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 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5-10, 12-14, 16-17 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20080001312A to Park.
A) As per Claims 1-2, 12-13 & 19, Park teaches a method of converting a ventilator to a bypass ventilator (Park: Figure 2), comprising: providing a ventilator comprising:
a housing (Park: Figure 2, Item 101) comprising a first flow path (Park: Figure 2, Item 110 with Item 201) extending from a first inlet (Park: Figure 2, Item 111) to a first outlet (Park: Figure 2, Item 113), and a second flow path (Park: Figure 2, Item 120) extending from a second inlet (Park: Figure 2, Item 121) to a second outlet (Park: Figure 2, Item 123);
providing a removable part (Park: Figure 2, Item 200) comprising:
a second chamber (Park: Figure 2, Item 201), wherein, when the removable part is fitted in place of the removable cover part of the housing of the ventilator, the first flowpath extending from a first inlet to a first outlet extends through a first chamber (Park: Figure 2, Item 130) of the ventilator, and the second chamber (Park: Figure 2, Item 110 with Item 201), and wherein the second flowpath (Park: Figure 2, Item 120) extending from a second inlet to a second outlet extends through the first chamber; and
a movable damper (Park: Figure 2, Item 203), wherein, when the removable part is fitted in place of the removable cover part of the housing of the ventilator, the movable damper is disposed in the first flowpath, and is configured to apportion a quantity of a first fluid flowing therein between the first and second chambers; and
moving the movable damper from a first position to a second position, wherein, in the first position, the movable damper is configured to divert a substantial portion of the first fluid flowing therein through the first chamber, and wherein, in the second position, the movable damper is configured to divert a substantial portion of the first fluid flowing therein through the second chamber (Park: Figure 2, Item 203, apportions are a substantial amount of air through 130 and/or 201);
wherein the housing, prior to fitment of the removable part, is devoid of the second chamber and the movable damper, and wherein fitment of the removable part converts the ventilator to a bypass ventilator without reconfiguration of the first and second flowpath (The Examiner notes that these limitations are drawn to either a how the part is used or a method of manufacture/installation. Therefore they do not directly limit the structure of the claims and Park must merely be capable of being used or installed in such a manner, which in this case Park is).
B) As per Claims 3 & 14, Park teaches that the movable damper is positioned, such that the first flowpath and the second flowpath cross in at least one of the first chamber and second chamber (Park: Figure 2, airflow crosses inside of Item 130).
C) As per Claim 5, Park teaches that a ventilator core (Park: Figure 2, Item 130) configured to be removably fitted in the first chamber and comprising at least one first passageway and at least one second passageway, wherein the at least one first passageway is in fluid communication with the first flowpath, and the at least one second passageway is in fluid communication with the second flowpath.
D) As per Claim 6, Park teaches that the ventilator core is any one of a blank core, a thermal energy recovery core (Park: Figure 2, Item 130), and a thermal energy and moisture recovery core.
E) As per Claim 7, Park teaches that one or more fans (Park: Figure 2, Items 115 & 125) disposed upstream or downstream of the first chamber for moving any or both of the first fluid and a second fluid flowing in the second flowpath through the housing along the respective flowpath.
E) As per Claim 8, Park teaches that a first fan configured in the first flowpath and a second fan disposed in the second flowpath, disposed upstream or downstream of the first chamber, the first fan and the second fan being configured to control flow of the first fluid and a second fluid flowing in the second flowpath to achieve a balanced ventilation (Park: Figure 2, Items 115 & 125).
F) As per Claims 9 & 16, Park teaches that the cover part of the housing does not comprise the second chamber and the movable damper (Examiner notes that the cover is not part of the invention as the second chamber and damper replace it).
G) As per Claims 10 & 17, Park teaches that the movable damper comprises a flap configured to move between a first position and a second position, and wherein the flap is operable by an actuator (Park: Figure 2, Item 203).
H) As per Claim 20, Park teaches the removable part comprises a single, unitary module that houses both the second chamber and the movable damper (Park: Figure 2, Item 200).
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) 11 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of US Patent Publication Number 2004/0134210 A1 to Yabu.
A) As per Claims 11 & 18, Park teaches all the limitations except that the movable damper comprises a movable door configured to slide between a first position and a second position, wherein the movable door is operable by an actuator.
However, Yabu teaches the movable damper comprises a movable door configured to slide between a first position and a second position, wherein the movable door is operable by an actuator (Yabu: Paragraph 0157).
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 Park by having a sliding damper, as taught by Yabu, 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 Park with these aforementioned teachings of Yabu since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the damper type of Yabu for the damper type of Park.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 12-13, 15 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 5,024,263 to Laine in view of Park.
A) As per Claims 1-2, 12-13 & 19, Laine teaches a method of converting a ventilator to a bypass ventilator, comprising:
providing a ventilator (Laine: Figure 1) comprising:
a housing comprising a first flowpath extending from a first inlet to a first outlet (Laine: Figure 1, Item A-B), and a second flowpath extending from a second inlet to a second outlet (Laine: Figure 1, Item C-D;
providing a part (Laine: Figure 1, Items 3 & F) comprising:
a second chamber (Laine: Figure 1, Item F), wherein, when the part is fitted in place of the removable cover part of the housing of the ventilator, a first flowpath extending from a first inlet to a first outlet extends through a first chamber of the ventilator, and the second chamber, and wherein the second flowpath extending from a second inlet to a second outlet extends through the first chamber; and
a movable damper (Laine: Figure 1, Items 3), wherein, when the part is fitted in place of the removable cover part of the housing of the ventilator, the movable damper is disposed in the first flowpath, and is configured to apportion a quantity of a first fluid flowing therein between the first and second chambers; and
moving the movable damper from a first position to a second position, wherein, in the first position, the movable damper is configured to divert a substantial portion of the first fluid flowing therein through the first chamber, and wherein, in the second position, the movable damper is configured to divert a substantial portion of the first fluid flowing therein through the second chamber (Laine: Figure 1, Items 3 apportion some or all of the airflow between Item A’ and F),
wherein the housing, prior to fitment of the removable part, is devoid of the second chamber and the movable damper, and wherein fitment of the removable part converts the ventilator to a bypass ventilator without reconfiguration of the first and second flowpath (The Examiner notes that these limitations are drawn to either a how the part is used or a method of manufacture/installation. Therefore they do not directly limit the structure of the claims and Laine must merely be capable of being used or installed in such a manner, which in this case Laine is).
Laine does not explicitly teach that the part is removable.
However, Park teaches a removable part (Park: Figure 2, Item 200).
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 Laine by making the part removable, as taught by Park, 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 Laine with these aforementioned teachings of Park with the motivation of making installation and maintenance easier.
B) As per Claims 4 & 15, Laine in view of Park teaches that the movable damper is positioned, such that the first flowpath and the second flowpath do not cross in any of the first chamber and second chamber (Laine: Col. 3, line 66 - Col. 4, line 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that Park and Laine do not teach the newly added limitations to the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, the added limitations do not limit the structure of the invention, but are directed toward either how it is used or how it in manufactured/installed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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