DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claim 8 was cancelled. Claim 15 was added. Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 15 are currently pending in the application.
The Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every claim objection on record and they have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's newly amended claim limitations necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeng et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,790,257, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/12/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4):
A method of operating (as described in Col. 2, line 49 – Col. 4, line 23) an air handling system (10) including a fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) directing airflow through a filter (the filter of 10, as illustrated in Figure 3), the method comprising:
measuring (via 110) a differential pressure (differential pressure between 21 and 22) between an inlet ring (22) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in (at 21) a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14) fluidly connected to (as illustrated in Figure 3) the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) at a location upstream of (as illustrated in Figure 3, 12 is upstream of the inlet to the fan) an inlet side (the top side of the fan to which 12 is attached, as illustrated in Figure 3) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14),
obtaining (via 120) a current air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47) at the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14) based upon the measured differential pressure (differential pressure between 21 and 22),
comparing (via 130) the current air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47) with a target air volume (pre-set constant value Q0, Col. 3, lines 48-58), and
adjusting (via 140) a speed (“increase or decrease the speed of fan rotor 11 of the fan filter unit 10 for the purpose of adjusting the airflow to the targeted amount Q0”, Col. 3, line 59 – Col. 3, line 23) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14) based upon the comparison (via 130).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4):
The step of comparing (via 130) includes determining a difference (using the equation in Col. 3, lines 51-52) between the current air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47) and the target air volume (pre-set constant value Q0, Col. 3, lines 48-58).
Regarding Claim 4, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4):
The step of adjusting (via 140) includes selecting a fan speed adjustment vale from a plurality of adjustment values (based on the graph of Figure 4) based upon a determined difference between the current air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47) and the target air volume (pre-set constant value Q0, Col. 3, lines 48-58).
Regarding Claim 5, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4):
Repeating the steps of obtaining, comparing and adjusting on a regular basis (“the feedback control is continued repeatedly… it allows the fan filter unit 10 to be capable of continuously generating a fixed amount of airflow”, Col. 3, lines 24-31).
Regarding Claim 7, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4):
The step of obtaining (via 120) includes determining an average air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47; it is noted Q is the average airflow amount expelled across the outlet of the fan) from a plurality of air volume measurements (two pressure measurements, one at 21 and one at 22) at the fan (fan of 10, as illustrated in Figure 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,790,257, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/12/2023), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Beifus et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,101,759).
Regarding Claim 3, Jeng teaches the claimed invention except the step of comparing includes determining an error rate as a percent difference between the current air volume and the target air volume.
In the same field of endeavor of airflow control, Beifus teaches (Figure 5):
It is a known method step to determine an error rate (see Equation 1 and as discussed in Col. 7, line 60 – Col. 23) as a percent difference between the current airflow (objective airflow) and the target airflow (calibrating airflow).
Further, “estimations of airflow output may exhibit significant error… generally, error increases as airflow tends toward zero. Operation of blowers at low airflow output levels is increasingly important to achieve efficiency targets”, Col. 1, lines 37-48.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method shown by Jeng to include determining an error rate as a percent difference between the current air volume and the target air volume, as taught by Beifus, since estimations of airflow output may exhibit significant error. Generally, error increases as airflow tends toward zero. Operation of blowers at low airflow output levels is increasingly important to achieve efficiency targets”
Claims 6, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,790,257, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/12/2023), as recited in Claims 1 and 5 above, in view of Carlyon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,302,323).
Regarding Claim 6, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4) the claimed invention except the regular basis is at least once every two minutes.
In the same field of endeavor of air handling system control, Carlyon teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
It is known in the art to repeat method steps on a regular basis (the method illustrated in Figure 3 is iterative and repeats every FSTD seconds) which is at least once every two minutes (FSTD is about every 1-10 seconds, Col. 6, lines 61-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the regular basis in which the steps repeat shown by Jeng to be at least once every two minutes, as taught by Carylon, to ensure the amount of airflow through the fan filter unit is continuously fixed by monitoring on a regular basis.
Regarding Claim 9, Jeng shows (Figures 3 and 4):
The step of obtaining (via 120) interfaces with a differential pressure sensor (111) on the inlet side (the top side of the fan, as illustrated in Figure 3) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 30.
However, Jeng lacks showing a flow station provided on the inlet side of the fan.
In the same field of endeavor of air handling system control, Carlyon teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 3):
It is known in the art that the step of obtaining (via 208) includes interfacing with a flow station (“first controller 202-A and second controller 202-B are each adapted to obtain fan array airflow from an external signal such as an airflow station”, Col. 4, lines 20-23) provided at the fan (120-A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the different pressure sensor shown by Jeng to be provided in a flow station, as taught by Carlyon, to provide an accurate flow reading for the fan.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jeng (Figures 3 and 4) and Carlyon (Figures 1, 2, and 3) teaches:
The step of obtaining (Jeng: via 120) further includes sensing a pressure (Carlyon: “each pressure transmitter is configured to measure differential pressure of CFM of the air drawn and expelled”, Col. 2, lines 3-5; therefore, a pressure is sensed at the inlet side of the fan) at the flow station (Carylon: “first controller 202-A and second controller 202-B are each adapted to obtain fan array airflow from an external signal such as an airflow station”, Col. 4, lines 20-23).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Jeng (Figures 3 and 4) and Carlyon (Figures 1, 2, and 3) teaches:
The step of obtaining (Jeng: via 120) further includes providing a pressure sensor (Jeng: 111) open to the flow station (Carylon: “first controller 202-A and second controller 202-B are each adapted to obtain fan array airflow from an external signal such as an airflow station”, Col. 4, lines 20-23).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0256821, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/12/2023) in view of Lee (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0253831).
Regarding Claim 12, Jeung shows (Figures 9A and 9B):
A method (method illustrated in Figure 9B) of operating an air handling system (600) comprising a first fan (620) directing airflow (airflow illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 9A) through a first filter (140), the method comprising:
obtaining (see Step 903) a current air volume (detected airflow rate, “the term airflow rate refers to the volume of air flowing through a duct for a given time period, Paragraph 0005) at the first fan (620),
comparing (see Step 903) the current air volume (detected airflow rate) at the fan (620) with a target air volume (target airflow rate), and
adjusting (see Step 904) a speed (via the torque) of the first fan (620) based upon the corresponding comparison (in Step 903) and operation of a first algorithm (algorithms illustrated in Figure 2 for fan 620) dedicated to the first fan (620).
However, Jeung lacks showing the air handling systems includes a second fan and associated second filter, wherein the method steps are followed for the second fan including adjust a speed of the second fan based upon the corresponding comparison and operation of a second algorithm dedicated to the second fan.
In the same field of invention of fan filter unit control, Lee teaches (Figures 2 and 3):
It is known for an air handling system (system illustrated in Figure 2) to have a plurality of fan filter units (207) including a first fan and first filter (the right 207) and a second fan and second filter (the right 207), wherein
the method steps are following for each fan unit (as illustrated in Figure 3), wherein “the plurality of fan filter units are each able to be independently commanded by the control system”, Paragraph 0027. “The sensors may operate independently of each other and each fan filter unit 207 may be able to be individually controlled”, Paragraph 0044.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the air handling system comprising the single fan/filter unit using the method steps shown by Jeong to comprise a plurality of fan/filter units that are individually controlled using the method steps for each associated fan/filter unit, as taught by Lee, to ensure proper distribution of air within the room by increasing the number of fan filter units.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jeung (Figures 9A and 9B) and Lee (Figures 2 and 3) teaches:
The same target air volume (Jeung: target airflow rate) is utilized with each of the plurality of fans (as taught by Lee and incorporated in Claim 12 above, the fans operate through the method steps independently but use the same target airflow rate).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,790,257, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/12/2023), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Kupferberg (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0128549).
Regarding Claim 14, Carlyon shows the claimed invention except notifying a user when filter statis pressure exceeds a static pressure capacity of the fan.
In the same field of endeavor of ventilation control, Kupferberg teaches (Figures 1 and 2):
It is known in the art to notify a user when filter static pressure exceeds a static pressure capacity of the fan (“this allows the operator to establish an alarm 32 when the delta static pressure measurement, that is, the filter pressure, reaches a specific level”, Paragraph 0029).
Further, this indicates “the point in time the filter 14 must be removed and replaced with a clean filter 14”, Paragraph 0029.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method shown by Jeng to include notifying a user when filter statis pressure exceeds a static pressure capacity of the fan, as taught by Kupferberg, to make maintenance of the system easier by indicating the point in time that the filter must be removed and replaced with a clean filter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebke et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,626,754) in view of Jeng et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,790,257, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/12/2023).
Regarding Claim 15, Gebke shows (Figure 1):
A method (method illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1) of operating an air handling system (10) including a fan (16), the method comprising:
operating (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in Figure 1, 16 is operated to create a pressure differential, thus creating a flow of air) to direct airflow (30) through:
a first filter (20) arranged in a duct (28, it is noted 28 forms a duct through which air flows) fluidly connected to, and upstream of (as illustrated in Figure 1), the fan (16),
a second filter (22) arranged in a duct (24) connected to, and downstream of, as illustrated in Figure 1), the fan (16).
However, Gebke lacks showing obtaining a current air volume at the fan, comparing the current air volume with a target air volume, and adjusting a speed of the fan based upon the comparison.
In the same field of endeavor of air handling system control, Jeng teaches (Figures 3 and 4):
A method of operating (as described in Col. 2, line 49 – Col. 4, line 23) an air handling system (10) including a fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) directing airflow through a filter (the filter of 10, as illustrated in Figure 3), the method comprising:
measuring (via 110) a differential pressure (differential pressure between 21 and 22) between an inlet ring (22) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in (at 21) a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14) fluidly connected to (as illustrated in Figure 3) the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) at a location upstream of (as illustrated in Figure 3, 12 is upstream of the inlet to the fan) an inlet side (the top side of the fan to which 12 is attached, as illustrated in Figure 3) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14),
obtaining (via 120) a current air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47) at the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) and in a duct (duct of 12 formed by 14) based upon the measured differential pressure (differential pressure between 21 and 22),
comparing (via 130) the current air volume (“120 is capable of computing the airflow amount represented by Q corresponding to the present pressure different delta P”, Col. 3, lines 6-47) with a target air volume (pre-set constant value Q0, Col. 3, lines 48-58), and
adjusting (via 140) a speed (“increase or decrease the speed of fan rotor 11 of the fan filter unit 10 for the purpose of adjusting the airflow to the targeted amount Q0”, Col. 3, line 59 – Col. 3, line 23) of the fan (fan of 10, illustrated in Figure 3) based upon the comparison (via 130).
Further, “this feature allows the fan filter unit to continuously generate a fixed amount of airflow equal to the preset desired amount even if there is a pressure change”, Abstract.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method shown by Gebke to include the control steps of obtaining a current air volume at the fan, comparing the current air volume with a target air volume, and adjusting a speed of the fan based upon the comparison, as taught by Jeng, to allow the fan filter unit to continuously generate a fixed amount of airflow equal to the preset desired amount even if there is a pressure change.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached on (571)270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D. T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762