceiling, because both sizes of the luminaire chilled beams performs the function of using fluid to cool a lighting fixture equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect IV.A).
Claims 11-14 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benson et al (US 3,090,434), hereinafter referred to as Benson.
Regarding claim 11, Benson (US 3,090,434) shows an apparatus (F, Fig. 8), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1/2);
a nozzle plate (14, Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 3) positioned in an upper portion of the housing (Fig. 3 – the nozzle plate 14 is positioned in an upper portion of the housing, as it reaches the entire length of the housing, including the upper portion);
a plenum (see Annotated Figure 3) defined by the nozzle plate and a portion of the housing (see Annotated Figure 3), the plenum receiving primary air from an air handler (Fig. 2, Col. 5, Lines 1-4 – as the Applicant shows the plenum receiving air from a primary air handler, as does Benson show the plenum is to receive primary air from an upstream air supply system, or primary air handler, through duct 97, of which is controlled by the damper, through the inlet 96);
the nozzle plate (14, Fig. 2/3) comprising a plurality of apertures (153, Fig. 2) through which the primary air is expelled from the plenum (Col. 8, Lines 24-30 – the nozzle plate 14, which comprises of elements 153 that pass air, is configured to expel the supplied air from the plenum, and since the structure of the prior art has been established (MPEP 2115), the same claimed benefit of thereby causing an induction of air from the plenum, into the induction chamber through the induction face), thereby causing an induction of air from an external setting into a lower portion of the housing (Col. 8, Lines 24-30 / Col. 5, Lines 58-68 - MPEP 2114.II. states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”, to which the Applicant has outlined the nozzle plate, with the limitations after the phrase, “and thereby cause” is elaborating on the field of intended use and how the device is used, rather than what the device is as claimed, in which claim 11 is only positively reciting the nozzle plate as claimed; of which, the nozzle plate of Benson is to expel the supplied air from the plenum and thereby cause an induction of air from an external setting, from the room the device is in via elements 21, into the induction chamber through the induction face);
an induction face (see Annotated Figure 2/3) positioned at a lower portion of the housing (see Annotated Figure 2/3), the induction face being permeable to the air from the external setting (Col. 5, Lines 58-68);
a water coil (Fig. 2/3/5/7 – the water coil comprises of the elements that carry water through the system, comprising of components 17/74/58/75/76/77/78/79/80/81, Col. 4, Lines 15-33) comprising a discrete heat exchanger (As the Applicant states “The water coil 115 can treat air within the induction chamber 111 by heating or cooling the air with heated or cooled water running through the water coil 115”, as does Benson also show a heat exchanger discretely formed within the structure featured at least in Figs. 1-3, in the form of the water coil) positioned within the housing (Fig. 1/3 – the discrete heat exchanger of the water coil is positioned within the housing, as Figs. 1 & 3 shows components 17 within the induction chamber) positioned adjacent to the induction face within the housing (Fig. 2), the water coil treating the air induced from the external setting (Col. 5, Lines 58-68 / Col. 8, Lines 70-75, Fig. 2 – the water coil is to treat the induced air induced from the external setting);
a discharge channel (26, Fig. 2) positioned adjacent to the water coil within the lower portion of the housing (Fig. 2), the primary air and the air induced from the external setting being expelled through the discharge channel into the external setting (Col. 5, Lines 58-68); and
a luminaire assembly (Fig. 2) positioned adjacent to the induction face and the discharge channel within the lower portion of the housing (Fig. 2), the luminaire assembly comprising a luminaire (34, Fig. 2) that causes an illumination of the external setting (Fig. 2 – the luminaire 34 is a light tube).
PNG
media_image3.png
427
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 12, Benson shows wherein the induction face comprises a grille, a plurality of perforations (Fig. 2 – the induction face comprises of at least a plurality of perforations 21 on each side of the device), or a plurality of louvers.
Regarding claim 13, Benson shows wherein treating the air induced from the external setting comprises cooling or heating the primary air and the air induced from the external setting (Col. 5, Lines 58-68 – treating the primary air and the induced air comprises of cooling and/or heating the primary and induced air).
Regarding claim 14, Benson shows wherein the water coil causes a cooling of air induced from the external setting that is undesirably heated by the luminaire (Fig. 2, Col. 8, Lines 70-75).
Regarding claim 17, Benson shows wherein the luminaire assembly comprises a frame (35, Fig. 1) to which the luminaire is detachably attached (Fig. 1 – the light tubes 34 are detetchably attached to the frame 35).
Regarding claim 18, Benson shows wherein the luminaire comprises an incandescent lamp, a fluorescent lamp (Col. 2, Lines 71-72 / Col. 3, Lines 1-3), or a light-emitting diode lamp.
Regarding claim 19, Benson shows wherein the apparatus is installed in a ceiling of the external setting (Col. 4, Lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 20, Benson shows wherein the induction face comprises a pin latch (Col. 2, Lines 6-13 – the caps 12 are removably secured to the housing for removal, however, the caps are removably secured to the housing in any known manner, which includes a pin latch, of which the Applicant has additionally failed to show; see Drawing Objection above) configured to provide toolless access to internal components of the apparatus from the external setting (Fig. 1/2/3).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson et al (US 3,090,434), hereinafter referred to as Benson, in view of Lys et al (US 2021/0059123), hereinafter referred to as Lys.
Regarding claim 15, Benson shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11 including the luminaire.
However, Benson lacks showing further comprising a control module configured to control an operation of the luminaire.
Lys (US 2021/0059123), a cooled lighting fixture, is in the same field of endeavor as Benson which is a cooled lighting fixture.
Lys teaches further comprising a control module (90, ¶0115, Lines 14-31) configured to control an operation of the luminaire (¶0115, Lines 14-31).
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 Benson to incorporate the teachings of the control module of Lys, which would provide a means to connect and control a single device or series of devices to be used in a leased lighting system (¶0010).
Regarding claim 16, Benson shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 15 including the luminaire.
However, Benson lacks showing wherein the control module is configured to wirelessly control the operation of the luminaire.
Lys teaches wherein the control module is configured to wirelessly control the operation of the luminaire (¶0115, Lines 14-31 / 0140 – the control module 90 is configured to wirelessly control the operation of the luminaire 1000, as the device comprises of Wi-Fi technology).
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 Benson to incorporate the teachings of the control module of Lys, which would provide a means to connect and control a single device or series of devices to be used in a leased lighting system (¶0010).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 at 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762