DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 4,497,242 to Moyer in view of US Patent Number 5,433,377 to Sodo and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2016/0273791 A1 to Packingham.
A) As per Claim 1, Moyer teaches an air balancer system (Moyer: Figure 1), comprising:
an HVAC control module (Moyer: Figure 1, Item 23) operationally coupled to and adapted for use with an HVAC unit (Moyer: Figure 1, Items 1-8) configured in a room or living space, wherein the HVAC control module is adapted to control an outside air intake fan (Moyer: Figure 1, Item 1) of the HVAC unit;
a Room Air Balancer Trigger Module (Moyer: Figure 1, Item 18) operationally coupled to and adapted for use with an air exhausting facility (Moyer: Figure 1, Items 12 & 14-15) of an attached facility present in the room or living space, the RABTM is adapted for continually monitoring a pressure in the air exhausting facility, and operating mode of the air exhausting facility;
wherein, the RABTM is communicatively linked to the HVAC control module to continually communicate the pressure in the air exhausting facility, and/or the operating mode of the air exhausting facility to the HVAC control module so as to control the outside air intake of the HVAC unit to create a balanced airflow within the room or living space irrespective of the fan's speed in the air exhausting facility, and operating mode of the air exhausting facility; and wherein the operation of the RABTM and HVAC control module ensures any negative air pressure created within the room or living space at any point in time is equally compensated to achieve balanced air pressure and quality within the room or living space (Moyer: Col. 2, lines 15-17).
Moyer does not teach that the HVAC has an ERV or HRV.
However, Sodo teaches an HRV (Sodo: Figure 1, Item 20).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Moyer by adding an HRV, as taught by Sodo, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Moyer with these aforementioned teachings of Sodo with the motivation of reducing energy consumption.
Moyer in view of Sodo does not teach that the exhaust sensor includes monitoring a fan's speed in the air exhausting facility.
However, Packingham teaches monitoring a fan's speed in the air exhausting facility and the speed of the intake fan (Packingham: Abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Moyer in view of Sodo by adding a fan speed sensor and control, as taught by Packingham, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Moyer in view of Sodo with these aforementioned teachings of Packingham with the motivation of further monitoring the exhausting operation.
B) As per Claim 2, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that the attached facility present in the room or living space is at least a bathroom or a kitchen (Moyer: rooms can be used as bathroom/kitchen).
C) As per Claim 3, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that the air exhausting facility is an exhaust fan (Moyer: Figure 1, Item 15) installed in the bathroom or a chimney or kitchen hood installed in the kitchen.
D) As per Claim 4, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that the RABTM comprises one or more sensors adapted for monitoring and/or detecting a fan's speed in the air exhausting facility, and operating mode of the air exhausting facility (Packingham: Abstract).
E) As per Claim 5, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that the operating mode of the air exhausting facility detected by the one or more sensors is at least an activation mode (ON state) or a deactivation mode (OFF state) (Packingham: Abstract).
F) As per Claim 6, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that upon detecting the activation mode, a controller/microprocessor of the RABTM relays a message to the ERV or HRV control module to speed up the outside air intake fan of the ERV or HRV unit in order to compensate for the airflow entering the attached facility from the room or living space (Packingham: Abstract).
G) As per Claim 7, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that upon detecting the deactivation mode, the controller/microprocessor of the RABTM relays a message to the ERV or HRV control module to slow down the outside air intake fan of the ERV or HRV unit because during this point the fan of the air exhausting facility is not intaking any air from the living space or room (Packingham: Abstract).
H) As per Claim 8, Moyer in view of Sodo and Packingham teaches that, upon monitoring and detecting the fan's speed in the air exhausting facility by the one or more sensors, the controller/microprocessor of the RABTM communicates with the microprocessor/microcontroller of the ERV or HRV control module for controlling the speed of the outside air intake fan to maintain the airflow balanced within the room or living space (Packingham: Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762