DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application/Claims
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on November 14, 2023. As directed by the amendment claims 1-18 have been amended and claim 19 has been cancelled. Claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 2, it is suggested that “wherein said valve is suitable to be installed and connected to an air duct via a ventilation duct opening in a surface of said room” should read “wherein said valve is suitable to be installed and connected to an air duct and to a ventilation duct opening in a surface of said room”.
In claim 1 line 13, “maxim um” should read “maximum”.
In claim 16 line 10, “minum um” should read “minimum”.
In claim 16 line 13, “maxim um” should read “maximum”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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” 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” 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 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, 7, 9, and 12 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 claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the third maximum predetermined value is less than 15% larger than the first maximum predetermined values are different”. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation, particularly the phrase “are different”, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, the claim is being interpreted as: “The air valve according to claim 3, wherein the third maximum predetermined value is less than 15% larger than the first maximum predetermined value”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claims 7 and 9 recite a broad limitation along with a narrower, “preferable”, limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “airflow is unidirectional, either from the air duct to the room or from the room to the air duct,” and the claim also recites “preferably unidirectional from said air duct to said room,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. For the purposes of this Office Action, the claim is being interpreted as: “The air valve according to claim 1, wherein the airflow is unidirectional, either from the air duct to the room or from the room to the air duct.”
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein the ratio between the diameter of the outer baffle element at the intermediate position to that at the proximal end to that at the distal end is between 1:1.1:1.1 and 1:4:4” and the claim also recites “preferably between 1:1.5:1.5 and 1:3:3,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim further recites the broad recitation “wherein the ratio of the diameter of the inner baffle element at the distal end to that at the proximal end is between 1:2 and 1:16” along with the narrower range/limitation “preferably between 1:4 and 1:10.” For the purposes of this Office Action, the claim is being interpreted as: “The air valve according to claim 1, wherein the ratio between the diameter of the outer baffle element at the intermediate position to that at the proximal end to that at the distal end is between 1:1.1:1.1 and 1:4:4 and/or wherein the ratio of the diameter of the inner baffle element at the distal end to that at the proximal end is between 1:2 and 1:16.”
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this Office Action, the claim is being interpreted as: “The air valve according to claim 10, wherein the flow regulating means are closer to the distal end than to the proximal end.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,090,434 by Krisko et al (hereinafter “Krisko”).
Regarding claim 1, Krisko discloses an air valve for ventilation of rooms in a building (Fig 1), wherein said valve is suitable to be installed and connected to an air duct and connected to a ventilation duct opening in a surface of said room (Fig 1 induction apparatus 10 connects to air duct 20 and to ventilation duct opening in ceiling panels 14/16), wherein the valve comprises a distal end and a proximal end, wherein said distal end is closer to the air duct than the proximal end (see Examiner Annotated Figure below, hereinafter “EAF A”), said valve further comprises:
an inner baffle element located at a radially inside position (Fig 1 vanes 86) and an outer baffle element located at a radially outside position and surrounding said inner baffle element (Fig 1 side walls 76 and flared portions 78), wherein an airflow space is defined between said inner and outer baffle elements (Fig 1 discharge slots 82)
wherein the diameter of said outer baffle element decreases continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at said distal end to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between said distal end and said proximal end (see EAF A), and
wherein the diameter of said inner baffle element increases continuously from a second minimum predetermined value at said distal end to a second maximum predetermined value at said proximal end (see EAF A), characterized in that said inner and outer baffle elements are defined by a fluent and continuous curve between said distal and proximal ends (Fig 1 and EAF A).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 1 of Krisko, annotated to show distal and proximal ends as well as claimed maximums and minimums
Regarding claim 2, Krisko further discloses that said curve is semi-circular or elliptical (Fig 1 and EAF A).
Regarding claim 3, Krisko further discloses that the diameter of said outer baffle element increases continuously from the first minimum predetermined value at said intermediate position to a third maximum predetermined value at said proximal end (Fig 1 and EAF A).
Regarding claim 7, Krisko further discloses that the airflow is unidirectional, either from the air duct to the room or from the room to the air duct (Fig 1 air flows from supply duct 20 and return register 34/induction port 64 and into room through discharge slots 82).
Regarding claim 8, Krisko further discloses the airflow space is narrower at the proximal end than at the distal end (Fig 1 and EAF A).
Regarding claim 16, Krisko discloses a method for ventilation of rooms in a building using an air valve in an air duct (Fig 1 induction apparatus in air duct 20), wherein the valve has a distal end and a proximal end (see EAF A), wherein said distal end is closer to the air duct than the proximal end (EAF A), the method comprises the steps of:
placing an inner baffle element at a radially inside position (Fig 1 vanes 86),
placing an outer baffle element at a radially outside position, wherein said outer baffle element surrounds the inner baffle element (Fig 1 side walls 76 and flared portions 78),
defining an airflow space between said inner and outer baffle elements (Fig 1 discharge slots 82),
adapting the diameter of said outer baffle element to decrease continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at said distal end to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between said distal end and said proximal end (see EAF A),
adapting the diameter of said inner baffle element to increase continuously from a second minimum predetermined value at said distal end to a second maximum predetermined value at said proximal end (see EAF A),
wherein the method comprises the step of:
defining the inner and outer baffle elements by a fluent and continuous curve between said distal and proximal end (Fig 1 and EAF A).
Regarding claim 17, Krisko further discloses the step of adapting the curve to be semi-circular (Fig 1 and EAF A).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko.
Regarding claim 4, Krisko teaches the air valve according to claim 3. (See details in claim 3 rejection above.) But Krisko does not explicitly teach that the third maximum predetermined value is less than 15% larger than the first maximum predetermined value.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the third maximum predetermined value less than 15% larger than the first maximum predetermined value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, the general conditions are disclosed by Krisko, so making the dimensions to fit within the claimed range would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Krisko teaches the air valve according to claim 1. (See details in claim 1 rejection above.) But Krisko does not explicitly teach that the ratio between the diameter of the outer baffle element at the intermediate position to that at the proximal end to that at the distal end is between 1:1.1:1.1 and 1:4:4 and/or the ratio of the diameter of the inner baffle element at the distal end to that at the proximal end is between 1:2 and 1:16.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the ratio between the diameter of the outer baffle element at the intermediate position to that at the proximal end to that at the distal end is between 1:1.1:1.1 and 1:4:4 and/or the ratio of the diameter of the inner baffle element at the distal end to that at the proximal end is between 1:2 and 1:16, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Krisko appears to show inner and outer baffle elements that would meet the claimed ratios, so making the dimensions to fit within the claimed ranges would have been obvious.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisko in view of FR 2408795 (hereinafter “FR ‘795”).
Regarding claim 5, Krisko teaches the air valve according to claim 1. (See details in claim 1 rejection above.) But Krisko does not explicitly teach that the first minimum predetermined value is smaller than the second maximum predetermined value.
However, FR ‘795 teaches a similarly shaped air valve (Fig 1) having an inner baffle element (Fig 1 moveable shutter 6) and an outer baffle element (Fig 1 recessed sleeve 1 with central conical part 5) and an airflow space defined between the inner baffle element and the outer baffle element (Fig 1), wherein the diameter of the outer baffle outer baffle element decreases continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at a distal end closer to the duct to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between the distal end and a proximal end (Fig 1), and wherein the diameter of the inner baffle element increases continuously from a second minimum at the distal end to a second maximum at the proximal end (Fig 1). FR ‘795 further teaches that the first minimum predetermined value is smaller than the second maximum predetermined value (Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air valve of Krisko by making the first minimum predetermined value smaller than the second maximum predetermined value. This would be advantageous for preventing persons in the room from having line-of-sight view into the interior of the air valve, thus improving the appearance and also inhibiting the transmission of noise towards said persons.
Regarding claim 18, Krisko teaches the air valve according to claim 16. (See details in claim 16 rejection above.) But Krisko does not explicitly teach the step of adapting the first minimum predetermined value to be smaller than the second maximum predetermined value.
However, FR ‘795 teaches a similarly shaped air valve (Fig 1) having an inner baffle element (Fig 1 moveable shutter 6) and an outer baffle element (Fig 1 recessed sleeve 1 with central conical part 5) and an airflow space defined between the inner baffle element and the outer baffle element (Fig 1), wherein the diameter of the outer baffle outer baffle element decreases continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at a distal end closer to the duct to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between the distal end and a proximal end (Fig 1), and wherein the diameter of the inner baffle element increases continuously from a second minimum at the distal end to a second maximum at the proximal end (Fig 1). FR ‘795 further teaches that the first minimum predetermined value is smaller than the second maximum predetermined value (Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Krisko by adding the step of adapting the first minimum predetermined value to be smaller than the second maximum predetermined value. This would be advantageous for preventing persons in the room from having line-of-sight view into the interior of the air valve, thus improving the appearance and also inhibiting the transmission of noise towards said persons.
Claims 1, 6, 10 -13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150140431 by Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Krisko.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an air valve for ventilation of rooms in a building (paragraph [0003]; Fig 1), wherein said valve is suitable to be installed and connected to an air duct via a ventilation duct opening in a surface of said room (paragraph [0033]), wherein the valve comprises a distal end and a proximal end, wherein said distal end is closer to the air duct than the proximal end, said valve further comprises:
an inner baffle element located at a radially inside position (Fig 1 diffuser cone 400) and an outer baffle element located at a radially outside position and surrounding said inner baffle element (Fig 1 diffuser casing 100), wherein an airflow space is defined between said inner and outer baffle elements (Fig 1 air passage F), and
wherein the diameter of said inner baffle element increases continuously from a second minimum predetermined value at said distal end to a second maximum predetermined value at said proximal end (Fig 1).
But Lee does not teach that the diameter of said outer baffle element decreases continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at said distal end to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between said distal end and said proximal end and that said inner and outer baffle elements are defined by a fluent and continuous curve between said distal and proximal ends.
However, Krisko teaches an air valve (Fig 1 induction apparatus 10) comprising an inner baffle element (Fig 1 vanes 86) and an outer baffle element surrounding said inner baffle element (Fig 1 side walls 76 and flared portions 78), wherein an airflow space is defined between said inner and outer baffle elements (Fig 1 discharge slots 82). Krisko further teaches that the diameter of said outer baffle element decreases continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at said distal end to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between said distal end and said proximal end (see EAF A above), and wherein the diameter of said inner baffle element increases continuously from a second minimum predetermined value at said distal end to a second maximum predetermined value at said proximal end (see EAF A), characterized in that said inner and outer baffle elements are defined by a fluent and continuous curve between said distal and proximal ends (Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air valve of Lee so that the shape is such that the diameter of said outer baffle element decreases continuously from a first maximum predetermined value at said distal end to a first minimum predetermined value at an intermediate position between said distal end and said proximal end and that said inner and outer baffle elements are defined by a fluent and continuous curve between said distal and proximal ends. The resulting curved shape would be advantageous in reducing the turbulence of air passing through the valve and thereby reducing noise.
Regarding claim 6, Lee further teaches that said inner and outer baffle elements do not extend beyond the ventilation duct opening (paragraph [0015] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches that said inner baffle element is adapted to adjust the position of flow regulating means of the valve via axial rotation of said inner baffle element (Fig 1 flow regulating means being opening/closing plates 300; paragraph [0025]), wherein said position is configured to adjust the size of said airflow space between the flow regulating means and the inner and outer baffle elements (paragraph [0022], size of flow path is determined by position of flow regulating member 300; Fig3).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further teaches that the inner and outer baffle elements do not move between said distal and proximal ends, and/or wherein the inner baffle element does not tilt with respect to the surface (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches that the flow regulating means are closer to the distal end than to the proximal end (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee further teaches that said inner baffle element comprises an electrical body (Fig 6 sensor 20).
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches that the electrical body is selected from the group consisting of a temperature sensor, a volatile organic compounds sensor, a smoke detector, a moisture detector, ex and a motion detector (paragraph 0027] electrical body/sensor 20 may be a smoke detector).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Krisko and in further view of KR 20100067169 by Kim et al (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee, as modified by Krisko, teaches the air valve according to claim 13. See details in parent claims 1 and 13 rejections above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/Krisko does not teach that the electrical body is configured as a luminaire body that is adapted to receive and connect to a light source.
However, Kim teaches a similar air valve (Figs 1-2 air diffuser unit 100) having an inner baffle (Fig 2 air adjusting unit 130 comprising conical cone 131) and outer baffle (Fig 2 discharge grill 120) and an airflow space defined between said inner and outer baffle (Fig 2 discharge port 121 which is adjusted by adjusting unit 130). Kim further teaches that the inner baffle comprises an electrical body which is configured as a luminaire body that is adapted to receive and connect to a light source (Fig 3 air adjusting unit 130 comprises a lighting device 200 with socket 210 to receive lamp 230 inside of conical cone 131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air valve of Lee/Krisko such that the electrical body is configured as a luminaire body that is adapted to receive and connect to a light source. Since the air valve of Lee/Krisko is equipped with an electrical connection in the inner baffle element, configuring the connection to receive and connect to a light source would allow for lighting to be combined with the air valve. This would be advantageous since the combined lighting/ventilation would take up less space in the ceiling, reduce the number of required openings in the ceiling, and give a better appearance than separate lighting and ventilation units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 200322908, KR 930004190, and KR 200400719 and each disclose an air valve with inner and outer baffle elements having similar shape to the claimed invention.
US 5,295,905 issued to Simble discloses an air nozzle having curved inner and outer baffle elements, and notes the effect of the curvature on the direction of air flow from the nozzle.
KR 20170054358 by Kim teaches an air valve similar to that of Lee with an inner and outer baffle and a flow regulating means that moves vertically to open and close the valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762