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: “Air supply control member” in claims 11 & 14-15.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is an air supply control member identified as element number 17, and include a shutter and a louver, as at least illustrated in Figure 5, and at least described in paragraph 0039 of the 10/30/2023 specification.
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 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, & 15 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.
Regarding claims 4 (when the first humidity information is smaller than the second humidity information, the control circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower, respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is larger than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower),
Claim 6 (when the first humidity information is smaller than the second humidity information, the control circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower, respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is larger than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower),
Claim 9 (wherein the control circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower, respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is smaller than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower),
Claim 11 (wherein when a dehumidifying mode is performed which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space, or when a humidifying mode is performed which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space),
Claim 14 (herein when a dehumidifying mode is performed which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space, or when a humidifying mode is performed which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space), &
Claim 15 (wherein when a dehumidifying mode is performed which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space, or when a humidifying mode is performed which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space),
the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, & 15 all recite relative limitations pertaining to the phrase “such that”, to which such a phrase renders the claim unclear as to whether the claimed limitations that follows are part of the claimed invention or not. To obviate the rejections, the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the phrase “such that” and positively claim the associated limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Eguchi (US 2015/0241076) shows a ventilation system comprising:
a supply air flow path (Fig. 4 – the white arrows show the supply air flow path) that is a flow path connecting outdoors to an indoor space (Fig. 4);
an exhaust flow path (Fig. 4 – the grey arrows show the exhaust flow path) that is a flow path connecting the indoor space to the outdoors (Fig. 4);
an air supply blower (26, Fig. 4) to generate a flow of air to be supplied to the indoor space (Fig. 4), the air supply blower being provided on the supply air flow path (Fig. 4);
an exhaust blower (25, Fig. 4) to generate a flow of air to be exhausted to the outdoors (Fig. 4), the exhaust blower being provided on the exhaust flow path (Fig. 4); and
control circuitry (100, Fig. 1, ¶0070) to control operation of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (¶0071/72),
wherein when a dehumidifying mode (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101) is selected which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space (¶0101), the control circuitry puts the indoor space under negative pressure by controlling at least one of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (Fig. 9, ¶0101-0102 – when the system is in dehumidifying mode, the exhaust blower is operated to create negative pressure in the indoor space).
Regarding claim 2, Eguchi shows further comprising: first humidity detection circuitry (72, ¶0054, Lines 1-3) to detect first humidity information that is information indicating a humidity of the indoor space (¶0054, Lines 1-3); and
second humidity detection circuitry (74, ¶0054, Lines 12-13) to detect second humidity information that is information indicating a humidity of the outdoors (¶0054, Lines 12-13),
wherein the control circuitry acquires the first humidity information and the second humidity information (¶0070), and when the first humidity information is quantified against the second humidity information (¶0070), the control circuitry makes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower larger than a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 3 - the control circuitry makes or sets a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower larger than a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower, as can be seen in Annotated Figure 3 when the blower is set to the highest setting of air flow among the exhaust blower rotations, from a lower preceding quantity of air, that which generates the air quantity).
However, Eguchi lacks showing when the first humidity information is larger than the second humidity information, an action by the system is taken.
Chen (CN108131755), an HVAC system for humidity control, which is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is an HVAC system for humidity control.
Chen teaches when the first humidity information (9, ¶0027 – element 9 is the first temperature and humidity sensor 9, which generates the first humidity information) is larger than the second humidity information (10, ¶0027 – element 10 is a second temperature and humidity sensor 10, which generates the second humidity information), an action by the system is taken (¶0027 - when the first humidity information is larger than the second humidity information, the air outlet temperature is lowered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first humidity information and second humidity information of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the first humidity information and the second humidity information of Chen, which would effectively ensure that the temperature and relative humidity of the air inside the electrical equipment component cabinet remain within a reasonable range, providing environmental protection for the long-term stable operation of microcomputer-based electrical equipment (¶0009).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 3, Eguchi shows wherein the control circuitry sets a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower to a largest air quantity of selectable quantities of air to be blown by the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 3 – the control circuitry sets a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower to a largest air quantity of selectable quantities of air to be blown by the exhaust blower, as can be seen in Annotated Figure 3 when the blower is set to the highest setting on the chart of air flow among the exhaust blower rotations that generates the air quantity).
Regarding claim 5, Eguchi shows wherein the control circuitry sets a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower to a largest air quantity of selectable quantities of air to be blown by the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 3 – the control circuitry sets a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower to a largest air quantity of selectable quantities of air to be blown by the exhaust blower, as can be seen in Annotated Figure 3 when the blower is set to the highest setting of air flow among the exhaust blower rotations that generates the air quantity).
Regarding claim 12, Eguchi shows further comprising:
a total heat exchanger including a total heat exchange element (51/52, Fig. 2) to perform total heat exchange between air to be supplied from the outdoors to the indoor space (see Annotated Figure 1) and air to be exhausted to the outdoors from the indoor space (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the total heat exchanger includes the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
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, 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 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Iio et al (CN106605107), hereinafter referred to as Iio.
Regarding claim 4, Eguchi shows wherein the control circuitry acquires the first humidity information and the second humidity information (¶0070), and the control circuitry quantifies the first humidity information relative to the second humidity information to take a system action (¶0070).
However, Eguchi lacks showing when the first humidity information is smaller than the second humidity information, the control device circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower, respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is larger than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower.
Iio (CN106605107), an HVAC system with supply and exhaust fans, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi, which is an HVAC system with supply and exhaust fans.
Iio teaches when the first humidity information (T, ¶0112) is smaller than the second humidity information (
T
1
, Fig. 5, ¶0112),
the control circuitry (11, ¶0113) causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower (¶0113), respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is calculated relative to a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower (¶0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control circuitry and supply and exhaust fans of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the control circuity and supply and exhaust fans of Iio, which would provide a system the prevents condensation or freezing on the heat exchange elements and ensures continuous heat exchange operation for both supply and exhaust (¶0016).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation “such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is larger than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the Iio (¶0112/0113) where Iio teaches a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is calculated relative to a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iios control circuitry and supply and exhaust fans for the predictable result and benefit of preventing condensation or freezing on the heat exchange elements and ensures continuous heat exchange operation for both supply and exhaust (¶0016).
Regarding claim 6, Eguchi shows further comprising: a-first humidity detection circuitry (72, ¶0054, Lines 1-3) to detect first humidity information that is information indicating a humidity in the indoor space (¶0054, Lines 1-3); and
second humidity detection circuitry (74, ¶0054, Lines 12-13) to detect second humidity information that is information indicating a humidity of the outdoors (¶0054, Lines 12-13),
wherein the control device circuitry acquires the first humidity information and the second humidity information (¶0070), and the control circuitry quantifies the first humidity information relative to the second humidity information to take a system action (¶0070).
However, Eguchi lacks showing when the first humidity information is smaller than the second humidity information, the control circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower, respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is larger than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower.
Iio teaches when the first humidity information (T, ¶0112) is smaller than the second humidity information (
T
1
, Fig. 5, ¶0112),
the control circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower (¶0113), respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is calculated relative to a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower (¶0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control circuitry and supply and exhaust fans of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the control circuity and supply and exhaust fans of Iio, which would provide a system the prevents condensation or freezing on the heat exchange elements and ensures continuous heat exchange operation for both supply and exhaust (¶0016).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation “such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is larger than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the Iio (¶0112/0113) where Iio teaches a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is calculated relative to a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iios control circuitry and supply and exhaust fans for the predictable result and benefit of preventing condensation or freezing on the heat exchange elements and ensures continuous heat exchange operation for both supply and exhaust (¶0016).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Kim et al (KR20040056145), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Eguchi shows further comprising:
an outlet end of the supply air flow path (22, Fig. 1) leading to the indoor space (Fig. 1), the outlet end of the supply air flow path being capable of discharging supply air to be blown into the indoor space (Fig. 1),
wherein when a dehumidifying mode is performed (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101) which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101), or when a humidifying mode is performed which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply from the outlet end of the supply air flow path such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space (Fig. 1 – air from the outlet end of the supply air flow path is controlled by the control circuitry sending the air supply into the indoor space, such that the supply air from the outlet end of the supply air flow path is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space, as the air would eventually be blown onto a wall surface).
However, Eguchi lacks showing an air supply control member, the air supply control member being capable of changing a direction of supply air to be blown into the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space.
Kim (KR20040056145), an air conditioner for conditioning indoor air, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is an air conditioner for conditioning indoor air.
Kim shows an air supply control member (14, Fig. 1), the air supply control member being capable of changing a direction of supply air to be blown into the indoor space (¶0039)
the control circuitry (30, ¶0039) controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a surface in the indoor space (¶0039 – the control circuitry controls the air supply control member 14 such that supply air is blown onto a surface in the indoor space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outlet end of the air supply flow path of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the air supply control member of Kim, which would provide an air conditioner capable of removing large dust particles such as yellow dust (¶0012).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Okuma et al (JP2010249492), hereinafter referred to as Okuma.
Regarding claim 13, Eguchi shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except further comprising: a human detector to detect a number of persons present in the indoor space, wherein the control circuitry calculates an amount of water vapor from the persons based on the number of the persons detected by the human detector, and controls at least one of a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower in consideration of the amount of water vapor from the persons.
Okuma (JP2010249492), a ventilation system to control humidity, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is a ventilation system to control humidity.
Okuma teaches a human detector (803, Page 4, (Last line)/Page 5, Line 1, element 803 is used to count the number of customers present in the store; element 803 can be a human sensor) to detect a number of persons present in the indoor space (Page 14, Lines 1-2), wherein the control circuitry (102-7, ¶0132 (Page 12, Lines 35-36) – element 102-7 calculates the amount of water vapor evaporated from the human bodies in the store) calculates an amount of water vapor from the persons based on the number of the persons detected by the human detector (¶0150/151 (Page 14, Lines 1-5) – water vapor from human bodies in the store), and controls at least one of a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower in consideration of the amount of water vapor from the persons (Page 2, Lines 52- 61 – the ventilation amount estimation calculation unit is for calculating the amount of ventilation air provided by at least the air supply blower in response to the amount of water vapor from the humans in the store).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation system of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the ventilation system and human detector of Okuma, which would provide a ventilation amount calculation system and a ventilation amount estimation calculation device in consideration of the influence of the heat load device (Page 2, Lines 50-51).
Claims 7-9 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi.
Regarding claim 7, Eguchi (US 2015/0241076) shows a ventilation system comprising:
a supply air flow path (Fig. 4 – the white arrows show the supply air flow path) that is a flow path connecting outdoors to an indoor space (Fig. 4);
an exhaust flow path (Fig. 4 – the grey arrows show the exhaust flow path) that is a flow path connecting the indoor space to the outdoors (Fig. 4);
an air supply blower (26, Fig. 4) to generate a flow of air to be supplied to the indoor space (Fig. 4), the air supply blower being provided on the supply air flow path (Fig. 4);
an exhaust blower (25, Fig. 4) to generate a flow of air to be exhausted to the outdoors (Fig. 4), the exhaust blower being provided on the exhaust flow path (Fig. 4); and
control circuitry (100, Fig. 1, ¶0070) to control operation of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (¶0071/72),
wherein when a humidifying mode (Fig. 6/7, ¶0101) is selected which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space (¶0101), the control device circuitry puts the indoor space under positive pressure by controlling at least one of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (Fig. 9, ¶0110 – when the system is in a humidifying mode, the control circuitry puts the indoor space under positive pressure by controlling the air supply blower 26).
Regarding claim 8, Eguchi shows wherein the control circuitry (100, Fig. 1) makes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower smaller than a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 9, Eguchi shows wherein the control circuitry causes a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 2) and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower (see Annotated Figure 2), respectively, such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is smaller than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 2 – the control circuity 100, which ultimately controls the rotation speed of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower, causes a quantity of air to be blown out by the exhaust blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower to decrease from a just preceding quantity of air blown by the exhaust blower and a just preceding quantity of air blown by the air supply blower, respectively, as the rotation speed of the blowers decrease in their receptiveness’, such that such that a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower is smaller than a decrease in the quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower).
Regarding claim 16, Eguchi shows further comprising:
a total heat exchanger including a total heat exchange element (51/52, Fig. 2) to perform total heat exchange between air to be supplied from the outdoors to the indoor space (see Annotated Figure 1) and air to be exhausted to the outdoors from the indoor space (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the total heat exchanger includes the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Kim et al (KR20040056145), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 14, Eguchi shows further comprising:
an outlet end of the supply air flow path (22, Fig. 1) leading to the indoor space (Fig. 1), the outlet end of the supply air flow path being capable of discharging supply air to be blown into the indoor space (Fig. 1),
wherein when a dehumidifying mode is performed (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101) which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101), or when a humidifying mode is performed which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply from the outlet end of the supply air flow path such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space (Fig. 1 – air from the outlet end of the supply air flow path is controlled by the control circuitry sending the air supply into the indoor space, such that the supply air from the outlet end of the supply air flow path is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space, as the air would eventually be blown onto a wall surface).
However, Eguchi lacks showing an air supply control member, the air supply control member being capable of changing a direction of supply air to be blown into the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space.
Kim (KR20040056145), an air conditioner for conditioning indoor air, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is an air conditioner for conditioning indoor air.
Kim shows an air supply control member (14, Fig. 1), the air supply control member being capable of changing a direction of supply air to be blown into the indoor space (¶0039)
the control circuitry (30, ¶0039) controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a surface in the indoor space (¶0039 – the control circuitry controls the air supply control member 14 such that supply air is blown onto a surface in the indoor space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outlet end of the air supply flow path of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the air supply control member of Kim, which would provide an air conditioner capable of removing large dust particles such as yellow dust (¶0012).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Okuma et al (JP2010249492), hereinafter referred to as Okuma.
Regarding claim 18, Eguchi shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 except further comprising: a human detector to detect a number of persons present in the indoor space, wherein the control circuitry calculates an amount of water vapor from the persons based on the number of the persons detected by the human detector, and controls at least one of a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower in consideration of the amount of water vapor from the persons.
Okuma (JP2010249492), a ventilation system to control humidity, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is a ventilation system to control humidity.
Okuma teaches a human detector (803, Page 4, (Last line)/Page 5, Line 1, element 803 is used to count the number of customers present in the store; element 803 can be a human sensor) to detect a number of persons present in the indoor space (Page 14, Lines 1-2), wherein the control circuitry (102-7, ¶0132 (Page 12, Lines 35-36) – element 102-7 calculates the amount of water vapor evaporated from the human bodies in the store) calculates an amount of water vapor from the persons based on the number of the persons detected by the human detector (¶0150/151 (Page 14, Lines 1-5) – water vapor from human bodies in the store), and controls at least one of a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower in consideration of the amount of water vapor from the persons (Page 2, Lines 52- 61 – the ventilation amount estimation calculation unit is for calculating the amount of ventilation air provided by at least the air supply blower in response to the amount of water vapor from the humans in the store).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation system of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the ventilation system and human detector of Okuma, which would provide a ventilation amount calculation system and a ventilation amount estimation calculation device in consideration of the influence of the heat load device (Page 2, Lines 50-51).
Claims 10 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi.
Regarding claim 10, Eguchi (US 2015/0241076) shows a ventilation system comprising:
a supply air flow path (Fig. 4 – the white arrows show the supply air flow path) that is a flow path connecting outdoors to an indoor space (Fig. 4);
an exhaust flow path (Fig. 4 – the grey arrows show the exhaust flow path) that is a flow path connecting the indoor space to the outdoors (Fig. 4);
an air supply blower (26, Fig. 4) to generate a flow of air to be supplied to the indoor space (Fig. 4), the air supply blower being provided on the supply air flow path (Fig. 4);
an exhaust blower (25, Fig. 4) to generate a flow of air to be exhausted to the outdoors (Fig. 4), the exhaust blower being provided on the exhaust flow path (Fig. 4); and
control circuitry (100, Fig. 1, ¶0070) to control operation of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (¶0071/72),
wherein when a dehumidifying mode (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101) is selected which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space (¶0101), the control circuitry puts the indoor space under negative pressure by controlling at least one of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (Fig. 9, ¶0101-0102 – when the system is in dehumidifying mode, the exhaust blower is operated to create negative pressure in the indoor space), and
when a humidifying mode (Fig. 6/7, ¶0101) is selected which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space (¶0101),
the control circuitry puts the indoor space under positive pressure by controlling at least one of the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (Fig. 9, ¶0110 – when the system is in a humidifying mode, the control circuitry puts the indoor space under positive pressure by controlling the air supply blower 26).
Regarding claim 17, Eguchi shows further comprising:
a total heat exchanger including a total heat exchange element (51/52, Fig. 2) to perform total heat exchange between air to be supplied from the outdoors to the indoor space (see Annotated Figure 1) and air to be exhausted to the outdoors from the indoor space (see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the total heat exchanger includes the air supply blower and the exhaust blower (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Kim et al (KR20040056145), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 15, Eguchi shows further comprising:
an outlet end of the supply air flow path (22, Fig. 1) leading to the indoor space (Fig. 1), the outlet end of the supply air flow path being capable of discharging supply air to be blown into the indoor space (Fig. 1),
wherein when a dehumidifying mode is performed (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101) which is a mode for dehumidifying the indoor space (Fig. 4/5, ¶0101), or when a humidifying mode is performed which is a mode for humidifying the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply from the outlet end of the supply air flow path such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space (Fig. 1 – air from the outlet end of the supply air flow path is controlled by the control circuitry sending the air supply into the indoor space, such that the supply air from the outlet end of the supply air flow path is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space, as the air would eventually be blown onto a wall surface).
However, Eguchi lacks showing an air supply control member, the air supply control member being capable of changing a direction of supply air to be blown into the indoor space, the control circuitry controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a wall surface in the indoor space.
Kim (KR20040056145), an air conditioner for conditioning indoor air, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is an air conditioner for conditioning indoor air.
Kim shows an air supply control member (14, Fig. 1), the air supply control member being capable of changing a direction of supply air to be blown into the indoor space (¶0039),
the control circuitry (30, ¶0039) controls the air supply control member such that the supply air is blown onto a surface in the indoor space (¶0039 – the control circuitry controls the air supply control member 14 such that supply air is blown onto a surface in the indoor space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outlet end of the air supply flow path of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the air supply control member of Kim, which would provide an air conditioner capable of removing large dust particles such as yellow dust (¶0012).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al (US 2015/0241076), hereinafter referred to as Eguchi, in view of Okuma et al (JP2010249492), hereinafter referred to as Okuma.
Regarding claim 19, Eguchi shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 10 except further comprising: a human detector to detect a number of persons present in the indoor space, wherein the control circuitry calculates an amount of water vapor from the persons based on the number of the persons detected by the human detector, and controls at least one of a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower in consideration of the amount of water vapor from the persons.
Okuma (JP2010249492), a ventilation system to control humidity, is in the same field of endeavor as Eguchi which is a ventilation system to control humidity.
Okuma teaches a human detector (803, Page 4, (Last line)/Page 5, Line 1, element 803 is used to count the number of customers present in the store; element 803 can be a human sensor) to detect a number of persons present in the indoor space (Page 14, Lines 1-2), wherein the control circuitry (102-7, ¶0132 (Page 12, Lines 35-36) – element 102-7 calculates the amount of water vapor evaporated from the human bodies in the store) calculates an amount of water vapor from the persons based on the number of the persons detected by the human detector (¶0150/151 (Page 14, Lines 1-5) – water vapor from human bodies in the store), and controls at least one of a quantity of air to be blown by the air supply blower and a quantity of air to be blown by the exhaust blower in consideration of the amount of water vapor from the persons (Page 2, Lines 52- 61 – the ventilation amount estimation calculation unit is for calculating the amount of ventilation air provided by at least the air supply blower in response to the amount of water vapor from the humans in the store).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ventilation system of Eguchi to incorporate the teachings of the ventilation system and human detector of Okuma, which would provide a ventilation amount calculation system and a ventilation amount estimation calculation device in consideration of the influence of the heat load device (Page 2, Lines 50-51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762