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 .
Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-10 and 20-27 in the reply filed on 06/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: figures 3 and 4 both include circled reference characters (numbers) each of which is not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claims 2-10 and 20-27 are objected to because of the following informalities: each should reach “The modular wall section…” instead of “A modular wall section…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-2, 21-23, 26 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0031460 (Kulp) in view of US 2016/0135593 (DeLorean et al.)
Regarding claim 1, the Kulp reference discloses a modular wall section comprising: an internal frame (figure 2 and paragraph [0027], the drop ceiling longitudinal and latitudinal rails RLL and RLT); an air purifier mounted within the internal frame (figure 2 and paragraph [0027], the system chassis retained in the space of a drop ceiling), the air purifier comprising: a housing comprising an intake opening for an inflow of air and an output opening for an outflow of air (figure 1, objects 10 and 20); a rotatably mounted fan; a motor for rotating said fan (figure 4a object 30 and paragraph [0029]; and an air purifier unit mounted to said housing purifying air flowing through the housing (figure 4a objects 26). and a panel movably mounted to the internal frame for movement between an open position for accessing the air purifier and a closed position concealing the air purifier (figure 4a, object 29a-c). The Kulp reference does not explicit the panel mounted to the internal frame or the panel configured to provide in the closed position thereof, a gap at an edge thereof for directing either the inflow to the air purifier or the outflow of air from the air purifier through the gap.
The DeLorean et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also a ceiling unit includes access panels mounted to the internal frame (figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include access panels mounted to the internal frame (DeLorean et al. figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]) so as to secure the contents of the ceiling in place while also allowing for the contents of the ceiling to be accessed. Further the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The DeLorean et al. reference discloses the panel mounted to the internal frame (figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]) and in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof (figure 2, objects 155).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include the panel mounted to the internal frame DeLorean et al. (figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]) and in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof (DeLorean et al. figure 2, objects 155) for directing either the inflow of air to the air purifier or the outflow of air from the air purifier through the gap (it is noted that this is the intended use of the apparatus but these gaps are clearly capable of providing such use as evidenced by figure 31, object 3105 – objects 155 not labeled) so as to secure the contents of the ceiling in place while also allowing the contents to be accessed and to allow for airflow within the ceiling space. Further the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It is noted that whether the gap is an inflow or outflow is a method of use as it is capable of being either.
For claim 2, the Kulp reference discloses the housing comprises a pair of plates opposing one another (arrows below), wherein the fan is rotatably mounted between said plates (figure 4A object 30), and wherein the air purifier unit comprises a filter (figure 4a object 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 21, the DeLorean et al. reference discloses the panel is configured to provide, in the closed position thereof, (a) the gap as a first gap at the edge thereof for directing the inflow of air through the gap, and (b) a second gap at another edge thereof for directing the outflow of the air through the second gap (figure 2, objects 155).
For claim 22, the DeLorean et al. reference discloses the edge for the first gap is a vertical side edge of the panel and wherein the another edge for second gap is the other vertical side edge (figure 2, object 155). Further even if Delorean et al. reference did not disclose the above, the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 23, the Kulp and DeLorean et al. reference discloses the panel is a door panel that is hingedly mounted for movement between the open and closed positions (Kulp figure 4a, object 29a-c and DeLorean et al. figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]).
For claim 24, the Kulp reference discloses said output opening is provided on a longitudinal edge of the housing (figure 1, objects 20). Further even if Kulp does not disclose the above, the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 26, the Kulp reference discloses said housing has a longitudinal axis and the intake opening comprises a pair of intake openings positioned at opposing longitudinal ends of said housing (figure 1 object 10) and said output opening is provided on a longitudinal edge of the housing (figure 1, objects 20). Further even if Kulp does not disclose the above, the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 28, the combination of Kulp and DeLorean as shown discussed for claim 1 above disclose the panel and the gap are configured to cooperate to guide an airflow generated by the air purifier along a predetermined airflow path between the intake opening and the output opening.
Regarding claim 29, the Kulp reference discloses a modular wall section comprising: an internal frame (figure 2 and paragraph [0027], the drop ceiling longitudinal and latitudinal rails RLL and RLT); an air purifier mounted within the internal frame (figure 2 and paragraph [0027], the system chassis retained in the space of a drop ceiling), the air purifier comprising: a housing comprising an intake opening for an inflow of air and an output opening for an outflow of air (figure 1, objects 10 and 20); a rotatably mounted fan; a motor for rotating said fan (figure 4a object 30 and paragraph [0029]; and an air purifier unit mounted to said housing purifying air flowing through the housing (figure 4a objects 26). and a panel mounted to the internal frame for movement between an open position for accessing the air purifier and a closed position concealing the air purifier (figure 4a, object 29a-c) whereing said housing has a longitudinal axis and the intake openings comprises a pair of intake openings positioned at opposing longitudinal ends of said housing (figure 1, objects 10), wherein the air purifier unit comprises a filter (figure 4a object 26) wherein the filter comprises a pair of intake filters each removably mounted at a respective intake opening (figure 4a object 26 – all objects are removable in some form or another). The Kulp reference does not explicit the panel mounted to the internal frame and wherein each of said intake openings are oriented at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to said longitudinal axis.
The DeLorean et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also a ceiling unit includes access panels mounted to the internal frame (figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include access panels mounted to the internal frame (DeLorean et al. figure 19, objects 110 and paragraph [0160]) so as to secure the contents of the ceiling in place while also allowing for the contents of the ceiling to be accessed. Further the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to the orientation of the intake 10 of Kulp. Merely changing the orientation from perpendicular to any other orientation other than perpendicular is a matter of design choice. Further the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 30, the Kulp reference discloses said output opening is provided on a longitudinal edge of the housing (figure 1, objects 20). Further even if Kulp does not disclose the above, the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0031460 (Kulp) and US 2016/0135593 (DeLorean et al.) as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of US 4,849,862 (Diskin).
For claim 3, the Kulp reference does not disclose the fan is a toroidal fan, an axis of said toroidal fan being essentially perpendicular to the plates, and wherein the motor is disposed in a central opening of the toroidal fan for rotating said toroidal fan.
The Diskin et al. in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also related to filtration of a space discloses the fan is a toroidal fan (figures 4 and 5, object 19 and claim 10), an axis of said toroidal fan being essentially perpendicular to the plates (figure 5, objects 1 and 2), and wherein the motor is disposed in a central opening of the toroidal fan for rotating said toroidal fan (figure 5, object 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include the fan is a toroidal fan (Diskin figures 4 and 5, object 19 and claim 10), an axis of said toroidal fan being essentially perpendicular to the plates (Diskin figure 5, objects 1 and 2), and wherein the motor is disposed in a central opening of the toroidal fan for rotating said toroidal fan (Diskin figure 5, object 26) so as to provide the desired type of air flow through the filtration system while reducing noise. Further the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 4, the Kulp reference discloses said housing has a longitudinal axis and the intake opening comprises a pair of intake openings positioned at opposing longitudinal ends of said housing (figure 1 object 10). Further even if Kulp does not disclose the above, the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 5, the Kulp reference discloses wherein the filter comprises a pair of intake filters each removably mounted at a respective intake opening (figure 4a objects 26). The Kulp reference does not explicitly state said intake openings are oriented at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to said longitudinal axis of the houseing. It is noted that both the vanes of the inlets and outlets of the device appear to be angled to allow for slanted inflow and outflow of the air (figures 2, 3 and 4B, objects 10 and 20) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include said intake openings are oriented at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to said longitudinal axis as the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claims 6 and 8, the Kulp reference discloses said output opening is provided on a longitudinal edge of the housing (figure 1, objects 20). Further even if Kulp does not disclose the above, the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0031460 (Kulp), US 2016/0135593 (DeLorean et al.) and US 4,849,862 (Diskin) as applied in claims 6 and 8 above and further in view of US 5,086,695 (Welch et al).
For claims 7 and 9, the Kulp reference does not disclose an output plenum attached to the longitudinal edge of the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening, wherein the panel is configured to provide, in the closed position thereof, (a) the gap as a first gap at the edge thereof for directing the inflow of air through the gap, and (b) a second gap at another edge thereof for directing the outflow of the air through the second gap, wherein the plenum is positioned adjacent the second gap for directing the outflow through the second gap.
The Welch et al. reference in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also related to filtration of a space discloses an outlet plenum attached to the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening (figure 2 object 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include an outlet plenum attached to the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening (Welch et al. figure 2 object 18) so a to selectively introduce clean air supplied under pressure to the room. This combination would result in the plenum attached to the longitudinal edge of the housing as that is where the outlets of Kulp are located.
The DeLorean et al. reference discloses the panel is configured to provide, in the closed position thereof, (a) the gap as a first gap at the edge thereof for directing the inflow of air through the gap, and (b) a second gap at another edge thereof for directing the outflow of the air through the second gap (figure 2, objects 155).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include the panel is configured to provide, in the closed position thereof, (a) the gap as a first gap at the edge thereof for directing the inflow of air through the gap, and (b) a second gap at another edge thereof for directing the outflow of the air through the second gap (DeLorean et al. figure 2, objects 155) so as to allow for airflow within the ceiling space.
The combination of Kulp, DeLorean et al. and Welch et al. references above would result in the plenum is positioned adjacent the gap for directing the outflow through the gap.
For claim 10, the Kulp reference discloses the air purifier unit includes a source of ultraviolet radiation (paragraph [0029]).
Claim(s) 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0031460 (Kulp) and US 2016/0135593 (DeLorean et al.) as applied in claims 24 and 26 above and further in view of US 5,086,695 (Welch et al).
For claims 25 and 27, the Kulp reference does not disclose an output plenum attached to the longitudinal edge of the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening, wherein the panel in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof and the plenum is positioned adjacent the gap for directing the outflow through the gap.
The Welch et al. reference in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also related to filtration of a space discloses an outlet plenum attached to the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening (figure 2 object 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include an outlet plenum attached to the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening (Welch et al. figure 2 object 18) so as to selectively introduce clean air supplied under pressure to the room. This combination would result in the plenum attached to the longitudinal edge of the housing as that is where the outlets of Kulp are located.
The DeLorean et al. reference discloses the panel in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof (figure 2, objects 155).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include the panel in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof (DeLorean et al. figure 2, objects 155) so as to allow for airflow within the ceiling space.
The combination of Kulp, DeLorean et al. and Welch et al. references above would result in the plenum is positioned adjacent the gap for directing the outflow through the gap.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0031460 (Kulp) and US 2016/0135593 (DeLorean et al.) as applied in claims 30 above and further in view of US 5,086,695 (Welch et al).
For claim 31, the Kulp reference does not disclose an output plenum attached to the longitudinal edge of the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening, wherein the panel in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof and the plenum is positioned adjacent the gap for directing the outflow through the gap.
The Welch et al. reference in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also related to filtration of a space discloses an outlet plenum attached to the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening (figure 2 object 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include an outlet plenum attached to the housing for distributing the outflow air exiting the output opening (Welch et al. figure 2 object 18) so as to selectively introduce clean air supplied under pressure to the room. This combination would result in the plenum attached to the longitudinal edge of the housing as that is where the outlets of Kulp are located.
The DeLorean et al. reference discloses the panel in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof (figure 2, objects 155).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include the panel in the closed position provides a gap at an edge thereof (DeLorean et al. figure 2, objects 155) so as to allow for airflow within the ceiling space.
The combination of Kulp, DeLorean et al. and Welch et al. references above would result in the plenum is positioned adjacent the gap for directing the outflow through the gap.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0031460 (Kulp), US 2016/0135593 (DeLorean et al.) and US 5,086,695 (Welch et al) as applied in claim 31 above and further in view of US 4,849,862 (Diskin).
For claim 32, the Kulp reference discloses a pair of plates opposing one another (arrows below), wherein the fan is rotatably mounted between said plates (figure 4A object 30), and wherein the air purifier unit comprises a filter (figure 4a object 26). The reference does not disclose wherein the fan is a toroidal fan, an axis of said toroidal fan being essentially perpendicular to the plates, and wherein the motor is disposed in a central opening of the toroidal fan for rotating said toroidal fan
PNG
media_image1.png
226
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Diskin et al. in the same field of endeavor as Kulp as it is also related to filtration of a space discloses the fan is a toroidal fan (figures 4 and 5, object 19 and claim 10), an axis of said toroidal fan being essentially perpendicular to the plates (figure 5, objects 1 and 2), and wherein the motor is disposed in a central opening of the toroidal fan for rotating said toroidal fan (figure 5, object 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kulp reference to include the fan is a toroidal fan (Diskin figures 4 and 5, object 19 and claim 10), an axis of said toroidal fan being essentially perpendicular to the plates (Diskin figure 5, objects 1 and 2), and wherein the motor is disposed in a central opening of the toroidal fan for rotating said toroidal fan (Diskin figure 5, object 26) so as to provide the desired type of air flow through the filtration system while reducing noise. Further the courts have held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that the combination of Kulp and DeLorean does not disclose “the panel is configured to provide in the closed position, a gap at the edge thereof for directed the inflow air to the air purifier or the outflow air from the air purifier through the gap”, specifically that the optional vent 155 in figure 2 of DeLorean is not “a gap at an edge thereof for directing either the inflow air to the air purifier or the outflow air of the air from the air purifier through the gap”.
This is not held to be persuasive. First, this is the intended use of the gaps “for directing”. These gaps clearly allow for the passage of fluid and therefore are capable of providing this intended use.
The Applicant contends impermissible hindsight based on the Applicant’s own specification and “there is no reason as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the optional vents 155 of DeLorean in Kulp to provide the claimed invention.” The Applicant points out that Kulp already has inlets.
As stated above, reasoning to combine the limitations of DeLorean with that of Kulp include - so as to secure the contents of the ceiling in place while also allowing the contents to be accessed and to allow for airflow within the ceiling space. It is further noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The remainder of the arguments are directed to newly presented claims.
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 AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731