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 .
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. Claim 24 recites both a means for providing support and a means for sensing a condition of air within the airduct. Both elements are considered to be the disclosed frame and sensor configuration set forth in the other claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 17-18 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0028562 to Heim et al. (Heim).
With regard to claim 1, Heim discloses an airduct system (Pinkalla, title, abstract) comprising: an airduct having a tubular wall of a pliable material (12, fig. 29, as the tube is described in paragraph 0037), the airduct being elongate in a longitudinal direction (shown in fig. 29); a frame including a hoop disposable inside the airduct to support the tubular wall in a radial direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, the hoop being less flexible than the pliable material (the frame is the portion of the plenum downstream from the fan that is inserted into the open end of the pliable duct as labeled in annotated fig. 29 below. As show in fig. 25 when the pliable duct is deflated, the hoop shape of the frame can be seen holding the proximal end in an open position);
PNG
media_image1.png
642
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a sensor (194, fig. 29, paragraph 0076) to be attached to the frame to be in fluid communication with a current of air within the airduct (paragraph 0076), the sensor to provide a feedback signal that varies in response to a changing condition of the current of air (as described in paragraph 0076).
With regard to claim 6, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the feedback signal is a pneumatic signal (as described in paragraph 0076, the pressure sensor is connected to the actuator and is configured to open the baffles when the pressure sensed reaches a threshold level. Since the pressure being sensed is caused by airflow sufficient to reach a target the signal is a type of pneumatic signal).
With regard to claim 7, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 6 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the changing condition is a change in static pressure of the current of air (paragraph 0076 describes a target pressure of the current of air. The pressure below that target is considered stagnation pressure while pressure above is considered static pressure).
With regard to claim 8, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 6 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the changing condition is a change in stagnation pressure of the current of air (paragraph 0076 describes a target pressure of the current of air. The pressure below that target is considered stagnation pressure while pressure above is considered static pressure).
With regard to claim 9, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the feedback signal is an electric signal (paragraph 0076, describing a solenoid style trigger that is actuated by an electric signal from the sensor that is sent at the target pressure to fully open the duct to the flow of air).
With regard to claims 17 and 18, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a static pressure sensor or in the alternative wherein the sensor is a stagnation pressure sensor. It the embodiment where the activation pressure of the pressure sensor is used to define a stagnation pressure up to the activation pressure and a static pressure above that pressure, the sensor can be considered both a static and stagnation pressure sensor depending on if the activation signal has been sent.
With regard to claim 23, Heim discloses an airduct system comprising: an airduct (12, fig. 29, as the tube is described in paragraph 0037) having a pliable tubular wall (paragraph 0037); a frame to be disposed within the tubular wall, the frame to support the tubular wall in a radially expanded shape, the frame being more rigid than the tubular wall (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and shown in the annotated fig. above); and a sensor (194, fig. 29, paragraph 0076) to be attached to the frame within the airduct, the sensor to provide a feedback signal responsive to a condition of air within the airduct (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 24, Heim discloses an airduct system comprising: an elongate airduct having a pliable tubular wall; means for providing support to the tubular wall in a radial direction, the means for providing support to be disposed within the tubular wall; and means for sensing a condition of air within the airduct, the means for sensing to be carried by the means for providing support. (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0028562 to Heim et al. (Heim).
With regard to claims 10-16, Heim discloses the airduct system of claims 1 or 9, wherein the changing condition is a change in temperature of the current of air, a change in at least one of a presence or a concentration of carbon dioxide of the current of air, a change in a presence or a concentration of oxygen within the current of air, a change in at least one of a presence or concentration of at least one of particulate, a toxic gas, or a contaminant, or a change in an airflow rate of the current of air.
The claim element “changing condition” is a description of the field of intended use of the claimed sensor of Heim. In the embodiment described in paragraph 0076, the sensor is a pressure sensor. In paragraph 0077, the actuation mechanism is described as using different types of sensors such as an airflow sensor, an optical eye, etc. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate different types of sensors to measure different aspects of the fluid being conveyed by the duct, such as a temperature sensor, carbon dioxide or oxygen sensors, hazard detection (particulate, toxic gas or contaminant), or airflow rate in order to provide options for users of the pliable duct to set up control of the conditioning of air in a desired work space.
With regard to claims 19-22, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the sensor is at least one of a pitot tube or an anemometer.
Pitot tubes and anemometers are known flow measurement instruments. Thermometers, humidity sensors, smoke/fire detectors, toxic gas sensor, carbon dioxide and oxygen sensors are other known types of sensors available to measure air characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate various sensors within the pliable duct to allow monitoring of conditions the known sensors are designed to measure such as pressure, wind speed, air velocity, temperature and humidity or the presence of unwanted items (smoke, combustion products, toxic gas or carbon dioxide).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0028562 to Heim et al. (Heim) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0125472 to Pinkalla et al. (Pinkalla)
With regard to claim 2, Heim discloses the airduct system of claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the hoop is a first hoop, the frame further including a second hoop, a shaft coupling the first hoop to the second hoop, and a spoke extending in the radial direction between the shaft and the first hoop.
Pinkalla discloses a pliable airduct system that includes a framework (30, fig. 21) that includes a first hoop, a second hoop and a shaft coupling the first hoop to the second hoop and a spoke extending in the radial direction between the shaft and the first hoop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Heim with an internal longitudinally extending framework as taught by Pinkalla in order to provide a level of tautness to the duct of Heim whether the blower is activated or not as taught by Pinkalla at paragraph 0035. Even though the device of Heim discloses a mechanism for sequencing the air flow to the duct in order to avoid the acoustic “snap”, the extended frame of Pinkalla is capable of performing the intended function of maintaining the duct with a minimum level of tautness. In other words, a pliable duct with the frame of Pinkalla can be kept with a minimum level of tautness while also providing the mechanism for activation of the blower in a staged process to avoid the acoustically undesirable operating noise created when the air flow goes from stagnant to flowing.
With regard to claims 3-5, Heim in view of Pinkalla discloses the airduct system of claim 2 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose wherein the sensor is to be attached to the spoke or to the first hoop.
The location of the sensor being attached to the spoke is a design choice that does not appear to affect the functionality of the claimed apparatus sufficiently to distinguish the claimed device from Heim in view of Pinkalla. Further, the spoke, first hoop and shaft being rigid members and located within the pliable duct that provide logical points of attachment for the sensor and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the sensor on the spoke or first hoop or shaft portion of the frame in order to determine different functional configurations of the sensor being located within the pliable duct to test a configuration for suitability of the device for use as intended to deliver conditioned air.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 10718544 discloses an internal frame for a pliable duct. USPNs 2003/0194965, 2008/0113610, 2011/0180170, 2014/0254090, 2014/0261835 and 2015/0192318 disclose similar pliable ducts. USPNs 3109670 and 6425417 disclose different types of pliable ducts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights