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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS of 03/21/24 lists an NPL directed to a Written Opinion of the ISA for PCT/KR2022/18744. A copy of this document has been provided by the Applicant, but it is entirely in the Korean language.
Per MPEP 609.04(a), Section III, (emphasis added) “Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office.”
An English translation for the above Written Opinion should be provided as a concise explanation of this document’s relevance.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein the first airflow guide may include a guide plate configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the air outlet of the main body to the horizontal direction. The guide plate may surround the opening.” Claim 17 is directed to two sentences per the second sentence, “The guide plate may surround the opening.” MPEP 608.01(m) states each claim must the object of a single sentence.
The following amendment is suggested to overcome this objection: “wherein the first airflow guide s a guide plate configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the air outlet of the main body to the horizontal direction; the guide plate s the opening”, or any other amendment that approximately defines a single sentence with associated punctuation. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for being dependent from a rejected claim.
Examiner note: the above suggested amendment removes the term “may” since this term triggers a separate 112(b) rejection as noted below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-20 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 17 (lines 1 and 3), claim 18 (line 1), claim 19 (line 1), and claim 20 (line 1), the use of “may” renders the claims indefinite, since the plain and ordinary meaning of “may” means something being possible, or rather “may” is synonymous with “might.” Therefore, it’s unclear if the limitations of the aforementioned claims that are associated with “may” are actually required, or not.
For the purpose of examination and compact prosecution, these “may” limitations will be mapped to with the prior art. However, to overcome this rejection, the Applicant should amend these claims to remove the term “may” and positively recite these limitations; or remove the “may” limitations altogether; depending on the Applicant’s desired scope of the claim language.
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 1-3, 6-8, 13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR101161153), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Won (KR20190001345).
Regarding claim 1, Park (KR101116153) shows a diffuser comprising: a main body (30, Fig. 1) configured to be connected to an air duct (20, Fig. 1) installed on a ceiling (10, Fig. 1), and comprising
an air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1);
a first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) configured to move up and down with respect to the main body (Fig. 1/2) to open and close at least a portion of the air outlet (Fig. 1/2), and configured to guide an airflow discharged from the air outlet in response to the air outlet being opened (Fig. 2),
the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) comprising an opening (110, Fig. 2) configured to allow air to pass through the first airflow guide (Fig. 2); and
a second airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) configured to move up and down with the first airflow guide (Fig. 1/2) to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide (Fig. 1/2, ¶0020 - the second airflow guide is configured to move up and down with the first airflow guide to open and close the opening of the air airflow guide, where in Fig. 1 it can be seen from the lack of airflow through the air outlet and the opening, element 40, which comprises of elements 100 and 200, is in a closed position), and
comprising a downwardly inclined surface (Fig. 2 – the surface of element 200 is understood as being a downwardly inclined surface, as it inclines downwardly from a flat profile where element 100 and element 200 meet) configured to guide an airflow discharged from the opening in response to the opening being opened (Fig. 2).
However, Park lacks showing the second airflow guide being configured to move up and down with respect to the main body and the first airflow guide to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide.
Won (KR20190001345), a retractable diffuser, is in the same field of endeavor as Park which is a retractable diffuser.
Won teaches the second airflow guide (22, Fig. 4/5) configured to move up and down with respect to the main body (12, Fig. 4/5) and the first airflow guide (21, Fig. 4/5) to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide (Fig. 5, ¶0024 – the first airflow guide and the second airflow guide are independently controllable via the raising and lowering means 30, to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide, which the device can be seen in Fig. 5 as the opening created by the first airflow guide 21 when moved into a downward position in the open position, and moved upward in the closed position).
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 and second airflow guides of Park to incorporate the teachings of the first and second airflow guides of Won, which would provide a diffuser with sections that can allow the air to be supplied and exhausted to be controlled to the air volume and direction desired by the user depending on the situation, improving user comfort and health (¶0001).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide is configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the air outlet, to a horizontal direction (see Annotated Figure 1); and the second airflow guide is configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the opening of the first airflow guide, downward (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Park shows wherein in response to the air outlet being opened as the first airflow guide moves down from the main body, and a portion of the airflow discharged from the air outlet is guided through a first flow path formed between the air outlet and the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1); and another portion of the airflow discharged from the air outlet is guided through a second flow path (see Annotated Figure 1) formed between the opening of the first airflow guide and the downwardly inclined surface (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Park lacks showing the opening of the first airflow guide being opened as the second airflow guide moves down from the first airflow guide.
Won teaches the opening of the first airflow guide (Fig. 5) being opened as the second airflow guide moves down from the first airflow guide (Fig. 5 – as both elements 22 and 21 move down, the opening of the first airflow guide 21 that appears when the first airflow guide 21 is moved down from against the main body 12, opens the opening).
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 and second airflow guides of Park to incorporate the teachings of the first and second airflow guides of Won, which would provide a diffuser with sections that can allow the air to be supplied and exhausted to be controlled to the air volume and direction desired by the user depending on the situation, improving user comfort and health (¶0001).
Regarding claim 6, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide comprises a guide plate (100, Fig. 2) surrounding the opening (110, Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 1) and configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the air outlet of the main body, to a horizontal direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide further comprises a first protrusion (see Annotated Figure 1 – the first protrusion is a first protruding surface) formed on a lower surface of the guide plate adjacent to the opening (see Annotated Figure 1) and configured to guide the airflow discharged from the opening (see Annotated Figure 1 – the first protrusion is configured to guide the airflow discharged from the opening 110, as it guides air to and through the opening).
Regarding claim 8, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide further comprises a second protrusion (see Annotated Figure 1) formed on an upper surface of the guide plate adjacent to the opening (see Annotated Figure 1) an configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the air outlet of the main body, to the guide plate or the opening (Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide is rotatably coupled to the main body (Fig. 1/2, ¶0020 – element 40, of which comprises of the first airflow guide, is rotated upwards or downwards according to a rotational position with respect to the main body 30) and is configured to move up and down according to a rotational position with respect to the main body to open or close the air outlet of the main body (Fig. 1/2, ¶0020); and the second airflow guide is detachably coupled to the first airflow guide (Fig. 1/2 – elements 100 and 200 are separate structures adjoined at their edges, meaning, since they are separately joined for the device to be in the best use mode, the elements therefore can be detachably coupled, as even an element that break off another can be interpreted as being fundamentally detachably coupled), and in response to the first airflow guide rotating forward and backward in a state in which the second airflow guide is coupled to the first airflow guide, the second airflow guide is configured to rotate forward and backward to move up and down from the main body (Fig. 1/2 – element 40 comprises of the first and second airflow guides, of which both the first and second airflow guides are configured to rotate forward and backward to move up and down from the main body).
Regarding claim 15, Park shows wherein the downwardly inclined surface comprises an outer peripheral surface of a cone (Page 7, Line 2 – element 40, of which comprises of the surface of element 200 that is understood as being a downwardly inclined surface, as it inclines downwardly from a flat profile where element 100 and element 200 meet, is cone-shaped as it is an extraction cone).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR101161153), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Won (KR20190001345), in further view of Demia et al (FR3061272), hereinafter referred to as Demia.
Regarding claim 5, Park shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1.
However, Park lacks showing wherein in response to the air outlet of the main body being partially closed by the first airflow guide, and in response to the opening of the first airflow guide being opened as the second airflow guide moves down from the first airflow guide, the airflow discharged from the air outlet is guided through a flow path formed between the opening and the downwardly inclined surface.
Demia (FR3061272), a descending air vent, is in the same field of endeavor as Park which is a descending air vent.
Demia teaches wherein in response to the air outlet of the main body (see Annotated Figure 3) being partially closed by the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 3), and in response to the opening of the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 3) being opened as the second airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 3) moves down from the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 3 – as the second airflow guide moves down from where the first airflow guide is to occupy, the airflow is discharged from the air outlet is guided through a flow path formed between the opening and the downwardly inclined surface),
the airflow discharged from the air outlet is guided through a flow path formed between the opening and the downwardly inclined surface (see Annotated Figure 3).
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 airflow guide and the second airflow guide of Park to incorporate the teachings of the first airflow guide and second airflow guide of Demi, which would provide more inclined surfaces within the body to distribute air, with a design that modifies the cross section of the airflow passing through the mouth, reducing pressure loss (Page 3, Lines 3-7).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR101161153), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Won (KR20190001345), in further view of Kim (KR20100010441).
Regarding claim 9, Park shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the second airflow guide, the air outlet, and the main body and a rod (51, Fig. 1).
However, Park lacks showing wherein the second airflow guide comprises: a rod disposed on an upper part of the downwardly inclined surface and configured to move up and down inside the main body; and a rib-shaped bridge protruding from an outer peripheral surface of the rod and configured to guide an up and down movement of the airflow discharged from the air outlet of the main body.
Kim (KR20100010441), a motorized diffuser, is in the same field of endeavor as Park which is a motorized diffuser.
Kim teaches wherein the second airflow guide comprises: a rod (18, Fig. 1) disposed on an upper part of the downwardly inclined surface (11, Fig. 1 – a rod is disposed on an upper part of the downwardly inclined surface) and configured to move up and down inside the main body (Fig. 1/2); and a rib-shaped bridge (15, Fig. 1 – element 15 is interpreted as a rib-shaped bridge that extends from one side of the device to the other, like a rib bone) protruding from an outer peripheral surface of the rod (Fig. 1 – the rib-shaped bridge protrudes from an outer peripheral surface of the rod 18) and configured to guide an up and down movement of the airflow discharged from the air outlet of the main body (Fig. 2 – the rib-shaped bridge is configured to guide an up and down movement of the airflow discharged from the air outlet, seen in Fig. 2 as the space between element 14 and element 21 of the main body 22).
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 second airflow guide of Park to incorporate the teachings of the rod and rib-shaped bridge of Kim, which would provide a simple construction facilitating easy maintenance, a suspension means for the retractable device that can influence airflow for distribution downstream at the outlet, while also providing redundant rod means for better stability when in motion (Pages 6-7).
Regarding claim 10, Park shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 including the second airflow guide is supported by the first airflow guide (Fig. 1/2, see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Park lacks showing wherein the bridge comprises: an inner end provided to be in contact with the rod; and an outer end opposite to the inner end, wherein as the outer end of the bridge is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the opening.
Kim teaches wherein the bridge (15, Fig. 2) comprises: an inner end (see Annotated Figure 2) provided to be in contact with the rod (see Annotated Figure 2); and an outer end (see Annotated Figure 2) opposite to the inner end (see Annotated Figure 2), wherein as the outer end of the bridge is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the opening (see Annotated Figure 2).
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 device of Park to incorporate the teachings of the bridge of Kim, which would provide a simple construction facilitating easy maintenance, a suspension means for the retractable device that can influence airflow for distribution downstream at the outlet, while also providing redundant rod means for better stability when in motion (Pages 6-7).
Regarding claim 11, Park shows further comprising: a rod support (60, Fig. 1) comprising a through-hole through which the rod passes (Fig. 1 – the rod support 60 comprises of a through-hole which the rod 51), and provided to be in contact with an inner surface of the main body (30, Fig. 1) to allow the rod to be supported inside the main body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Park shows wherein the rod support (60, Fig. 1) comprises: a through-hole portion formed in a cylindrical shape (Fig. 1 – the through-hole portion is the portion of the rod support 60 that surrounds the through-hole, which is formed in a cylindrical shape to facilitate the rod 51) and comprising the through-hole (Fig. 1).
However, Park lacks showing a rib protruding from an outer peripheral surface of the through-hole to be in contact the inner surface of the main body and configured to guide an up and down movement of an airflow discharged from the air duct.
Kim teaches a rib (65, Fig. 1/2 – the rib 65 facilitates smoother movement of element 62 as it moves up and down) protruding from an outer peripheral surface of the through-hole (Fig. 1 – the through-hole can be seen as the space in which element 62 passes through element 15) to be in contact the inner surface of the main body (Fig. 1/2) and configured to guide an up and down movement of an airflow discharged from the air duct (Fig. 1/2 – the rib is configured to guide an up and down movement of an airflow discharged from the air duct).
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 device of Park to incorporate the teachings of the rib of Kim, which would provide a simple construction facilitating easy maintenance, a suspension means for the retractable device that can influence airflow for distribution downstream at the outlet, while also providing redundant rod means for better stability when in motion (Pages 6-7).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR101161153), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Won (KR20190001345), in further view of Jenkins (EP3078920).
Regarding claim 14, Park shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the first airflow guide.
However, Park lacks showing further comprising: a blocking plate extending along a circumferential direction of the first airflow guide and configured to block a portion of a flow path extending horizontally along an upper surface of the first airflow guide.
Jenkins (EP3078920), an air supply vent, is in the same field of endeavor as Park which is an air supply vent.
Jenkins teaches a blocking plate (see Annotated Figure 2) extending along a circumferential direction of the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 2) and configured to block a portion of a flow path extending horizontally along an upper surface of the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 2 – the blocking plate is configured to block a portion of a flow path extending horizontally along an upper surface of the first airflow guide, as the structure of the plate blocks a portion of a flow path in which the air extends horizontally within the device, along an upper surface of the first airflow guide).
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 airflow guide of Park to incorporate the teachings of the blocking plate of Jenkins, which would provide a means to block airflow in a set direction of the users preference without needing to readjust the blocking plate configuration during maintenance, saving time and cost on maintenance (¶0034, Lines 29-36).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR101161153), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Won (KR20190001345).
Regarding claim 16, Park (KR101116153) shows a diffuser comprising:
a main body (30, Fig. 1) configured to be connected to an air duct (20, Fig. 1) installed on a ceiling (10, Fig. 1), and including an air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1);
a first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) configured to move up and down with respect to the main body (Fig. 1/2) to open and close at least a portion of the air outlet (Fig. 1/2), and configured to guide an airflow, discharged from the air outlet, to a horizontal direction in response to the air outlet being opened (Fig. 2),
the first airflow guide including an opening (110, Fig. 2) provided to allow air to pass through the first airflow guide (Fig. 2 / see Annotated Figure 1 – the first airflow guide comprises of an opening 110 provided to allow air to pass through the first airflow guide); and
a second airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) coupled to the first airflow guide (Fig. 1/2) configured to move up and down in response to the first airflow guide moving up and down with respect to the main body (Fig. 1/2), and configured to guide an airflow, discharged from the opening in response to the opening being opened, downward (Fig. 1/2, ¶0020 - the second airflow guide is configured to guide an airflow, discharged from the opening in response to the opening being opened, in a downward direction, as element 40, which comprises of both the first and second airflow guides, is opened or closed upward or downward, where in Fig. 1 it can be seen from the lack of airflow through the air outlet and the opening, is in a closed position).
However, Park lacks showing a second airflow guide configured to move up and down with respect to the first airflow guide to be separated from the first airflow guide to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide.
Won (KR20190001345), a retractable diffuser, is in the same field of endeavor as Park which is a retractable diffuser.
Won teaches a second airflow guide (22, Fig. 4/5) configured to move up and down with respect to the first airflow guide (21, Fig. 4/5) to be separated from the first airflow guide (Fig. 4/5) to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide (Fig. 5, ¶0024 – the first airflow guide and the second airflow guide are independently controllable via the raising and lowering means 30, to open and close the opening of the first airflow guide, which can be seen in Fig. 5 as the opening created by the first airflow guide 21 when moved into a downward position).
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 and second airflow guides of Park to incorporate the teachings of the first and second airflow guides of Won, which would provide a diffuser with sections that can allow the air to be supplied and exhausted to be controlled to the air volume and direction desired by the user depending on the situation, improving user comfort and health (¶0001).
Regarding claim 17, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide may include a guide plate (100, Fig. 1) configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the air outlet of the main body to the horizontal direction (Fig. 1). The guide plate may surround the opening (Fig. 1 – the guide plate 100 surrounds the opening on both sides of the opening 110).
Regarding claim 18, Park shows wherein the first airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) may include a protrusion (see Annotated Figure 1) protruding convexly from upper and lower surfaces of the guide plate (100, Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 1 – the guide plate 100 of the first airflow guide includes a protrusion protruding convexly from upper and lower surfaces of the guide plate) adjacent to the opening (110, Fig. 1/2) and configured to guide the airflow discharged from the air outlet and the airflow discharged from the opening (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Park shows wherein the second airflow guide may include a cone-shaped downwardly inclined surface (Page 7, Line 2 – element 40, of which comprises of the surface of element 200 that is understood as being a downwardly inclined surface, as it inclines downwardly from a flat profile where element 100 and element 200 meet, is cone-shaped as it is an extraction cone) configured to guide the airflow, discharged from the opening, downward (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Park shows wherein the downwardly inclined surface of the second airflow guide (see Annotated Figure 1) may be coupled to or separated from an inner peripheral surface of the protrusion of the first airflow guide (Fig. 1/2 – element 100 and 200 are coupled together at an inner peripheral surface of the protrusion of the first airflow guide at each of the elements corners, and via a post that extends between the two elements).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record is Park (KR101161153), and while this reference does disclose the air outlet, the opening, the, first airflow guide and the second airflow guide in its manner, however this reference does not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of showing that in a response to the air outlet being opened as a result of the first airflow guide being moved down from the main body the second airflow guide is closed, as while the first and second air guides move together, when the first airflow guide is lowered, the second airflow guide cannot physically be closed. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and teach away from the mechanical continuity of Park by structurally modifying out of its best mode use.
Other notable prior art:
Won (KR20190001345)
Jenkins (EP3078920)
Demia et al (FR3061272)
Yoon (KR20120063986)
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 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights