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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, as non-limiting examples, reference character “228” has been used to designate both mounts and inlet. Similarly, as a non-limiting example, reference character “306” has been used to designate both a motor and a fan. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites wherein the grommet is positioned between the grommet and the compartment which renders claim 10 indefinite. Claim 10 is interpreted such that the grommet is positioned between the airflow shroud and the compartment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ottersten (WO 2021/194409).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Figs. 1b, 2a-2b, 3c Ottersten teaches an air handler system 101a comprising: a housing 101 comprising an inlet 103a and an outlet 103b and at least one air channel 103 positioned between the inlet and the outlet, the housing having a longitudinal axis (not labeled); a plurality of coils 104b disposed within the housing and configured to receive a first fluid and exchange thermal energy with the first fluid; and a fan assembly disposed within the housing, the fan assembly comprising: a fan 1 comprising a fan housing 2-3 including a front-side (e.g. the side at housing plate 2) and a backside (e.g. the side at housing plate 3) and fan blades 4 disposed within the fan housing, the fan blades configured to receive an airflow in a first direction (e.g. a direction perpendicular to axis A) and redirect at least a portion of the airflow to a second direction (e.g. a direction parallel to axis A) at least partially perpendicular to the first direction; a motor in mechanical communication with the fan blades of the fan and configured to cause the fan blades to rotate with respect to the housing, the motor coupled to the backside of the fan housing (e.g. as said fan assembly comprises a stator 5, and therefore must comprise a motor, not labeled); a fan controller 105 configured to control operation of the motor; and a fan enclosure 54 coupled to the backside of the fan and configured to house the motor and the fan controller (e.g. capable of housing the motor and the fan controller), wherein the fan assembly together with the at least one air channel is configured to cause the airflow to enter the inlet of the housing, traverse the plurality of coils, transition from the first direction to the second direction, and exit the outlet of the housing, the first direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing (see Fig. 3c).
Regarding claim 6,
Ottersten teaches wherein the fan is a backwards curved centrifugal fan (see Technical field, Disclosure of the invention, Figs. 4b-4d)
Regarding claim 7,
Ottersten teaches wherein the fan is a mixed flow fan (see Technical field).
Regarding claim 9,
Ottersten teaches one or more of a second plurality of coils configured to receive the first fluid, a compressor, or an expansion valve (e.g. wherein a HVAC system or heat pump is known to comprise said elements).
Regarding claims 11-13, 17-18, 20,
The subject matter of claims 11-13, 17-18, 20 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, 10 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1, 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten in view of Heli (US 20150219117).
Regarding claim 2,
Ottersten does not teach wherein, coupled to the fan enclosure, one or more of an electric heating system or a hydronic heating system configured to transfer thermal energy to the airflow in the housing.
Heli, directed to a fan enclosure, teaches coupled to the fan enclosure, one or more of an electric heating system or a hydronic heating system (e.g. resistive heaters, see par. 2; or conductive heating layer 3) configured to transfer thermal energy to the airflow in a housing (see abstract, pars. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Ottersten by Heli with the motivation of preventing undesirable low temperatures in the fan assembly or to optionally heat the air flowing through said fan (see Heli par. 2).
Regarding claim 4,
Ottersten as modified above teaches wherein the electric heating system comprises at least one electric resistive heating element having an annular shape.
Regarding claims 15-16,
The subject matter of claims 15-16 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 4 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten in view of Heli and Higuchi (CN 114135501).
Regarding claim 3,
Ottersten does not teach wherein the fan enclosure comprises one or more of thermal insulation or electric insulation.
Higuchi, directed to a centrifugal fan assembly, teaches wherein a fan enclosure comprises one or more of thermal insulation or electric insulation (e.g. insulation 42b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Ottersten by Higuchi with the motivation of preventing undesirable thermal transfer within the fan enclosure.
Regarding claim 5,
Ottersten as modified above teaches wherein the fan enclosure is metallic (see Higuchi, par. 30) and a connection between the electric heating system and the fan enclosure is thermally insulated (e.g. via insulation 42b).
Regarding claim 14,
The subject matter of claim 14 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 3 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten.
Regarding claims 8, 19
Ottersten does not teach a remote controller configured to cause the fan controller to adjust operation of the motor, wherein the fan controller is in wired communication with the motor, but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, remote controllers in wired communication with a motor would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten in view of Murakami (JP 2005186911).
Regarding claim 10,
Ottersten teaches an airflow shroud (not labeled, see Fig. 3c) connected to the housing and the fan assembly, the airflow shroud configured to direct airflow from the fan to the outlet of the housing, but does not teach a grommet, a compartment comprising a protection plate, and an airflow shroud connected to the housing and the fan assembly via the compartment, the airflow shroud configured to direct airflow from the fan to the outlet of the housing, wherein the grommet is positioned between the grommet and the compartment.
Murakami, directed to a fan mounting structure, teaches a grommet 10, a compartment 7 comprising a protection plate, and an airflow shroud 8 connected to a housing and a fan assembly via the compartment, the airflow shroud configured to direct airflow from the fan to the outlet of the housing, wherein the grommet 10 is positioned between the grommet and the compartment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Ottersten by Murakami with the motivation of damping sound and vibrations and preventing leaking of air (see Murakami pars. 8-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LOERCHER, Lin teaches an electronic housing for controllers and motors in a radial fan assembly. Mecozzi teaches a radial fan assembly wherein air flows around a motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763