DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to claims filed on 09/27/2023. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “fitted in the firstchamber,and” in line 6, which should recite “fitted in the firstchamber, and” for proper grammar.
Claim 14 recites “the at least one first passageways” in line 3, which should recite “the at least one first passageway
Claim 14 recites “the at least one second passageways” in lines 4-5, which should recite “the at least one second passageway
Claim 14 recites “a housing” in line 10, which should recite “the housing” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “the flow of the first fluid and the second fluid” in line 2. It is noted “the flow lacks antecedent basis. Based on Claim 5, which is identical to Claim 17, the Examiner interprets “the flow of the first fluid and the second fluid” in line 2 to recite “the first fluid and the second fluid”
Claim 20 recites “to the housing by a removable part, which removable part, which removable part comprises” in line 2, which should recite “to the housing by a removable part, .
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/476,255 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 (all which depend from each other) is recited in Claims 1 and 5 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20080001312A, English Machine Translation provided herein and relied upon below) in view of Benoit et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0146941, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 05/27/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Park shows (Figure 2):
A ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprising:
a housing (101) comprising a first flowpath (110) extending from a first inlet (111) to a first outlet (113) and a second flowpath (120) extending from a second inlet (121) to a second outlet (123), wherein the housing (101) comprises a partition (103) defining a first chamber (chamber within 101) therein, and wherein each of the first flowpath (110) and the second flowpath (120) extends through (as illustrated in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101); and
a blank core (130) configured to be fitted in (as illustrated in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101), and comprising at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) and at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120) such that the at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) is in fluid communication with the first flowpath (110) and the at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120) is in fluid communication with the second flowpath (120), thereby allowing a first fluid (outdoor air) to flow from the first inlet (111) to the first outlet (113) and a second fluid (room exhaust air) from the second inlet (121) to the second outlet (123).
It is noted the bypass device (200) is removably fitted to the first chamber (chamber within 101). When the bypass device (200) is removed, the blank core (130) is accessible through the opening in the housing (101).
However, Park lacks explicitly reciting the blank core is removable from the first chamber (“a blank core configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber”).
In the same field of endeavor of energy recovery ventilators, Benoit teaches (Figure 3):
It is known in the energy recovery ventilator (100) art for a blank core (20) to be removable (“the control system 170 may also be configured to, based upon input from the sensors, determine a degradation of the first core 20 and display an indication of a need for its removal/replacement with a like core”, Paragraph 0040) from a first chamber (the chamber within 100, as illustrated in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the blank core shown by Park to be configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber, as taught by Benoit, to allow for a removal and replacement with a like core when degradation of the first blank core is noted. This prevents the efficiency of the blank core from degrading past a predetermined level.
Regarding Claim 2, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is configured such that no substantial thermal interaction (because the air streams of 110 and 120 are separated as they flow through 130, there is no substantial thermal interaction. The thermal interaction is limited) between the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) takes place as the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) flow through the at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) and the at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120).
Regarding Claim 3, Park shows (Figure 2):
The housing (101) is configured such that the first flowpath (110) and the second flowpath (120) intersect (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in Figure 2, the flowpaths of 110 and 120 intersect within 130) in the first chamber (chamber within 101).
Regarding Claim 4, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is configured such that the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) undergo a cross-flow through (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2, 120 crosses 110 in the direction from left to right in Figure 2) the blank core (130).
Regarding Claim 5, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is configured such that the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) undergo a cross-counter flow through (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2, 110 crosses 120 in the direction from right to left in Figure 2) the blank core (130).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Park (Figure 2) and Benoit (Figure 3) teaches:
The first chamber (Park: chamber located above 103, as illustrated in Figure 2) is configured to receive (Park: when 200 is removed, 103 is configured to receive), after (Benoit: “the control system 170 may also be configured to, based upon input from the sensors, determine a degradation of the first core 20 and display an indication of a need for its removal/replacement with a like core”, Paragraph 0040; it is noted the existing 130 must be removed before it can be replaced with a new 130) the blank core (Park: 130) has been removed therefrom,
Regarding Claim 7, Park shows (Figure 2):
The ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprises a second chamber (chamber within 201) in the housing (101), and wherein the first flowpath (110) extends through both (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2; it is noted when 200 is installed and operational, air entering 111 flows through 200 to 121, thereby extending through both chambers) the first chamber (chamber within 101) and the second chamber (chamber within 201) and the second flowpath (120) extends through (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101).
Regarding Claim 8, Park shows (Figure 2):
The ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprises a movable damper (203) disposed in (as illustrated in Figure 2, when 200 is installed, the outside air flows from 111, through 201, to 121; therefore, 203 is disposed in the first flowpath 110) the first flowpath (110) and configured to apportion (based on the position of 203) an amount (the amount of outside air flowing through 201) of the first fluid (outside air) flowing therein between the first chamber (chamber within 101) and the second chamber (chamber within 201).
Regarding Claim 9, Park shows (Figure 2):
The movable damper (203) is configured to direct a substantial portion (all of the outside air) of the first fluid (outside air) flowing therein along the first flowpath (110) through the first chamber (chamber within 101) when in a first position (closed) and through the second chamber (chamber within 201) when in a second position (open).
Regarding Claim 10, Park shows (Figure 2):
The second chamber (chamber within 201) and the movable damper (203) are configured in a removable part (200, removable via 210), which removable part (200) is configured to be fitted in place of (when 200 is installed, no cover part is needed to cover the hole in 101; when 200 is removed, a cover part is needed to cover the hole in 101) in place of a cover part (the cover part for the hole in 101 when 200 is not installed) of the housing (101), which cover part (the cover part for the hole in 101 when 200 is not installed) does not comprise the second chamber (chamber within 201) and the movable damper (203).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Park (Figure 2) and Benoit (Figure 3) teaches:
Fitment of (Par: via 210) the removable part (Park: 200) comprising the second chamber (Park: chamber within 201) and the movable damper (Park: 203), and of
Regarding Claim 12, Park shows (Figure 2):
The ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprises one or more fans (115, 125) disposed upstream or downstream of (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2, 115 is disposed upstream of the chamber and 125 is disposed downstream of the chamber) of the first chamber (chamber within 101) for moving any or both of (115 moves the outside air and 125 moves the room exhaust air, as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2) the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) through the housing (101) along the respective flowpath (110 and 120, respectively).
Regarding Claim 13, Park shows (Figure 2):
The ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprises a first fan (115) configured in the first flowpath (110) and a second fan (1250 disposed in the second flowpath (120), disposed upstream or downstream of (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2, 115 is disposed upstream of the chamber and 125 is disposed downstream of the chamber) of the first chamber (chamber within 101), the first fan (115) and the second fan (125) being configured to control flow (based on whether 115 and 125 are operating or not) of the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) to achieve a balanced ventilation (to achieve the desired temperature in the room).
Regarding Claim 14, Park shows (Figure 2):
A blank core (130) for a ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprising at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) and at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120) such that, when the blank core (130) is fitted in (as illustrated in Figure 2) a first chamber (chamber within 101) of a housing (101) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2), the at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) is in fluid communication a the first flowpath (110) from a first inlet (111) to a first outlet (113) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2), and the at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120) is in fluid communication with the second flowpath (120) from a second inlet (121) to a second outlet (123) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2), thereby allowing a first fluid (outdoor air) to flow from the first inlet (111) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) to the first outlet (113) and a second fluid (room exhaust air) from the second inlet (121) to the second outlet (123) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2), wherein
the blank core (130) is configured to be fitted in (as illustrated in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101) of the housing (101) of the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) to transfer thermal energy (as described on Page 2, lines 1-2) between the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air).
It is noted the bypass device (200) is removably fitted to the first chamber (chamber within 101). When the bypass device (200) is removed, the blank core (130) is accessible through the opening in the housing (101).
However, Park lacks explicitly reciting the blank core is removable from the first chamber (“a blank core configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber”), thereby enabling replacement of the blank core by one or more recovery cores configured to transfer any or a combination of water and thermal energy between the first fluid and the second fluid.
In the same field of endeavor of energy recovery ventilators, Benoit teaches (Figure 3):
It is known in the energy recovery ventilator (100) art for a blank core (20) to be removable (“the control system 170 may also be configured to, based upon input from the sensors, determine a degradation of the first core 20 and display an indication of a need for its removal/replacement with a like core”, Paragraph 0040) from a first chamber (the chamber within 100, as illustrated in Figure 3) so to be replaced with a like core (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the blank core shown by Park to be configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber and replaced with a like core that transfers thermal energy between the first fluid and the second fluid, as taught by Benoit, to allow for a removal and replacement with a like core when degradation of the first blank core is noted. This prevents the efficiency of the blank core from degrading past a predetermined level.
Regarding Claim 15, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is configured such that no substantial thermal interaction (because the air streams of 110 and 120 are separated as they flow through 130, there is no substantial thermal interaction. The thermal interaction is limited) between the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) takes place as the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) flow through the at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) and the at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120).
Regarding Claim 16, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is configured such that the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) undergo a cross-flow through (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2, 120 crosses 110 in the direction from left to right in Figure 2) the blank core (130).
Regarding Claim 17, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is configured such that the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air) undergo a cross-counter flow through (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2, 110 crosses 120 in the direction from right to left in Figure 2) the blank core (130).
Regarding Claim 18, Park shows (Figure 2):
The blank core (130) is made of any or a combination of a metal, a plastic, and a composite material (it is inherent the heat exchanger is made, at least in part, of a metal, a plastic, or a composite material).
Regarding Claim 19, Park shows (Figure 2):
A method of converting (when 200 is installed, the ventilator acts as a ventilator and when 200 is not installed or the damper 203 is closed, the ventilator is a heat recovery ventilator) a ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) to a recovery ventilator comprising:
providing the ventilator (ventilator illustrated in Figure 2) comprising: a housing (101) comprising a first flowpath (110) extending from a first inlet (111) to a first outlet (113) and a second flowpath (120) extending from a second inlet (121) to a second outlet (123), wherein the housing (101) comprises a partition (103) defining a first chamber (chamber within 101) therein, and wherein each of the first flowpath (110) and the second flowpath (120) extends through (as illustrated in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101); and a blank core (130) configured to be fitted in (as illustrated in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101), and comprising at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) and at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120) such that the at least one first passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 110) is in fluid communication with the first flowpath (110) and the at least one second passageway (passageway through 130 associated with 120) is in fluid communication with the second flowpath (120), thereby allowing a first fluid (outdoor air) to flow from the first inlet (111) to the first outlet (113) and a second fluid (room exhaust air) from the second inlet (121) to the second outlet (123).
It is noted the bypass device (200) is removably fitted to the first chamber (chamber within 101). When the bypass device (200) is removed, the blank core (130) is accessible through the opening in the housing (101). Further, the blank core (130) transfers thermal energy (heat from the room exhaust air is used within 130 to heat the outside air, therefore thermal energy is transferred between fluids) between the first fluid (outside air) and the second fluid (room exhaust air).
However, Park lacks explicitly reciting the blank core is removable from the first chamber (“a blank core configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber”), and the steps of removing the blank core, fixing one or more recovery cores configured to transfer any or a combination of water and thermal energy between the first fluid and the second fluid, and replacing the blank core.
In the same field of endeavor of energy recovery ventilators, Benoit teaches (Figure 3):
It is known in the energy recovery ventilator (100) art for a blank core (20) to be removable (“the control system 170 may also be configured to, based upon input from the sensors, determine a degradation of the first core 20 and display an indication of a need for its removal/replacement with a like core”, Paragraph 0040) from a first chamber (the chamber within 100, as illustrated in Figure 3), wherein
the existing blank core is removed (when it is determined that degradation of the first core 20 has happened, a person removed the existing blank core from 100);
one or more recovery cores (a replacement core 20 or existing core 20 is cleaned and fixed) is fixed, the one or more recover cores (a new core 20) is configured to transfer any or a combination of water and thermal energy between the first fluid and the second fluid (the replacement core is a like core to the existing core 20, see Paragraph 0040); and
replacing (the new core 20 is inserted into the ventilator by the person).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the blank core shown by Park to be configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber, such that the steps of removing include removing the blank core, fixing or more recovery cores configured to transfer any or a combination of water and thermal energy between the first fluid and the second fluid, and replacing the blank core, as taught by Benoit, to allow for a removal and replacement with a like core when degradation of the first blank core is noted. This prevents the efficiency of the blank core from degrading past a predetermined level.
Regarding Claim 20, Park shows (Figure 2):
Replacing (when 200 is to be installed, the cover part for the hole in 101 is removed and replaced by 200) a cover part (the cover part for the hole in 101 when 200 is not installed) affixed to (via 210) the housing (101) by a removable part (200), which removable part (200) comprises a second chamber (chamber within 201) and a movable damper (203), the second chamber (chamber within 201) being configured such that the first flowpath (110) extends through both (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2; it is noted when 200 is installed and operational, air entering 111 flows through 200 to 121, thereby extending through both chambers) the first chamber (chamber within 101) and the second chamber (chamber within 201) and the second flowpath (120) extends through (as illustrated by the airflow arrows in Figure 2) the first chamber (chamber within 101), and wherein the movable damper (203) is configured to apportion (based on the position of 203) an amount (the amount of outside air flowing through 201) of the first fluid (outside air) between the first chamber (chamber within 101) and the second chamber (chamber within 201).
Conclusion
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 ventilators:
Yabu (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent No. 2004/0134210): see Figure 1
Laine (U.S. Patent No. 5,024,263): see Figure 1
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, Steve McAllister, can be reached on 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 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.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762