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 Objections
Claims 2-10 & 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The listed claims are dependent claims that ultimately depend from a claim which establishes antecedent basis for the invention itself, by for example, claiming in claim 1 a computer-implemented method controlling ventilation in an closed space, to which every dependent claim should then refer to the previously established invention by stating “The computer (The Applicant should also be consistent with the usage of the dash between these two words) implemented method as claimed in claim X”. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim.
Claims 5 & 6 both recites the limitation of “the temperature sensor” of which, with antecedent basis for “the at least one temperature senor”, being found in claim 1 above. For example, claims 7-8 both adhere to this understanding from the Applicant. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites a limitation of “one or more sensor”, of which stating “one or more” implies a plurality; otherwise the Applicant could have just stated “a sensor” which is positively singular. To obviate the objection, even if the Applicant one claims one single sensor, the Examiner would suggest changing “sensor” to “sensors” to put it in line with the statement of “one or more”. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “the cooker hoods comprising an extractor fan and temperature sensor”, of which claim 16 depends from claim 11 of which establishes “a temperature sensor”; to obviate the objection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the limitation to reflect the antecedent basis found in claim 11 with “the temperature sensor” in claim 16. 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 11-16 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 6 recites the limitation “the method further comprising the steps of receiving, at the controller, input relating to temperature from the temperature sensor in the extraction hood and the temperature sensor spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance”, which is unclear as claim 6 depends from claim 5 which establishes “the temperature sensor is located in the vicinity of an extraction hood”, of which the temperature sensor being located in the vicinity of an extraction hood is factually not the same as the previously established temperature sensor being “in the vicinity of” an extraction hood, instead of being located within the extraction hood. For examination purposes it will be interpreted, as established in claim 5 from which claim 6 depends from, that the limitation reads “the method further comprising the steps of receiving, at the controller, input relating to temperature from the temperature sensor in the vicinity of the extraction hood and the temperature sensor spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of “a further temperature sensor is located spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance” in line 2, to then recite limitations of “input relating to temperature from the temperature sensor in the extraction hood and the temperature sensor spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance”, which is unclear, from the nomenclature of both temperature sensors, which sensor is being invoked at any point. To obviate the rejection the Examiner would suggest, since the Applicant establishes this in line 2 of the same claim, that the sensor that is located spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance should be statutorily named “the further temperature sensor”, rendering the only other invoked sensor being the temperature sensor that is located within the vicinity of the hood, as established in claim 5, from which claim 6 ultimately depends from.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an average desired speed of each extractor fan”, which “each extractor fan” has no antecedent basis in the claims, as claim 1, from which claim 8 depends from, only establishes “at least one extractor fan”, and while the Applicant may claim a plurality of extractor fans, this fundamentally must be established first, instead of instantly invoking a plurality of such elements. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as a single extractor fan or more than one can be understood from the limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the processor controls the temperature and/or air pressure in the closed space by controlling the speed of the extractor fan, based on input from the or each sensor and the processor controls the rate of intake of air from the air intake based on the speed of the or each extractor fan.”, of which the statement of “based on input from the or each sensor” is interpreted by the Examiner to be an incomplete statement, with “based on the input from the X or each sensor” being how the Examiner understands the other element involved in an “or” statement seems to be left out of the claim language, leaving the Examiner to be unclear about how the claimed elements are related to each other. Additionally this same issue occurs again in the same claim in line 10. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as the only fully stated option being the only selectable option, as it is the only complete option, that of the limitation “wherein the processor controls the temperature and/or air pressure in the closed space by controlling the speed of the extractor fan, based on input from
All dependent claims are similarly rejected for being dependent form a rejected claim.
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 1-2 & 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burdett et al (US 8,734,210), hereinafter referred to as Burdett.
Regarding claim 1, Burdett (US 8,734,210) shows a computer-implemented method of controlling ventilation in a closed space, the method comprising:
receiving, at a controller (220, Fig. 2A) comprising a processor (Col. 4, Lines 12-14 - element 220 may consist of the Kontar MC8 process controller), from at least one sensor (228, Fig. 2A) consisting of a temperature sensor (228, Fig. 2A – element 228 is a temperature sensor), input relating to temperature (Col. 5, Lines 1-3);
calculating, using the processor, the desired speed of at least one extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A) based upon the input from the at least one temperature sensor (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – the processor calculates the desired speed of at least one extractor fan 210 based upon the input from the at least one temperature sensor 228);
transmitting from the controller to the extractor fan a signal to operate the at least one extractor fan at the desired speed (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – the controller transmits to the extractor fan a signal to operate the at least one extractor fan);
calculating, using the processor, the desired intake of air (212, Fig. 2A) from at least one air intake based upon the speed of the at least one extractor fans (Col. 6, Lines 5-20 – the rate of the air intake 212 is set to be a relative percentage of the speed of the at least one extractor fan 210, as the system can set the fan to be the same speed, or have the fans at different speed to create a positive to negative pressure); and
transmitting from the controller to the air intake a signal to operate the at least one air intake for the desired intake of air (Col. 6, Lines 5-20).
Regarding claim 2, Burdett shows wherein the rate of air intake is a set ratio of the speed of the at least one extractor fan (Col. 6, Lines 5-9 – the rate of air intake from the fan 212 may be set as a ratio of the speed to match the speed of the at least one extractor fan 210, that ratio being 1:1).
Regarding claim 4, Burdett shows wherein the air intake is at least one of an intake fan (212, Fig. 2A – element 212 is a supply fan) or an adjustable louvre.
Regarding claim 5, Burdett shows wherein the temperature sensor (228, Fig. 2A) is located in the vicinity of an extraction hood disposed above at least one cooking appliance (Fig. 2A – the at least one temperature sensor 228 is located in the vicinity of an extraction hood 116, of which the extraction hood is disposed above the at least one cooking appliance 114) for sensing the temperature as a result of the at least one cooking appliance operating (Fig. 2A, Col. 5, Lines 1-3 – the at least one temperature sensor 228 is for sensing the temperature as a result of the at least one cooking appliance 114 operating the in the kitchen).
Regarding claim 6, Burdett shows wherein a further temperature sensor (230, Col, 9, Lines 4-5, Fig. 2A/3B – the system comprises of sensors 230 which can be temperature sensors 230) is located spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance so as to measure ambient temperature in the closed space (Fig. 2A/3B – the further temperature sensor 230 is located in the extraction hood 116 that is spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance 114, so as to measure ambient temperature in the closed space, that is the part of the closed space in the room, above the cooking appliance),
the method further comprising the steps of receiving, at the controller, input relating to temperature from the temperature sensor in the extraction hood (228, Fig. 2A; see 112(b) rejection above) and the temperature sensor spaced apart from the at least one cooking appliance (230 Fig. 3B, Col. 5, Lines 1-6;see 112(b) rejection above); and
calculating, using the processor (Col. 4, Lines 12-14 - element 220 may consist of the Kontar MC8 process controller), a temperature difference between the ambient temperature and temperature in the extraction hood (Fig. 2A/3B, Col. 5, Lines 1-9 – the processor calculates a temperature difference between the ambient temperature from temp 228 and the temperature in the extraction hood with temperature sensor 230), and,
if the temperature difference is above a set threshold, transmitting from the controller to the extractor fan a signal to power the at least one extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A) to the desired speed (Col. 5, Lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 7, Burdett shows comprising the further steps of:
receiving, at the controller, input relating to temperature from the at least one temperature sensor (228, Fig. 2A) over time (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – the controller 220 receives temperature input across a set period of time from the temperature sensor 228); and
calculating, using the processor (Col. 4, Lines 12-14 - element 220 may consist of the Kontar MC8 process controller), a rate of change of temperature (Col. 5, Lines 1-22), and,
if the rate of change of temperature is above a set threshold (predetermined amount), transmitting from the controller to the extractor fan a signal to power the at least one extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A) to the desired speed (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – as a result of the temperature being above a predetermined amount, the controller signals the extractor fan 210 to the desired increased speed).
Regarding claim 8, Burdett shows comprising the further steps of:
receiving at the controller, from the at least one temperature sensor (228, Fig. 2A), input relating to temperature over a set period of time (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – the controller 220 receives temperature input across a set period of time from the temperature sensor 228);
calculating, at the processor (Col. 4, Lines 12-14 - element 220 may consist of the Kontar MC8 process controller), an average desired speed of each extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A - Col. 2, Lines 55-56 – the kitchen can comprise of one or more pieces of cooking equipment, each with components shown as in Fig. 2A, which would include another extractor fan; see 112(b) rejection above) and/or rate of air intake, over the set period of time (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – the controller 220 receives temperature input across a set period of time from the temperature sensor 228, to calculate an average desired speed of each extractor fan 210, by speeding up the fan over a period of time until the environmental parameters are met);
wherein the controller transmits to the extractor fan the desired speed of extractor fan and/or to the air intake the desired rate of intake of air after the set period of time (Col. 5, Lines 1-22 – the controller 220 receives temperature input across a set period of time from the temperature sensor 228, to calculate an average desired speed of each extractor fan 210, by speeding up the fan over a period of time until the environmental parameters are met).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al (US 8,734,210), hereinafter referred to as Burdett.
Regarding claim 3, Burdett shows wherein the rate of air intake (212, Fig. 2A) is set at a relative % of the speed of the at least one extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A, Col. 6, Lines 5-20 – the rate of the air intake 212 is set to be a relative percentage of the speed of the at least one extractor fan 210, as the system can set the fan to be the same speed, or have the fans at different speed to create a positive to negative pressure).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation “wherein the rate of air intake is set at 10-90% of the speed of the at least one extractor fan”. The courts have held that where general condition of claims is disposed in the Burdett above which shows the rate of air intake is set at a relative % of the speed of the at least one extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A, Col. 6, Lines 5-20 – the rate of the air intake 212 is set to be a relative percentage of the speed of the at least one extractor fan 210, as the system can set the fan to be the same speed, or have the fans at different speed to create a positive to negative pressure). It is not inventive to discover the 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 the speed of the air intake relative to the speed of the extractor fan of Burdett for the predictable benefit of being able to create a positive, negative, or even states of pressure (Col. 6, Lines 5-20).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al (US 8,734,210), hereinafter referred to as Burdett, in further view of Lee et al (WO/2016148507), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Burdett shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the air intake.
However, Burdett lacks showing comprising the following further steps: transmitting to the air intake, wherein the air intake is a louvre comprising adjustable slats, a desired angle of slat corresponding to the desired intake of air.
Lee (WO/2016148507), an air supply system for a room, is in the same field of endeavor as Burdett which is an air supply system for a room.
Lee teaches comprising the following further steps:
transmitting to the air intake (Page 12, Lines 8-12), wherein the air intake is a louvre comprising adjustable slats (180, Fig. 4, Page 12, Lines 8-12 – the louver comprises of adjustable slats 180), a desired angle of slat corresponding to the desired intake of air (Page 12, Lines 8-12 – the controller 155 transmits a desired angle of slat corresponding to the desired intake of air set by the user, as the angle of the slat will adjust the direction of the desired intake of air).
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 air intake of Burdett to incorporate the teachings of the air intake and the adjustable slats of Lee, which would provide a more convenient means to adjust the angle of airflow into the room by using an adjustable louver with a remote user control (Page 2, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Burdett shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 except wherein the slats are adjustable between two or more pre-set positions.
Lee teaches wherein the slats are adjustable between two or more pre-set positions (Page 12, Lines 4-7 – the slats are adjustable at least between two or more pre-set positions of any difference of angle of the slats, but is also at least adjustable between two or more pre-set positions with the open and closed positions).
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 air intake of Burdett to incorporate the teachings of the air intake and the adjustable slats of Lee, which would provide a more convenient means to adjust the angle of airflow into the room by using an adjustable louver with a remote user control (Page 2, Lines 1-4).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al (US 8,734,210), hereinafter referred to as Burdett, in view of Melink et al (US 9,810,437), hereinafter referred to as Melink.
Regarding claim 17, Burdett shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including a controller comprising instructions, which when executed by a computer (Fig. 2A, Col. 4, Lines 12-29 – the computer, that of the controller 220, executes instructions), cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (Col. 6, Lines 24-30).
However, Burdett lacks showing a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Melink (US 9,810,437), a ventilation system for a kitchen, is in the same field of endeavor as Burdett which is a ventilation system for a kitchen.
Melink teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (132, Fig. 2, Col. 10, Lines 54-65 – the non-transitory computer readable storage medium 132 can comprise of software, firmware, hardware, or any combination between).
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 controller of Burdett to incorporate the teachings of the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Melink, which would provide a control module in communication with the touchscreen interface so as to enable the user to interact with the control module and the information pertaining to the status and operation of the system within (Col. 11, Lines 28-34).
Claims 11-14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burdett et al (US 8,734,210), hereinafter referred to as Burdett.
Regarding claim 11, Burdett (US 8,734,210) shows a ventilation demand control system for use in a closed space comprising:
one or more sensor (228/230, Fig. 2A/3B, Col, 9, Lines 4-5 – the system comprises of one or more sensors 228 and sensors 230 which can be temperature sensors 230; both of which are temperature sensors) consisting of a temperature sensor (228/230, Col, 9, Lines 4-5 – the system comprises of one or more sensors 228 and sensors 230 which can be temperature sensors 230; both of which are temperature sensors);
a controller (220, Fig. 2A) comprising a processor (Col. 4, Lines 12-14 - element 280 may consist of the Kontar MC8 process controller);
at least one extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A);
at least one air intake (212, Fig. 2A);
wherein the processor controls the temperature and/or air pressure in the closed space by controlling the speed of the extractor fan (Col. 5, Lines 1-22), based on input from the or each sensor (Col. 5, Lines 1-3) and the processor controls the rate of intake of air from the air intake based on the speed of the or each extractor fan (Col. 5, Lines 18-22 – if the temperature in the kitchen 102, sensed by the temperature sensor 288, the controller 220 can adjust the speed of the extractor fan 210).
Regarding claim 12, Burdett shows wherein the closed space (102, Fig. 1) comprises one or more cooking area (102, Fig. 1 – element 102 is a kitchen) comprising one or more cooking appliance (114, Fig. 2A, Col. 2, Lines 55-56 – the kitchen can comprise of one or more pieces of cooking equipment), an extractor hood (116, Fig. 2A) comprising an extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A) disposed above each cooking area (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 13, Burdett shows wherein the temperature sensor (230, Fig. 2A/3B) is disposed in the extractor hood (Fig. 2A/Col, 9, Lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 14, Burdett shows wherein the controller (220, Fig. 2A) is disposed within a sealed housing (Fig. 2A – the controller 220 is disposed within a sealed housing, as it is sealed to only let the wires for communication between the various components of the system).
Regarding claim 16, Burdett shows comprising three cooking appliances (114, Fig. 2A, Col. 2, Lines 55-56 – the kitchen can comprise of one or more pieces of cooking equipment, of which there are three cooking appliances, each with components shown as in Fig. 2A), each with a cooker hood (116, Fig. 2A) disposed above each cooking appliance (Fig. 2A – each of the three cooking appliances comprise of the components at least shown in Fig. 2A), the cooker hoods comprising an extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A) and temperature sensor (Col, 4, Lines 16-18), and wherein each extractor fan (210, Fig. 2A) is individually controllable by the controller (Fig. 2A - collectively or independently, proof of operation of a single unit in the Figures establishes the extractor fan being individually controllable by the controller, of which, each instance of a piece of cooking equipment is also capable of being part of multiple pieces of cooking equipment, of which the Examiner establishes above, can comprise of their own components as pictured in Fig. 2A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdett et al (US 8,734,210), hereinafter referred to as Burdett, in view of Melink et al (US 9,810,437), hereinafter referred to as Melink.
Regarding claim 15, Burdett shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 14 including the sealed housing comprises of a local or remote interface (Col. 10, Lines 37-40).
However, Burdett lacks showing that the local or remote interface comprises of a touchscreen.
Melink (US 9,810,437), a ventilation system for a kitchen, is in the same field of endeavor as Burdett which is a ventilation system for a kitchen.
Melink teaches wherein the housing (134, Fig. 2) comprises a touchscreen (Col. 11, Lines 28-34 – the user interface comprises of a touch screen).
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 sealed housing of Burdett to incorporate the teachings of the touchscreen of Melink, which would provide a control module in communication with the touchscreen interface so as to enable the user to interact with the control module and the information pertaining to the status and operation of the system within (Col. 11, Lines 28-34).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related ventilation demand control:
Berkenkoetter (US 2008/0066661)
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
Prosecution Insights