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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains two transitional phrases, “consisting of” in line 1 and “being characterized in that it comprises” in lines 6-7, and it is not clear if applicant intends to rely upon a closed or open transitional phrase. The remaining claims depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claimed apparatus will be considered to be a module comprising a joint of deformable material and a quadrangular body formed by the specific panels recited.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 10976070 to Albers (Albers).
With regard to claim 1, Albers discloses a module for air circulation ducts (Albers, title, abstract), of the type consisting of a quadrangular body formed by panels mutually assembled at their longitudinal edges (in view of the 112 rejection above, the “consisting of” portion of the preamble is considered to describe the field of intended use of ventilation ducts having a quadrangular cross section) and provided with sections for air transit between adjacent modules (shown in fig. 16);
said panels presenting a sandwich-type monolithic structure (18, fig. 3, column 5, lines 47-54), having a central body made of heat-insulating material (column 5, lines 66-67), coated on the external surfaces with a layer of protective stiffening material (column 6, lines 23-25 and 29-32);
said module being characterized in that it comprises a joint of deformable material (110, fig. 7, column 10, lines 22-24) for dimensional compensation of the coupling between two adjacent modules (column 10, lines 25-26).
With regard to claim 2, Albers discloses a module according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that said panels (6) are coupled at said longitudinal edges by means of an interlocking coupling (column 10, lines 54-59).
With regard to claim 3, Albers discloses a module according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is also provided with profiles, applied to the module at its external perimeter edges (62, fig. 3, column 8, lines 40-42).
With regard to claim 4, Albers discloses the module according to claim 3 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is provided with brackets equipped with tabs or flaps (column 6, lines 63-67) for mutual fixing between adjacent modules having the same section (shown in fig. 16).
With regard to claim 5, Albers discloses the module according to claim 3 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is provided with “L” shaped brackets (88, fig. 5, column 9, lines 55-57) for mutual fixing between adjacent modules having different sections (figs. 5-7).
With regard to claim 6, Albers discloses the module according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is provided with internal deflectors for conveying the air in a predetermined direction (as shown in fig. 20, the module can be configured such that inner and outer curved walls convey the air through a direction change of 90 degrees which is considered to be a predetermined direction).
With regard to claim 8, Albers discloses the module according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it comprises a single or multiple sub-horizontal or sub-vertical internal partition (302, fig. 25) forming channels for independent air passage (the two channels are shown in fig. 25 to the right and left of the support rod 302 that creates an internal partition of the internal conduit).
With regard to claim 9, Albers discloses the module according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is provided with elements (248, fig. 22, column 12, lines 14-16) for controlling the passage of air from said sections (column 12, lines 11-19)
With regard to claim 11, Albers discloses a duct for air circulation (column 1, lines 24-29), characterized in that it consists of at least one module according to claim 1 (as set forth above).
With regard to claim 12, Albers discloses the duct according to claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is provided with at least one air inlet/outlet section (as shown in fig. 22).
With regard to claim 14, Albers discloses the duct according to claim 11 as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it consists of a plurality of modules with different dimensions (220/230, figs. 19 and 20).
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.
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) 7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 10976070 to Albers (Albers) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0013251 A1 to Waelde et al. (Waelde).
With regard to claims 7, 10 and 13, Albers discloses the module according to claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose characterized in that it is provided with a drain on the bottom panel, wherein said drain is formed by a sleeve closed by a plug (claim 7), and that it is provided with an inspection door (claim 10), it also comprises an air generator (claim 13).
Waelde discloses an HVAC ductwork system (Waelde, abstract, title), an analogous field of endeavor to Albers.
Waelde further discloses an access opening (102, fig. 1, paragraph 0015) and an air generator (106, fig. 1, paragraph 0015). The access opening of Waelde includes an access frame (206, fig. 2B, paragraph 0018) and a panel (208, fig. 2B, paragraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the system of Albers with an access opening including a frame and a slidable panel in order to provide access for cleaning and maintenance of the coil of the air generator of the HVAC system such as the one described by Waelde at paragraph 0017 when describing the forced air system and the access panel. The access panel and frame are capable of performing the function of providing a drain formed by a sleeve (the frame206) and a plug (the panel 208).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs 2003/0010392, 2004/0238059, 2008/0200111, 2018/0112887, 2019/0224937, 2020/0011564, 3537485 and 9371941 disclose ducts having some but not all of the features of the disclosed system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights