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 1-15 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 recites “interior spaces” twice. It’s not clear as to if they refer to the same interior spaces. Examiner interprets that they are the same structure for examining purpose.
Claim 1 recites “circulating air module with fresh air intake” and “the circulating air module comprises...a fresh air inlet”. It is unclear as to if the fresh air intake is the same structure as the fresh air inlet. For examining purpose, examiner interpret that fresh air intake is the same structure as the fresh air inlet, and Examiner recommend applicant to delete “fresh air intake”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "particularly" 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).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the radial inside air fans" in last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the plurality of radial inside air fans”. NOTE: Claim 9 has the same limitation and requires the same change.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the flow duct" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the flow channel”.
Claim 11 recites “the inside air radial fan(s)” in line 3. First, there’s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Secondly, it’s not clear how many inside air fans are provided in the system. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the inside air fan”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the radial inside air fan or fans" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the inside air fan”.
Claim 1 recites “a housing with a fresh air inlet”. However claim 12 recites “the fresh air inlet is arranged outside the housing” (which sounds like the fresh air inlet is not part of the housing). It’s not clear how the same air inlet can be outside the housing and be inside or part of the housing at the same time.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the radial inside air fan or fans" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the inside air fan”.
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 1-7, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drees (US 20210207839) in view of Andersson (US 20170003036).
Regarding claim 1, Drees teaches a system “for the climate-control of interior spaces of a building” (This is intended use) comprising
an exhaust air channel (duct portion between damper 316 to outlet where exhaust air 322 is shown, fig 3), through which exhaust air can be guided out of at least one of the interior spaces, and
wherein one or more of the interior spaces are provided with a circulating air module with a fresh air inlet (inlet of duct 312 for outside air 314, fig 3), which is connected to a fluid circuit (passages for air to flow through heat exchanger 334) of a climate-control device (heat exchanger 334),
wherein the circulating air module comprises:
- a housing (combination of ducts 308 and 312 along with the vertical duct that connects 308+312, fig 3) with the fresh air inlet, which is designed such that fresh air can flow into the housing, and with an inside air inlet opening (an opening of housing for supply air 310) and an inside air outlet opening (opening of 308 that receives return air 304),
- a heat exchanger (334, fig 3) arranged in the housing;
- an inside air fan (338, fig 3) arranged in the housing, with which inside air flowing in through the inside air inlet opening as circulating air can be conveyed through the heat exchanger,
wherein the circulating air module is designed such that “the fresh air is supplied to the circulating air in the housing and the circulating air flows out of the inside air outlet opening as supply air along with the added fresh air” (The system is capable of performing this function).
Drees fails to teach a heat recovery device, which is designed to obtain thermal energy from the exhaust air.
Andersson teaches a heat recovery device (6, fig 1) designed to obtain thermal energy from the exhaust air (15, fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drees as taught by Andersson by incorporating a heat pump downstream or at the exit of the exhaust air outlet in order to harvest heat energy in the exhaust air and use it for other purpose, such as preheating outside fresh air in winter time before fresh air flows into the system.
Regarding claim 2, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the heat recovery device “is designed to provide heated fresh air for the circulating air module” (This is intended function. The combination of prior arts shows that the system is capable of performing this function).
Regarding claim 3, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the heat recovery device “is designed to heat water and provide it the water as hot water” (This is intended function. The combination of prior arts shows that the system is capable of performing this function).
Regarding claim 4, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the heat recovery device comprises the climate-control device (Andersson’s heat recovery device 6 is a heat pump) so that the recovered heat is used for air-conditioning the interior spaces.
Regarding claim 5, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the heat recovery device is designed as a heat pump (Andersson’s heat recovery device 6 is a heat pump).
Regarding claim 6, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the heat recovery device is designed to recover thermal energy also from waste water and/or outside air (See Andersson fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the circulating air module is designed so that “the fresh air can be sucked through the heat exchanger and mixes with the circulating air in the heat exchanger and/or inside air fan” (The system of Drees is capable of performing this function).
Regarding claim 10, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the circulating air module comprises a flow channel (duct portion that holds damper 320 in Drees fig 3) designed to guide the fresh air to the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 11, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the flow channel extends between the heat exchanger, through which the fresh air can be drawn with the inside air radial fan, and a longitudinal side (left side of Dree fig 3) of the housing.
Regarding claim 13, Drees in view of Andersson teaches the inside air fan in the circulating air module is modularly designed (The fan Drees is designed modularly with the system).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drees (US 20210207839) in view of Andersson (US 20170003036), and further in view of Chen (US 20210199315).
Regarding claim 14, Drees in view of Andersson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach a mounting frame into which the circulating air module can be inserted and which can be installed in a ceiling area or attached to a ceiling or which can be inserted into a building wall of an interior space or attached to the building wall of the interior space.
Chen teaches a mounting frame (housing frame 20, fig 20) into a circulation air module (40, fig 20) can be inserted and be attached to a wall (See fig 20, the frame supports the air module 40 and is mounted to a wall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drees in view of Andersson as taught by Chen by using a mounting frame to hold the circulating air module in order to support and attached the system to the building wall.
Regarding claim 15, Drees in view of Andersson, Chen teaches the mounting frame or the fresh air inlet of the circulating air module “can be coupled to a fresh air duct, via which fresh air can be guided to the circulating air module” (This is intended function. A fresh air duct isn’t positively recited to be part of the system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571)272-9059. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights