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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/04/2024, 05/28/2024, 10/29/2024, 02/04/2025, 05/12/2025 & 09/08/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A) The subject matter of Claims 12-13 is not found in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. The Examiner notes that the disclosure is substantial, so a complete review of all parent cases was not possible in the time allotted for examination. However, support for a speed of the fan with the fluid flow being used to infer information about any other structure was not found.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
A) In Claim 20, line 4, “directs the fluid to the fan-powered unit” renders the claim indefinite because the fluid intake structure is part of the fan-powered unit so it is not clear how it would direct the flow to itself. For the purposes of examination, “the fan-powered unit” in line 4 has been construed to be the fluid-moving device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 & 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 4,995,307 to Floyd in view of US Patent Publication Number 5,970,801 to Ciobanu.
A) As per Claims 1, 14-16, 18 & 20-21, Floyd teaches a fan-powered unit (Floyd: Figure 1), comprising:
a fan (Floyd: Figure 1, Item 22) situated in a housing that is selected based on a type or a size of the fan-power unit;
a fluid intake structure (Floyd: Figure 1, Item 26) that receives a fluid and directs the fluid to the fan;
a first pressure measuring device (Floyd: Figure 1, Item 66) coupled to the fluid intake structure;
a second pressure measuring device (Floyd: Figure 1, Item 64), situated in a stagnation zone of the fluid intake structure (Floyd: best shown in Figure 2, Item 38 is in stagnation zone of dampers 34), that in combination with the first pressure measuring device provides a differential pressure;
a processor; and a memory (Floyd: Figure 1, Item 68) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
determine a flow of the fluid to the fan based on the differential pressure (Floyd: Col. 3, lines 7-32).
Floyd does not teach the flow of the fluid is determined based on calibration data that is calibrated for a fluid flow specific to the type of the fan-power unit or the size of the fan-powered unit, the calibration data is selected from among the multiple calibration data instances stored in the memory further based the type of the fan-powered unit or the size of the fan-powered unit.
However, Ciobanu teaches the flow of the fluid is determined based on calibration data that is calibrated for a fluid flow specific to the type of the fan-power unit or the size of the fan-powered unit, the calibration data is selected from among the multiple calibration data instances stored in the memory further based the type of the fan-powered unit or the size of the fan-powered unit (Ciobanu: Col. 6, lines 25-39; all calibrations based on this particular apparatus’s size and type).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Floyd by have calibrated lookup tables, as taught by Ciobanu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Floyd with these aforementioned teachings of Ciobanu with the motivation of ensuring accurate airflow rate calculations from the pressure data.
B) As per Claim 2, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that device is at least one of a fan filter module, an air handler (Floyd: Figure 1), a fan-powered air terminal unit, a ventilator device, a fan coil device, a rooftop unit, a pump device, a chiller device, a boiler device, a zone supply device, or a zone exhaust device.
C) As per Claim 3, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the fan is a plenum fan, an axial fan, a mixed flow fan, a centrifugal fan (Floyd: Figure 1, Item 22), or an impeller.
D) As per Claims 4 & 19, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the fluid intake structure is at least one of a Venturi device, a cone device, a nozzle device (Floyd: Figure 2), or a bell mouth device.
E) As per Claim 5, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the fluid is at least one of a gas (Floyd: airflow is a gas), a liquid, or particulate matter.
F) As per Claim 6, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the calibration data is stored in the memory as a table or another data structure (Ciobanu: Col. 6, lines 25-39).
G) As per Claims 7 & 17, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the calibration data is derived using multiple different fan-powered units, each having a different type or different size (The Examiner notes that how the calibration data is derived is not part of the fan-powered device, but is a separate method. In this case, the fan powered unit of Floyd in view of Ciobanu is capable of used with such a method).
H) As per Claim 8, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the calibration data is derived from at least one of: a flow stand procedure, a wind tunnel procedure, or software or simulations associated with the flow stand procedure or the wind tunnel procedure (The Examiner notes that how the calibration data is derived is not part of the fan-powered device, but is a separate method. In this case, the fan powered unit of Floyd in view of Ciobanu is capable of used with such a method).
I) As per Claim 9, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the fluid flow supplies a clean room or a pressurized environment (The Examiner notes that what the fluid flow supplies is not part of the fan powered unit but is instead the space that the fan-powered unit is used with. In this case, the fan powered unit of Floyd in view of Ciobanu is capable of providing the fluid to the claimed locations).
J) As per Claim 10, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that the fluid flow represents exhaust from a clean room or a pressurized environment (The Examiner notes that what the fluid flow supplies is not part of the fan powered unit but is instead the space that the fan-powered unit is used with. In this case, the fan powered unit of Floyd in view of Ciobanu is capable of providing the fluid to the claimed locations).
K) As per Claim 11, Floyd in view of Ciobanu teaches that flow of the fluid is determined in-situ after installation of the fan-powered unit at a customer site (Floyd: flow is determined by sensors after installation while the unit is in use).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights