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 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/09/2023 & 09/09/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 & 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 5,331,991 to Nilsson in view of US Patent Publication Number 2008/0250800 A1 to Wetzel.
A) As per Claim 1, Nilsson teaches an air conditioning device, comprising a telescopic main structure, a ventilation air conditioning assembly and a control assembly, wherein the ventilation air conditioning assembly is installed on the main structure (Nilsson: Figure 1);
the main structure (Nilsson: Figure 1, Item 11) is configured to form a hermetic space inside the main structure, and is configured to stretch or fold the hermetic space;
the ventilation air conditioning assembly is configured to form a differential pressure environment in the hermetic space;
the control assembly is connected to the main structure and/or the ventilation air conditioning assembly, the control assembly is configured to control the main structure to stretch or fold,
and/or the control assembly is configured to control the ventilation air conditioning assembly to adjust an air pressure and a temperature in the hermetic space (Nilsson: Col. 3, lines 10-15).
Nilsson does not explicitly teach adjusting a humidity in the space.
However, Wetzel teaches adjusting a humidity in the space (Wetzel: Figure 1; Paragraph 0019).
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 Nilsson by adding humidity, temp and pressure control system, as taught by Wetzel, 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 Nilsson with these aforementioned teachings of Wetzel with the motivation of further providing comfort to the occupants of the space.
B) As per Claim 7, Nilsson in view of Wetzel teaches that the ventilation air conditioning assembly comprises an inlet fan, a compressor, a heat exchanger, and an exhaust fan (Wetzel: Figure 6);
the inlet fan, the compressor, and the heat exchanger are installed at a corner of the main structure, the exhaust fan is installed on the corner of the main structure opposite to the inlet fan; the inlet fan and the exhaust fan are configured to form the differential pressure environment in the hermetic space under a coordination of the control assembly;
the compressor is connected to the heat exchanger; and
the inlet fan, the compressor and the heat exchanger allow air to enter the heat exchanger through the inlet fan and enter the hermetic space under the coordination of the control assembly, to adjust the temperature and humidity in the hermetic space.
C) As per Claim 8, Nilsson in view of Wetzel teaches that a pressure detector is also provided in the hermetic space, the pressure detector is connected to the control assembly, and when a data detected by the pressure detector is different from a set value, the control assembly is configured to send an instruction to coordinate an adjustment of the inlet fan and the exhaust fan (Nilsson: Paragraph 0014).
D) As per Claim 9, Nilsson in view of Wetzel teaches that a first purification net is provided at an inlet of the inlet fan, a second purification net is provided at an outlet of the exhaust fan, and the first purification net and the second purification net are configured to filter and purify the air (Nilsson: Figure 6, Item 58 & 76).
E) As per Claim 10, Nilsson in view of Wetzel teaches that the control assembly comprises a controller and an operation platform, the controller is provided in the operation platform, and the operation platform is provided in the main structure (Nilsson: Figure 3, Item 17).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Wetzel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 9,534,407 B2 to Ballantyne.
A) As per Claim 2, Nilsson in view of Wetzel teaches all the limitations except that the main structure comprises a skeleton, a deformation mechanism, a sealing part and an access mechanism; the sealing part covers the skeleton, and is configured to form the hermetic space in the main structure; the deformation mechanism is connected to the skeleton, and is configured to drive the skeleton to stretch or fold; and the access mechanism is provided on the skeleton, and is configured to enter or exit the hermetic space.
However, Ballantyne teaches a skeleton, a deformation mechanism, a sealing part and an access mechanism; the sealing part covers the skeleton, and is configured to form the hermetic space in the main structure; the deformation mechanism is connected to the skeleton, and is configured to drive the skeleton to stretch or fold; and the access mechanism is provided on the skeleton, and is configured to enter or exit the hermetic space (Ballantyne: Figure 1A).
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 Nilsson in view of Wetzel by having the main structure of Ballantyne, 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 Nilsson in view of Wetzel with these aforementioned teachings of Ballantyne since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the main structure of Ballantyne for the main structure of Nilsson in view of Wetzel.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 3, Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne teaches that a joint of a corner of the skeleton is provided with a fixing part, and the fixing part is configured to support and fix the skeleton (Ballantyne: Figure 1A, posts in corner).
C) As per Claim 4, Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne teaches that a bottom of the fixing part is provided with a caster, and the caster is configured to move the air conditioning device (Ballantyne: Figure 1A, posts in corner have casters on bottom).
D) As per Claim 5, Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne teaches that the deformation mechanism is provided between at least two sets of the fixing parts (Ballantyne: Figure 1A, Item 110).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of CN106958858A to Wang.
A) As per Claim 6, Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne teaches that the deformation mechanism is a scissor-type telescopic mechanism, one end of the scissor-type telescopic mechanism is connected to one of the fixing parts, and another end of the scissor-type telescopic mechanism is connected to another fixing part (Ballantyne: Figure 1A, Item 110).
Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne does not teach the control assembly is configured to send an instruction to control the scissor-type telescopic mechanism to stretch or fold.
However, Wang teaches a control assembly is configured to send an instruction to control the scissor-type telescopic mechanism to stretch or fold (Wang: pg. 2, paragraph 8-9).
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 Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne by having the folding be controlled, as taught by Wang, 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 Nilsson in view of Wetzel and Ballantyne with these aforementioned teachings of Wang with the motivation of making setup and take-down easier.
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
Prosecution Insights