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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13 line 2, examiner recommend changing “at least two of the measurement areas” to “the at least wo measurement areas”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (DE 4424652).
Regarding claim 1, Roth teaches an air flow control unit for controlling air flow in a duct, comprising
a damper (10, fig 2. NOTE: system components of fig 1 is used in embodiment of fig 2), “which is arranged to be installed to the duct” (This is intended function), comprising:
an inlet side (left side of 10), from which the air flow enters the damper;
an outlet side (right side of 10), from which the air flow exits the damper; and
at least one damper blade (12, fig 2), arranged between the inlet side and the outlet side, configured to rotate about an axis (13, fig 2) perpendicular to an air flow direction (direction of 2),
wherein the air flow control unit comprises a measurement unit (16 and 17, fig 1) comprising at least two measurement areas (the bodies of 16 and 17 are measurement areas) so that one measurement area is arranged on a different side of the damper in the air flow direction than another measurement area (see fig 1), wherein each measurement area comprises at least one measurement probe (the bodies of 16 and 17 themselves are measurement probe) having a measurement point (a point of on surface of 16 or 17) for measuring pressure ([0034] “The static pressure is determined by means of tubes 16 and 17”),
wherein a first measurement area (16) of the at least two measurement areas is arranged on an inlet side of the damper (16 is on inlet side of 10), and the first measurement area comprises a first measurement probe (body of 16) having a first measurement point (a point of on surface of 16), and a first wall (a flow resistance 14 on upper side, fig 2 and 3) downstream from the first measurement point in the air flow direction causing a change (flow resistance 14 is a wall that inherently can change air flow direction) in the air flow at the first measurement area.
Roth fails to teach a minimum distance between measurement probes on opposite sides of the damper that are in the same line in the air flow direction is 0.5× the length of the damper blade. However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Roth to have particular ratio of minimum distance of the probes vs the length of the damper blade since the present application does not show that the particular ratio solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 2, Roth teaches a second measurement area (a probe 17 at the lower side of fig 2. NOTE: fig 1 shows that probe 17 is downstream of wall 14) of the at least two measurement areas is arranged on an outlet side (downstream side) of the damper (see fig 2), and the second measurement area comprises a second measurement probe (body of 17) having a second measurement point (a point of on surface of 17), and a second wall (a flow resistance 14 on lower side, fig 2 and 3) upstream of the second measurement point in the air flow direction causing a change in the air flow (flow resistance 14 is a wall that inherently can change air flow direction) at the second measurement area.
Regarding claim 3, Roth teaches at least one of the first wall or the second wall is perpendicular to the air flow direction (walls 14 are perpendicular to the air flow direction as shown in fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Roth teaches at least one of the first wall and or the second wall is angled to the air flow direction (They are both angled at 90 degree with respect to the air flow direction).
Regarding claim 5, Roth teaches at least one of the first wall or the second wall is partially curved (See fig 3, the portions of walls 4 that are in contact with duct are curved) around the measurement point next to said wall.
Regarding claim 6, Roth teaches all the limitations of claim 5, but fails to teach the at least one of the first wall or the second wall that is partially curved (see fig 3, a portion of plates 14 are curved) encloses 45-270 degrees around the measurement point. However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Roth to have the wall curved around the measurement point in 45-270 degree since the present application does not show that the particular shape of curved walls solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Roth teaches the wall at each measurement area is integrated part of the measurement probe on said measurement area (see fig 3 and [0039] wall 14 has a “crescent-shaped partition element 22.” In fig 6, partition 22 has measuring point 31. Therefore measurement area is integrated to walls).
Regarding claim 8, Roth teaches at least one of the first wall or the second wall is integrated part of the damper so that a casing of the damper forms the wall (The embodiment of fig 2 inherently shows that the walls 14 and flap 12 inherently work together to block flow in a closed position. Therefore the first wall or the second wall are integrated part of the damper).
Regarding claim 9, Roth teaches at least one of the first wall or the second wall is “arranged to be installed to the wall of the duct” (This is intended function. Duct is not positively recited to be the air flow control unit).
Regarding claim 10, Roth teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the height of the first wall is from 3 to 30 mm. However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Roth to have the first wall having a height of 3 to 30 mm since the present application does not show that the height solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Roth teaches a controller (6+18, fig 1) connected to the measurement unit for receiving pressure measurement data and for calculating pressure difference between the inlet side and outlet side of the damper ([0034] “two pressure values being supplied to a pressure chamber 18… The corresponding data is supplied to inputs 7 of the control circuit 6.”).
Regarding claim 12, Roth teaches the controller is connected to a motor (M, fig 1) controlling at least one damper blade for adjusting the position of the damper based on the pressure difference (See fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Roth teaches the measurement unit comprises at least two of the measurement areas on each side of the damper (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, Roth teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach each side of the damper, in air flow direction, comprises four measurement probes (Roth teaches two probes on each side of the damper). However It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Roth to incorporate more probes (such as four or more) to measure more pressure readings and average the pressure readings (Roth [0039] “in order to average the measurement results”) in order to get more accurate pressure value.
Regarding claim 15, Roth teaches a controller (6, fig 1) configured to receive pressure measurements from the measurement from the measurement probes on each side of the damper and to calculate an average pressure (Roth [0039] “in order to average the measurement results”) for each side of the damper based on the pressure measurements.
Regarding claim 16, Roth teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach maximum distance between measurement probe on the inlet side and the measurement probe on an outlet side (downstream side of damper) is 2.5× the length of the damper blade. However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Roth to have particular ratio of maximum distance vs the length of the damper blade since the present application does not show that the particular ratio solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the apparatus would function equally well in either configuration.
Regarding claim 18, Roth teaches a method for adjusting ventilation with an air flow control unit according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
measuring pressure upstream (using probe 16, fig 1) of the damper in air flow direction;
measuring pressure downstream (using probe 17, fig 1) of the damper in air flow direction;
detecting pressure difference (using control 6 and pressure chamber 18);
receiving information (from signal 8. [0037] “the position of flap 12....fed to the input 8”) of at least one damper blade position (position of damper blade 12);
calculating air flow amount ([0045] “determine the volume flow rate v”) through the damper based on pressure difference and damper position; and
adjusting ventilation (using control signal Y from controller 6, shown in fig 1) based on calculated air flow amount and given set point.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurelowech (US 20160370029) in view of Roth (DE 4424652).
Regarding claim 17, Kurelowech teaches a ventilation system of a building ([0004] “Commercial and institutional buildings”) comprising two or more air flow control units (damper systems 15 & 17, fig 1).
Kurelowech fails to teach the air flow control units including limitations of claim 1.
Roth teaches an air flow control unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kurelowech as taught by Roth to include pressure probes upstream and downstream of damper system in order to allow users to monitor the pressure differential across the dampers and make sure that dampers are operating properly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 27 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument about “sensor in immediate vicinity of the adjustment device”, examiner respectfully disagree.
Roth states in ]0036] that “As can be seen from Fig. 1, the sensor 5 is located at the same height - viewed in the direction of flow (arrow 2) - as the cross-sectional adjustment device 10 (throttle element 11). Both parts are thus in close proximity to each other”. In this context, Roth says the sensor and the flow adjustment device are in close proximity to each other because the height of the sensor is the same as the height of the adjustment device in the cross-sectional view or viewed in the direction of flow (which is shown in fig 3). However Roth doesn’t explicitly teach any requirement for the spacing distance between two probes 16 and 17.
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 KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights