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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
heat exchange element.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “element” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heat exchange element exchanging heat”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The disclosure defines heat exchange element as Air-to-Air heat exchanger, see Figure 6. Therefore, the heat exchange element will be construed as Air-to-Air heat exchanger, and/or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the internal space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by the internal space, internal space of what structure? To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming an internal space of the heat exchange unit.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “a third damper for discharging outdoor air” is unclear since the claim already defines the outdoor air. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a third damper for discharging the outdoor air”.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “wherein the heat exchange unit comprises: an indoor air inflow space communicating with the inlet unit through a fourth damper and receiving the indoor air from the inlet unit; an indoor air discharge space disposed in a position opposite to the indoor air inflow space and communicating with the outlet unit through a fifth damper to discharge the indoor air to the outlet unit; an outdoor air inflow space receiving outdoor air into the indoors through the second damper; and an outdoor air discharge space disposed in a position opposite to the outdoor air inflow space and discharging outdoor air to the outdoors through the third damper” is unclear. It’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a fourth damper” and “a fifth damper” since claim 1 already recites “a fourth damper” and “a fifth damper”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the “a fourth damper” and “a fifth damper” of claim 2 are the same of claim 1 or different? To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if the “a fourth damper” and “a fifth damper” of claim 2 are the same of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitations of “receiving outdoor air” and “discharging outdoor air” are unclear since the claim already defines the outdoor air. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “receiving the outdoor air” and “discharging the outdoor air”
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “indoor and outdoor air moves in an 'X' shaped path.” is unclear since the claim already defines the indoor and outdoor air. Furthermore, the above the recitation is referring to the indoor air and the outdoor air as if both is a single airflow (i.e. moves) while each air is a separate and independent airflow. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “the indoor air and the outdoor air move in an 'X' shaped”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the refrigerant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a refrigerant”.
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation of “is cooled by outdoor air” is unclear since claims 1 and 2 already define the outdoor air. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “is cooled by the outdoor air”.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “indoor air flows” is unclear since claim 1 already defines the indoor air. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “the indoor air flows”.
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI (KR-102388854-B1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of OH (KR-102105012-B1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding Claim 1, CHOI teaches an indoor and outdoor air exchange-typed thermo-hygrostat (see Figure 3) comprising:
an inlet unit (unit of 130a: see Figure 6) configured to have an indoor air inlet (130) through which indoor air flows (see Figure 6);
an outlet unit (unit of 110a) configured to be disposed on the inlet unit (see Figure 6), forming a space independent from the inlet unit (see Figure 6), communicates with the inlet unit by the opening and closing operation of a first damper (180a: see Figure 4 ), provided with an evaporator (110) that exchanges heat with indoor air therein (see ¶ [0047]), above the first damper (180a), and formed with an indoor air outlet (140) discharging a cooled indoor air (see ¶ [0050]);
a heat exchange unit (unit of 150a and 200: see Figures 6 and 7) configured to be disposed behind the inlet unit and the outlet unit (see Figure 6), form a space independent of the inlet unit and the outlet unit (see Figure 6 ), respectively, communicate with the inlet unit through the opening and closing operation of a fourth damper (220b), be provided with a second damper (240) for receiving outdoor air, and provided with a heat exchange element (210) exchanging heat between the indoor and outdoor air (see ¶ [0072]) and partitioning the internal space (see Figure 7).
CHOI does not teach that the fourth damper (220b) formed on an indoor side facing indoors, communicate with the outlet unit through a fifth damper and a third damper for discharging outdoor air provided on an outdoor side facing outdoors.
However, it’s old and well known for indoor and outdoor air exchange-typed units to have multiple dampers covering the vents between the compartments/sections of the indoor and outdoor air exchange-typed units, as evidenced by OH, see OH’s Figures 2 and 3 where the indoor and outdoor air exchange unit comprises seven dampers (D1-D7) including dampers that cover discharging outdoor air (D4).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the indoor and outdoor air exchange unit of CHOI with fourth damper formed on an indoor side facing indoors, communicate with the outlet unit through a fifth damper and a third damper for discharging outdoor air provided on an outdoor side facing outdoors, since as evidenced by OH, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of controlling the path of air flow based on the desired resulted (i.e. heat recovery, cooling , introducing fresh air, etc.).
Regarding Claim 7, CHOI as modified further teaches wherein the outlet unit (unit of 110a) further includes a first blowing fan (170a) disposed above the evaporator (110: see Figure 6), and wherein only cooled air stays above the evaporator and is discharged indoors through the indoor air outlet by the first blowing fan (see Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 8, CHOI as modified further teaches wherein a vertical length of the outlet unit (unit of 110a) is formed to be longer than a vertical length of the inlet unit (unit of 130a: see Figure 6); and wherein a vertical length of the heat exchange unit (unit of 150a and 200: see Figures 6 and 7) is equal to the sum of the vertical length of the inlet unit and the vertical length of the outlet unit (see Figures 6 and 7).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI (KR 102388854 B1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of OH (KR 102105012 B1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LAMPING (DE 102018213274 A1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding Claim 4, CHOI as modified further teaches wherein an operating mode of the thermo-hygrostat includes a summer mode in which the indoor air is cooled by passing through the evaporator (110 : see Figure 11) and a winter mode in which the indoor air is cooled by heat exchange with the outdoor air in the heat exchange element without passing through the evaporator (110: see Figure 12) and inside the heat exchange element, indoor and outdoor air moves in an 'X' shaped path (see Figure 12 where inside the heat exchange element 210, indoor and outdoor air moves in an 'X' shaped path ).
CHOI does not teach wherein when operating in winter mode, the flow paths of the indoor air and outdoor air flowing into the heat exchange unit are parallel, but the directions are opposite.
However, such operating mode is well known in the art where no fresh air is being introduce into the room, as evidenced by LAMPING, see LAMPING’s Figures 1 and 4 where heat exchange unit with a housing (1) with an indoor air inlet (11), an indoor air outlet (12), an outdoor air outlet (13), an outside air inlet (14), and heat exchange element (31 and 32) where in one operating mode, the flow paths of the indoor air (AB-ZU) and outdoor air (AU-FO) flowing into the heat exchange unit are parallel, but the directions are opposite and inside the heat exchange element, indoor and outdoor air moves in an 'X' shaped path (see Figure 4 where the indoor air (AB-ZU) and outdoor air (AU-FO) are parallel, but the directions are opposite and inside (31 and 31), indoor and outdoor air moves in an 'X' shaped path.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the indoor and outdoor air exchange unit of CHOI in view of OH with when operating in winter mode, the flow paths of the indoor air and outdoor air flowing into the heat exchange unit are parallel, but the directions are opposite, since as evidenced by OH, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of providing the indoor air with the desired outdoor temperature without compromising the air quality.
Regarding Claim 9, CHOI as modified further teaches wherein regardless of the operating mode of the thermo-hygrostat, indoor air flows into the inlet unit only through the single indoor air inlet (see Figures 10 and 11 where the indoor air flows into the inlet unit only through 130).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is allowable over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious “the heat exchange unit comprises: an indoor air inflow space communicating with the inlet unit through a fourth damper and receiving the indoor air from the inlet unit; an indoor air discharge space disposed in a position opposite to the indoor air inflow space and communicating with the outlet unit through a fifth damper to discharge the indoor air to the outlet unit; an outdoor air inflow space receiving outdoor air into the indoors through the second damper; and an outdoor air discharge space disposed in a position opposite to the outdoor air inflow space and discharging outdoor air to the outdoors through the third damper”, in combination with the other limitations recited as specified in the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763