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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 06/15/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 5-6 regarding the Drawing Objection of record,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to the limitation of “the heat exchange element is disposed directly above the non-open zone, and is not disposed directly above the air supply opening and the air exhaust opening”, while using Fig. 11 as evidence against the limitation of “the heat exchange element …is not disposed directly above the air supply opening and the air exhaust opening”; The Applicants arguments are directed toward Fig. 9B here they state that the heat exchange element 15 is located in a non-open zone, however, the point of the Drawing Objection is that the Drawing lack showing “the heat exchange element …is not disposed directly above the air supply opening and the air exhaust opening”, as the Drawing Objection of record is concerned with Fig. 11 clearly showing the heat exchange element 15 being disposed directly above at least the air supply openings 4c1 and 4c2, as can be corroborated by Figs. 1, 2, & 4, thereby the Drawing Objection of record will stand, overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 7-10 regarding the rejection of claim 1 and Wu in view of Ikeda in that Wu’s elements are not air supply openings or air exhaust openings, arguing that Wu is a ventilating device having an orifice capable of both measuring static pressure and draining water, with elements 121/241/242/243/244 being “auxiliary static-pressure measurement and drainage orifices” (Page 7),
The examiner respectfully responds the Examiner would remind the Applicant that air and liquid are both fluids, and thus, adhere to the fluid dynamics therein, meaning, the Applicants arguments over the device and managing condensation, which is a fluid, are also stating they apply to air as well. The Examiner would further remind the Applicant of MPEP 2112.01.I which states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”, meaning, if Wu elements meet the structure that allows the functions of directing air via openings that supply air and openings that exhaust air, then Wu meets the requirements for the elements therein to be air supply openings and air exhaust openings.
Further, on Page 8 the Applicant argues over elements 121/241/242/243/244 not being supply openings connected to an air supply passage for supply air into a room is spurious, as the Examiner related this in the Non-Final rejection filed 04/01/2026 on Page 4 with evidence for the rejection coming from ¶0078 that the air supply opening is connected to the air supply passage and the air exhaust opening is connected to the air exhaust passage, meanwhile, the Applicants argument goes out of its way to identify element 111 as an “outdoor air inlet” supposedly representative of the claimed “air supply opening”(of which the Examiner has already clarified the claimed elements and they are not identified as element 111), of which would seemingly be representative of the Applicants own element 3a, of which the Applicants argument over their own air supply openings 4c1 and 4c2, involves a conflation of their own element 3a, of which the element of 3a, that of an air supply adapter, is not in question in the Applicants argument.
It is further noted that as much as the Applicant details with relationship with air flowing in and out of a room, this seems to be a statement of intended use, as the prior art itself has shown a room for such airflow, in at least ¶0074 detailing the flows into and out of the room, as much as the Applicant has, by simply showing a unit floating in space.
Further still on Page 9, the Applicant argues Wu lacks satisfying the claimed relationship that the heat exchange element is disposed directly above the non-open zone and is not disposed directly above the air supply slit opening and the air exhaust slit opening, to which the Examiner would point out that Wu was used to disclose the air supply openings, with Ikeda teaching the air supply opening (30b, Fig. 1) being a slit opening (Fig. 1), and the air exhaust opening (11a, Fig. 1) being a slit opening (Fig. 1), all of which overcomes the Applicants arguments.
In response to Applicants argument on page 10-11 regarding the rejection of claims 4 & 5,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are bereft of any details supporting the arguments presented; such arguments without context are interpreted as the Applicants reproduction of the rejection of record, as the Examiner has set fourth the nature of the rejections of claims 4 & 5, with claim 4 stating Wu shows the inner lid includes an air supply blow-out port (see Annotated Figure 1/3 – the air supply blowout port is the area in which the air passes through the inner lid opening) and an air exhaust suction port (see Annotated Figure 1/3 - the air exhaust suction port is the area in which the air passes through the inner lid opening), with claim 5 stating Wu shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 4 including an opening area of the air exhaust suction port (see Annotated Figure 1) is smaller than an area of the non-open zone (see Annotated Figure 1), overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants argument on page 11 regarding the rejection of claim 7,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are similarly bereft of any details supporting the argument except for the statement of “the thermal insulating member 130 can function as a warpage suppressing rib is unsupported”,
However, the Examiner would respond that the record has been made clear from Page 8 of the Non-Final rejection filed 04/01/2026 where Wu shows wherein the rear surface is a warpage suppressing rib (130, Fig. 9) that suppresses warpage of the decorative panel in the non-open zone (Fig. 9, ¶0098 – element 130 is a thermal insulating member, of which can function as a warpage suppressing rib, that suppresses warpage of the decorative panel 120 due to its general structural properties of providing internal rigidity from its redundant structure, but also to prevent warpage from dew buildup from the heat exchanger), as any material comprises of its own relative rigidity to deflect many natural forces, including warpage, overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 11-12 regarding the rejection of claims 2 & 3 of Wu in view of Ikeda, in further view of Kim, and Kims claimed structure of the “protruding wall on the rear surface of a decorative panel that partitions an air exhaust slit opening from a non-open zone” (bottom of Page 11),
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments that Wu was used in claim 1 to establish the rear surface includes a protruding wall protruding toward an inner side of the housing (see Annotated Figure 2), and the air exhaust opening is partitioned from the non-open zone by the protruding wall on the rear surface (¶0084, see Annotated Figures 1-2 – every element 121 comprises of its own element 300, of which element 121 (or the air exhaust opening), is depicted in Fig. 7B to be installed in; the air exhaust opening is partitioned from the non-open zone, indicated in Annotated Figure 1 to be in the center of all of the elements 121/241/242/243/244, by the protruding wall on the rear surface, as depicted in Annotated Figure 2),
with Kim only used to teach the protruding wall (see Annotated Figure 4) is disposed to surround the directly lower region (Fig. 4 / see Annotated Figure 4 – the directly lower region can be seen as the region in which element 200, when assembled), in claim 2 and wherein the protruding wall (see Annotated Figure 4) is a continuous wall without a gap (see Annotated Figure 4 - the protruding wall is a continuous wall without a gap between itself and the base in which it protrudes from), in claim 3.
The Applicant further argues that Kims “guide or guide rib” is not used for that purpose or arranged in that manner, is ignoring the evidence to the contrary presented by the Non-Final rejection issued on 04/01/2026, and in light of MPEP 2112.01.I which states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”, ignores that if the structure is presented, the outcome of such a structure is as well, overcoming the Applicants argument.
In response to Applicants’ argument on pages 12-13 regarding the rejection of claim 6 over Wu in view of Ikeda, in further view of Usui,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments over claim 6 are directed subject matter of claims 1 & 4 and Wu’s disclosure of “the claimed inner lid or the claimed exhaust suction port”, of which the Examiner has already established the claimed inner lid of Wu in the arguments above, with the current argument further expounding that Usui lacks disclosing “an air exhaust filter disposed to cover such an air exhaust suction port in the claimed ventilation fan”,
However, as the Examiner has already established the inner lid of Wu along with its heat exchange element, the decorative panel, and the air exhaust suction port, in claim 1, from which claim 6 ultimately depends from; Wu discloses the inner lid, with Usui used in claim 6 to relate the details of an air filter (40, Fig. 3) between the heat exchange element (11, Fig. 3) and the decorative panel (30, Fig. 3), wherein the air filter is disposed to cover the air suction port (22, Fig. 1/3), overcoming the Applicants argument.
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
the heat exchange element is not disposed directly above the air supply opening and the air exhaust opening (Fig. 11 shows the heat exchanger 15 being disposed directly above the air supply slit openings 4c1 and 4c2)
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2018/0080680), hereinafter referred to as Wu, in view of Ikeda et al (US 2013/0213614), hereinafter referred to as Ikeda.
Regarding claim 1, Wu (US 2018/0080680) shows an embedded ventilation fan comprising:
a housing (100, Fig. 2);
a decorative panel (120, Fig. 2);
an air supply blower (211, Fig. 2);
an air exhaust blower (221, Fig. 3); and
a heat exchange element (230, Fig. 3),
wherein the housing includes a side surface, an upper surface, and a lower surface (Fig. 4 – Figure 4 shows the lower surface that element 120 is connected to, with the opposite surface being the upper surface, with at least one side surface in between),
the decorative panel is disposed on the lower surface (Fig. 4),
an air supply passage ( 210, Fig. 3) through which air is blown from an outside of a room into the room by the air supply blower is formed (¶0074),
an air exhaust passage (220, Fig. 3) through which air is blown from the room to the outside of the room by the air exhaust blower is formed (¶0074),
the heat exchange element is disposed at a position where the air supply passage and the air exhaust passage cross each other in the housing (Fig. 3),
the decorative panel includes
a front surface (Fig. 2 – the front surface of the decorative panel is shown in Fig. 2),
a rear surface (Fig. 4),
an air supply opening (121/241/242, Figs. 3-5),
an air exhaust opening (121/243/244, Figs. 3-5), and
a non-open zone (see Annotated Figure 1),
the front surface is a surface opposite to the rear surface (Fig. 2/4),
the rear surface includes a protruding wall protruding toward an inner side of the housing (see Annotated Figure 2),
the air supply opening is connected to the air supply passage (¶0078),
the air exhaust opening is connected to the air exhaust passage (¶0078),
the non-open zone is a zone having no opening (see Annotated Figure 1),
the air exhaust opening is partitioned from the non-open zone by the protruding wall on the rear surface (¶0084, see Annotated Figures 1-2 – every element 121 comprises of its own element 300, of which element 121 (or the air exhaust opening), is depicted in Fig. 7B to be installed in; the air exhaust opening is partitioned from the non-open zone, indicated in Annotated Figure 1 to be in the center of all of the elements 121/241/242/243/244, by the protruding wall on the rear surface, as depicted in Annotated Figure 2), and
the heat exchange element is disposed directly above the non-open zone (Fig. 4), and is not disposed directly above the air supply opening and the air exhaust opening (¶0077 – as the Applicant has shown the heat exchange element 15 to not be disposed directly above the air supply slit openings 4c1, 4c2, and the air exhaust slit opening 4c3 by showing in Fig. 11 the heat exchanger 15 being disposed directly above the air supply slit openings 4c1 and 4c2 (in fact, the Figure even superficially erases some of the structure of the air supply slit opening 4c2 to show the overlapping heat exchanger element 15), as does Wu show with the orifices 121 of the air supply opening and the air exhaust opening are not disposed directly above the heat exchange element, as the orifices 121 exists in the airflow path at a position where the air hasn’t reached the heat exchanging element, and in the airflow path at a position where the air has already left the heat exchanging element, as can be seen in Fig. 3 with the flow arrows in the areas where the orifices are located before and after the heat exchanger 230).
However, Wu lacks showing the air supply opening being a slit opening, and the air exhaust opening being a slit opening.
Ikeda (US 2013/02136140), an HVAC device mounted in a ceiling, is in the same field of endeavor as Wu which is an HVAC device mounted in a ceiling.
Ikeda teaches the air supply opening (30b, Fig. 1) being a slit opening (Fig. 1), and the air exhaust opening (11a, Fig. 1) being a slit opening (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an air supply opening and air exhaust opening of Wu to incorporate the teachings of the air supply slit opening and the air exhaust slit opening of Ikeda, which would provide an air conditioner apparatus that has low noise due to the laminar design, that also increases comfortability and energy savings (¶0015).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
478
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 4, Wu shows wherein
the housing (100, Fig. 1) includes an inner lid opening (Fig. 4, see Annotated Figure 3) on the lower surface (Fig. 4 – the inner lid opening is the entire opening in the lower surface),
an inner lid (see Annotated Figure 3) is disposed to cover the inner lid opening (see Annotated Figure 3),
the inner lid is positioned between the housing and the decorative panel (Fig. 4),
the inner lid includes an air supply blow-out port (see Annotated Figure 1/3 – the air supply blowout port is the area in which the air passes through the inner lid opening) and an air exhaust suction port (see Annotated Figure 1/3 - the air exhaust suction port is the area in which the air passes through the inner lid opening),
the air supply blow-out port is connected to the air supply passage (¶0078, see Annotated Figure 1/3),
the air exhaust suction port is connected to the air exhaust passage (¶0078, see Annotated Figure 1/3), and
the heat exchange element is disposed directly above the air exhaust suction port (see Annotated Figure 1 – the heat exchange element 230 is disposed directly above the plane of the air suction port).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 5, Wu shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 4 including an opening area of the air exhaust suction port (see Annotated Figure 1) is smaller than an area of the non-open zone (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Wu shows wherein the rear surface is a warpage suppressing rib (130, Fig. 9) that suppresses warpage of the decorative panel in the non-open zone (Fig. 9, ¶0098 – element 130 is a thermal insulating member, of which can function as a warpage suppressing rib, that suppresses warpage of the decorative panel 120 due to its general structural properties of providing internal rigidity from its redundant structure, but also to prevent warpage from dew buildup from the heat exchanger).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2018/0080680), hereinafter referred to as Wu, in view of Ikeda et al (US 2013/0213614), hereinafter referred to as Ikeda, in further view of Kim et al (EP3786536), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Wu shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including wherein when a region of the non-open zone directly below the heat exchange element is a directly lower region (See Annotated Figure 1), and the directly lower region is present in the non-open zone (See Annotated Figure 1).
However, Wu lacks showing the protruding wall is disposed to surround the directly lower region.
Kim (EP3786536), an HVAC device mounted in the ceiling, is in the same field of endeavor as Wu which is an HVAC device mounted in the ceiling.
Kim teaches the protruding wall (see Annotated Figure 4) is disposed to surround the directly lower region (Fig. 4 / see Annotated Figure 4 – the directly lower region can be seen as the region in which element 200, when assembled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the decorative panel of Wu to incorporate the teachings of the protruding wall of Kim, which would provide a structure to help further provide a seal with the decorative panel against the housing when the door is lifted or lowered for maintenance purposes (¶0006).
PNG
media_image4.png
436
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 3, Wu shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except wherein the protruding wall is a continuous wall without a gap.
Kim teaches wherein the protruding wall (see Annotated Figure 4) is a continuous wall without a gap (see Annotated Figure 4 - the protruding wall is a continuous wall without a gap between itself and the base in which it protrudes from).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the decorative panel of Wu to incorporate the teachings of the protruding wall of Kim, which would provide a structure to help further provide a seal with the decorative panel against the housing when the door is lifted or lowered for maintenance purposes (¶0006).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2018/0080680), hereinafter referred to as Wu, in view of Ikeda et al (US 2013/0213614), hereinafter referred to as Ikeda, in further view of Usui et al (KR20100036919), hereinafter referred to as Usui.
Regarding claim 6, Wu shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 4 including the heat exchange element, the decorative panel, and the air exhaust suction port.
However, Wu lacks showing further comprising an air exhaust filter between the heat exchange element and the decorative panel, wherein the air exhaust filter is disposed to cover the air exhaust suction port.
Usui et al (KR20100036919), a HVAC device installed in a ceiling, is in the same field of endeavor as Wu, which is an HVAC device installed in a ceiling.
Usui shows an air filter (40, Fig. 3) between the heat exchange element (11, Fig. 3) and the decorative panel (30, Fig. 3), wherein the air filter is disposed to cover the air suction port (22, Fig. 1/3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the decorative panel of Wu to incorporate the teachings of the air filter of Usui, which would provide a means that would remove any particulate or dust in the air from the inside of the unit, increasing air quality within the affected area (Page 8, Lines 10-11).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related indoor ventilation units:
US 2018/0224140 – Iio discloses a heat exchanging ventilating device with a heat exchanger and a lower facing indoor suction inlet
WO-2012140861 – Ogawa discloses a heat exchange ventilation system with a heat exchanger and a lower facing indoor suction inlet
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights