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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of embodiment I in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant asserts that claims 1-15, 17, and 19 read on the elected embodiment. However, Claim 7 recites features (e.g. the second motor 34B is coupled within the second fan wheel housing 32B and the second fan wheel 31B, wherein two ends of the second motor 34B are coupled at the second fan wheel housing 32B and the second fan wheel 31B respectively) directed towards non-elected embodiment II. Accordingly, claim 7 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 7, 16, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1, 9, 10, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“partially open-partially close” in claims 1 and 10, Appears to an error for “partially open” or “partially close”.
The acronym of (PTC) in claims 9, 19, and 20, is not defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
heating assembly in claims 1, 2, and 10.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heating”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The disclosure defines heating assembly as “the heating assembly 40 comprises a PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) heating element 401”, see ¶ [0038]. Therefore, the heating assembly will be construed as a PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) heating element, and/or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, each of the recitations of “a second/third fresh air inlet”, “a first/second fan wheel”, “a first/second fan wheel housing”, “a first/second air tunnel”, and “a first/second motor” is unclear. It’s unclear as if Applicant is using “second/third” or “first/second” names, optional limitations or requiring two structures in each of the above recitations. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a second fresh air inlet”, “a first fan wheel”, “a first fan wheel housing”, “a first air tunnel”, and “a first motor”. Examiner notes that the above interpretation will be applied to claims 2-9 for similar issues.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first duct air outlet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a first duct air outlet".
Claims 2-6, and 8 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
For compact prosecution purposes, Examiner recommends that Applicant contact the Examiner using the information below to schedule an interview to aid in advancing prosecution.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odom (US-6295823-B1) in view of Bartmann (US-20090270023-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Odom teaches an air regulating device for indoor and outdoor air circulation (10: see Figure 1), comprising: a casing assembly (11) comprising a front casing (20) and a rear casing (16) securely coupled to the front casing (see Figure 1), wherein the front casing (20) has an air outlet (22) and a first fresh air inlet (18), wherein the rear casing (16) has a second/third fresh air inlet (15); an outdoor fresh air regulator comprising a rear damper gate (17) coupled at the rear casing (see Figure 1);
a fan assembly (56) comprising a first/second fan (see fan blades in Figure 4) a first/second fan wheel housing (see the housing of 56 in Figure 4), a first/second air tunnel (represented by arrows :see Figure 4), and a first/second motor (88: see Figure 3), wherein the first/second fan is laterally supported in the first/second fan wheel housing (see Figure 4), wherein the first/second air tunnel is coupled at a lower portion of the first/second fan wheel housing (see Figure 4 where the air tunnel (represented by arrows) is coupled at lower and upper portion of the fan 56 housing ). wherein the first/second motor (88) is electrically connected to a shaft of the first/second fan wheel (see Col. 6 Lines [21-23]); and a heating assembly (57) supported at an air tunnel outlet of the first/second air tunnel and electrically connected to a control switch (58: see Col. 6 Lines [23-25]).
Odom does not teach a front damper gate coupled at the front casing, wherein the front and rear damper gates are movable at the front and rear casings to fully open, fully close, and partially open-partially close the first fresh air inlet of the front casing and the second/third fresh air inlet of the rear casing respectively for introducing an outdoor fresh air into a room and for providing an indoor and outdoor air circulation, and the fan assembly (56) comprising a first/second fan wheel.
However, it’s old and well known for air regulating devices to have front and rear damper gates and a fan wheel instead of fan blade, as evidenced by Bartmann, see Bartmann’s Figure 1A where the air regulating device (2) comprises front and rear damper gates (42,44) that are movable to fully open, fully close, and partially open (see ¶ [0127]), and a fan wheel (36).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air regulating device of Odom with a front damper gate coupled at the front casing, wherein the front and rear damper gates are movable at the front and rear casings to fully open, fully close, and partially open-partially close the first fresh air inlet of the front casing and the second/third fresh air inlet of the rear casing respectively for introducing an outdoor fresh air into a room and for providing an indoor and outdoor air circulation, and a first/second fan wheel, since as evidenced by Bartmann, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of adjusting the mixing ratio of the indoor and outdoor air the to supply the desired temperature and/or humidity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odom (US-6295823-B1) in view of Bartmann (US-20090270023-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GAO (CN104807180A: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 9, Odom does not teach wherein the heating assembly comprises a PTC heating element and four L-shaped supporting frames coupled at four corners of the PTC heating element to couple the PTC heating element within the first duct air outlet at the lower portion of the first air tunnel, wherein an electrode terminal of the PTC heating element is electrically connected to an external power supply and the control switch.
However, it’s old and well known for air regulating devices to use PTC heating element, as evidenced by GAO, see GAO’s Figure 1 where the air regulating device comprises a PTC heating element (11) and four L-shaped supporting frames (12 has four L-shaped supporting frames) wherein an electrode terminal (111) of the PTC heating element (11) is electrically connected to an external power supply (see ¶ [37]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air regulating device of Odom with a PTC heating element and four L-shaped supporting frames coupled at four corners of the PTC heating element to couple the PTC heating element within the first duct air outlet at the lower portion of the first air tunnel, wherein an electrode terminal of the PTC heating element is electrically connected to an external power supply and the control switch, since as evidenced by GAO, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the efficiency and the long lifespan of Odom’s heater.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odom (US-6295823-B1) in view of Bartmann (US-20090270023-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Odom teaches an air regulating device for communicating an indoor side with an outdoor side (10: see Figure 1), comprising: a casing assembly (11) comprising a front casing (20) having has a first fresh air inlet (18) and an air outlet (22) for communicating with the indoor side (see Figure 1), and a rear casing (16) has a second fresh air inlet (15) for communicating with the outdoor side (see Figure 1), wherein the front and rear casings are securely coupled with each other (see Figure 1); an outdoor fresh air regulator comprising a rear damper gate (17) movably coupled at the rear casing to selectively open, close or partially open-partially close the second fresh air inlet (see Figure 1);
a fan assembly (56) comprising a motor (88), a fan (see fan blades in Figure 4) driven to operate by the motor (see Col. 6 Lines [21-23]), a fan wheel housing (see the housing of 56 in Figure 4) receiving the fan therein and communicating with the first and second fresh air inlet (see Figure 4), and an air tunnel extended from the fan wheel housing to the air outlet (see Figure 4 where the air tunnel (represented by arrows) is coupled at lower and upper portion of the fan 56 housing ), wherein when the rear damper gate (17) is operated to open up the second fresh air inlet (15: see Col. 6 Lines [66-67]), the fan (56) driven to operate by the motor for sucking an outdoor fresh air from the outdoor side to the indoor side at the air outlet (22) through the air tunnel (see Col. 5 Lines [47-52] and Figure 4), wherein when the rear damper gate (17) is operated to close the second fresh air inlet (15) and the first fresh air inlet (22) is open, the fan driven to operate by the motor for circulating an indoor air at the indoor side (See Col. 7 Lines [59-65] and Figure 4); and a heating assembly (57) within the air tunnel for heating up the outdoor fresh air or indoor air before entering into the indoor side at the air outlet (see Col. 7 Lines [25-28]).
Odom does not teach a front damper gate movably coupled at the front casing to selectively open, close, or partially open-partially close the first fresh air inlet, and wherein when the rear damper gate is operated to close the second fresh air inlet and when the front damper gate is operated to open up the first fresh air inlet, and the fan assembly (56) comprising a fan wheel.
However, it’s old and well known for air regulating devices to have front and rear damper gates and a fan wheel instead of fan blade, as evidenced by Bartmann, see Bartmann’s Figure 1A where the air regulating device (2) comprises front and rear damper gates (42,44) that are movable to fully open, fully close, and partially open (see ¶ [0127]), and a fan wheel (36).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the air regulating device of Odom with a front damper gate movably coupled at the front casing to selectively open, close, or partially open-partially close the first fresh air inlet, and wherein when the rear damper gate is operated to close the second fresh air inlet and when the front damper gate is operated to open up the first fresh air inlet, and the fan assembly comprising a fan wheel, since as evidenced by Bartmann, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of adjusting the mixing ratio of the indoor and outdoor air the to supply the desired temperature and/or humidity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is 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:
Claim 2, 3, 6, 8, and 11 are containing allowable subject matter since Odom in view of Bartmann and GAO fails to teach “wherein the front and rear casings of the casing assembly are coupled with each other by connecting four corners of the front casing to four corners of the rear casing via screws, wherein the first fresh air inlet and the air outlet are provided at upper and lower portions of front casing respectively, wherein the air outlet is located corresponding to the heating assembly”, “wherein the front damper gate comprises a first gate plate, two front gate sliders each having a front gate sliding groove, and a front damper gate positioning assembly, wherein the first gate plate has a size larger than the first fresh air inlet, wherein the two front gate sliders are provided at two sides of the first fresh air inlet of the front casing, wherein two sides of the first gate plate are slidably coupled at the front gate sliders respectively to allow the first gate plate being moved up and down, wherein the front damper gate positioning assembly is arranged to retain the first gate plate after the first gate plate is moved in a desired position”, “wherein the rear damper gate comprises a second gate plate and two rear gate sliders, wherein the rear gate plate has a size larger than the second/third fresh air inlet, wherein the two rear gate sliders are provided at upper and lower sides of the second/third fresh air inlet of the rear casing, wherein two sides of the second gate plate are slidably coupled at the rear gate sliders respectively, such that the second gate plate is actuated to move left and right along the rear gate sliders”, “wherein an upper opening of the first/second air tunnel is configured as a first/second duct air inlet coupled to the first/second fan air outlet of the first/second fan wheel housing, wherein a lower opening of the first/second air tunnel is configured as a first/second duct air outlet corresponding to and extending toward the air outlet of the front casing”, or “wherein the front damper gate comprises a first gate plate having a size larger than the first fresh air inlet and two front gate sliders, each having a front gate sliding groove, provided at two sides of the first fresh air inlet of the front casing respectively, wherein two sides of the first gate plate are slidably coupled at the front gate sliding groove of the front gate sliders respectively to allow the first gate plate being moved up and down in a desired position for selectively open and close the first fresh air inlet”.
For compact prosecution purposes, Examiner recommends that Applicant contact the Examiner using the information below to schedule an interview to aid in advancing prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763