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 .
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 "exhaust ports arranged in a different geometry than the first airflow assembly" of claim 4, varying geometries of claim 11 and the conical exhaust ports of claim 12 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 § 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(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Osgard (US 2021/0239385 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Osgard discloses a conditioned air vestibule (Osgard 430, examiner notes 430 is the embodiment of figure 13 which is the same as the embodiment of figures 5 & 6A-6B with the exception of the airflow assembly shown in detail in figure 13) configured to be positioned between a first zone and a second zone the vestibule comprising:
A frame (Osgard 231) having first and second lateral side walls (Osgard 233 and 234);
A header (Osgard 238) positioned at a top of the frame (see Osgard figure 5) and extending between the first and second lateral side walls (see Osgard figure 5);
A blower (Osgard 240) having a blower outlet (see Osgard figure 5);
An airflow assembly having an exhaust panel with a plurality of outlet ports (Osgard 441a-441g), the plurality of exhaust ports in fluid communication with an interior of the frame (see Osgard figure 5) and increasing in flow capacity along a length of the exhaust panel (see Osgard figure 13) from proximate the top of the frame toward a bottom of the frame (see Osgard figure 13); and
An air passage (Osgard 235, 236 and 237) in fluid communication with the blower outlet and the airflow assembly (see Osgard figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Osgard as applied to claim 1 further teaches the airflow assembly is a first airflow assembly and the conditioned air vestibule further comprises a second airflow assembly (Osgard [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Osgard as applied to claim 1 further discloses the airflow assembly forms at least one of the first and second lateral sidewalls (see Osgard figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Osgard as applied to claim 1 discloses the blower (Osgard 240) is housed within the header (see Osgard figure 5) and the header includes heaters (Osgard 246a and 246b) to provide heated forced air flow through the exhaust ports.
Regarding claim 7, Osgard as applied to claim 1 does not disclose an air intake for the blower however, an air intake must exist for the blower to produce the disclosed positive pressure within the airflow assembly.
Regarding claim 9, Osgard as applied to claim 1 discloses the air passage (Osgard 235, 236, and 237) extends through the header (see Osgard figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Osgard as applied to claim 1 discloses the density of the plurality of exhaust ports increases in discrete zones (see Osgard figure 13) between the top and bottom of the frame.
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgard (US 2021/0239385 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ohwanda et al. (US 2004/0242145 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Osgard is silent regarding the second airflow assembly having a different geometry than the first airflow assembly.
However, Ohwanda teaches a conditioned air vestibule (see Ohwanda figure 1) intended to address the prevailing natural airflow through an open doorway with no air vestibule as shown in Ohwanda figures 4A and 4B by utilizing two opposing airflow assemblies (Ohwanda 12 and 13) having different airflow patterns (see Ohwanda figure 1) with one configured to address airflows near the floor (Ohwanda 12) and the other configured to address the airflow near the top of the doorway (Ohwanda 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Osgard’s conditioned air vestibule to best address the different airflows at the top and bottom of the doorway by utilizing different exhaust port geometry for the two airflow assemblies to address the differing airflows at the top and bottom of the doorway.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgard (US 2021/0239385 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Farrey et al. (US 5,203,175).
Regarding claim 8, Osgard as applied to claim 7 is silent regarding where the air intake is drawing airflow from.
However, Farrey teaches a conditioned air vestibule system (see Farrey figure 8) comprising a blower (Farrey 18) and heaters (Farrey 30 and 32) and exhaust ports (Farrey 36 and 38) wherein the blower intake is in fluid communication with the interior of the vestibule to recirculate the warm air discharged from the outlets (Farrey column 5 lines 60-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Osgard’s conditioned air vestibule to utilize Farrey’s teaching of the air intake being in fluid communication with the interior of the vestibule to recirculate the heated air to produce a predictable result of improved energy efficiency due to recovering the heated air.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgard (US 2021/0239385 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohwanda et al. (US 2004/0242145 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Osgard as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the flow capacity of the exhaust ports increasing linearly.
However, Ohwanda teaches a conditioned air vestibule (see Ohwanda figure 1) intended to address the prevailing natural airflow through an open doorway with no air vestibule as shown in Ohwanda figures 4A and 4B by utilizing two opposing airflow assemblies (Ohwanda 12 and 13) having different airflow patterns (see Ohwanda figure 5a) with flow capacity increasing linearly (see Ohwanda figure 5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Osgard’s conditioned air vestibule to best address the different airflows at the top and bottom of the doorway by utilizing different exhaust port geometry for the two airflow assemblies to address the differing airflows at the top and bottom of the doorway.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgard (US 2021/0239385 A1) in view of Farrey et al. (US 5,203,175).
Regarding claim 14, Osgard disclose an airflow assembly for a conditioned air vestibule (see Osgard figure 5), the airflow assembly comprising:
An exterior frame member (Osgard 231);
An exhaust panel configured to be secured relative to the exterior frame member (see Osgard figure 5); and
An air passage (Osgard 235, 236, and 237) formed between the exterior frame member and the exhaust panel (see Osgard figure 5),
The exhaust panel including an exhaust port (Osgard 441a-441g) structured to provide increasing fluid communication along the length between the air passage and an interior of the conditioned air vestibule (see Osgard figure 13).
Osgard further discloses an optional threshold conduit (Osgard 244) and corner deflectors (Osgard 243c and 243d) to supply air to the optional conduit but is silent regarding sealing the frame when the optional components are omitted.
However, Farrey teaches a conditioned air vestibule system (see Farrey figure 8) comprising a blower (Farrey 18) and heaters (Farrey 30 and 32) and exhaust ports (Farrey 36 and 38) wherein the ends of the flowpath are sealed by bottom plates (Farrey 44 and 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Osgard’s airflow assembly to incorporate Farrey’s teachings of a bottom plate that seals the air passage to produce a predictable result of increasing the airflow out of the intended exhaust outlets when the optional threshold conduit assembly is not utilized.
Regarding claim 16, Osgard and Farrey as applied to claim 14 teach the exhaust port comprises a plurality of exhaust ports (Osgard 441a-441g) arranged in a progressive ventilation pattern to provide an airflow gradient along the exhaust panel (see Osgard figure 13).
Regarding claim 17, Osgard and Farrey as applied to claim 16 further teach a blower (Osgard 240) in fluid communication with the air passage and configured to provide forced air through the air passage (see Osgard figure 5).
Osgard and Farrey as applied to claim 16 are silent regarding the location of the blower’s air intake.
However, Farrey further teaches a conditioned air vestibule system (see Farrey figure 8) comprising a blower (Farrey 18) and heaters (Farrey 30 and 32) and exhaust ports (Farrey 36 and 38) wherein the blower intake is at the top of the vestibule and in fluid communication with the interior of the vestibule to recirculate the warm air discharged from the outlets (Farrey column 5 lines 60-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Osgard’s airflow assembly to utilize Farrey’s teaching of the air intake at the top of the vestibule and being in fluid communication with the interior of the vestibule to recirculate the heated air to produce a predictable result of improved energy efficiency due to recovering the heated air.
Regarding claim 19, Osgard teaches a method of conditioning air in a vestibule positioned between first and second zones capable of different ambient conditions, the method comprising:
Conditioning the air utilizing a pair of heaters (Osgard 246a and 246b);
Forcing the conditioned air through a passageway (Osgard 235, 236, and 237) utilizing a blower (Osgard 240); and
Exhausting the conditioned air through an exhaust port (Osgard 441a-441g) formed in an exhaust panel (see Osgard figure 13) and in fluid communication with the air passageway, the exhaust port defines an increasing air flow capacity from an upper end toward a lower end (see Osgard figure 13).
Osgard is silent regarding where the air intake is located.
However, Farrey further teaches a conditioned air vestibule system (see Farrey figure 8) comprising a blower (Farrey 18) and heaters (Farrey 30 and 32) and exhaust ports (Farrey 36 and 38) wherein the blower intake is at the top of the vestibule and in fluid communication with the interior of the vestibule to recirculate the warm air discharged from the outlets (Farrey column 5 lines 60-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Osgard’s method to utilize Farrey’s teaching of the air intake at the top of the vestibule and being in fluid communication with the interior of the vestibule to recirculate the heated air to produce a predictable result of improved energy efficiency due to recovering the heated air.
Regarding claim 20, Osgard and Farrey as applied to claim 19 teach the exhaust port comprises multiple exhaust ports (Osgard 441a-441g) arranged in a progressive ventilation pattern (see Osgard figure 13) to provide an air flow gradient to the interior of the vestibule so that a higher volume of air is exhausted through the multiple exhaust ports closer to a bottom of the vestibule than a top of the vestibule (see Osgard figure 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11-12, 15, and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record fails to teach a tapered periphery with a narrow end at the top of the frame as recited in claims 2 and 18. Current prior art of record is further silent regarding varying the geometry of the exhaust ports along the length as recited in claims 11 and 12. Current prior art of record is silent regarding the use of brackets in the assembly of the airflow assembly as recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762