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 .
Status of Application/Claims
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on June 5,2024. As directed by the amendment claims 1-10 have been cancelled and new claims 11-30 have been added. Claims 11-30 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 22, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, in line 14-15, “with respect to the radial direction orthogonal to the first direction.” It is suggested that, for better clarity, the limitation should read “with respect to the radial direction, wherein the radial direction is orthogonal to the first direction.”
Claim 15 recites “the other side in the first direction”. “The other side” is understood to mean a side opposite to the open one side (recited in parent claim 1) in the first direction. It is suggested that the limitation should read “a side opposite the open one side in the first direction.”
Claim 22 also recites the limitation “the other side in the first direction,” but it is suggested that it should read ““a side opposite the open one side in the first direction.”
In claim 28 line 7, “the first direction” should read “a first direction”.
Claim 28 also recites the limitation “with respect to the radial direction orthogonal to the first direction,” but it is suggested that it should read “with respect to the radial direction, wherein the radial direction is orthogonal to the first direction.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “flow guide part” in claims 28 and 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein the shroud further includes a ring- shaped support wing protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the shroud in a centrifugal direction that is a direction facing the inside in the radial direction, and wherein a location of the filter in the first direction is restricted by the support wing” (emphasis added). Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not disclose “a ring- shaped support wing protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the shroud in a centrifugal direction that is a direction facing the inside in the radial direction.” Figures 6, 7, 8, and 10 of Applicant’s specification show a support wing 247 protruding from an inner surface of the orifice shell 240, rather than protruding from the outer surface of the shroud as claimed. Applicant’s specification, in paragraph [0233] recites “the shroud 220 may further include support wings 247. The support wing 247 may protrude from the inner skirt portion 242 in a centripetal direction that is inward in the radial direction.” However, the cited inner skirt portion 242 is part of the orifice shell 240 and not part of the shroud 220. Furthermore, it is not clear how the claimed “ring- shaped support wing protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the shroud in a centrifugal direction” would function as claimed. Since this limitation was not conveyed in the original disclosure, this is considered new matter and is rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 26 is also rejected because it depends from and includes the limitations of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 19, 25, 27, and 30, and also claims 20-21 and 26 by dependency, 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 19 recites the limitation "the first through hole" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the first through hole” is being interpreted as “a first through hole”.
Claims 20-21 are also rejected based on their dependency from claim 19.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein the shroud further includes a ring- shaped support wing protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the shroud in a centrifugal direction that is a direction facing the inside in the radial direction, and wherein a location of the filter in the first direction is restricted by the support wing.” As discussed in the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) above, Applicant’s original disclosure, including the specification and figures, discloses a support wing protruding from an inner surface of the orifice shell, rather than protruding from the outer surface of the shroud as claimed. It is not clear how the limitation as claimed would be structured or how it would perform the claimed function. For the purposes of this Office Action and in light of Applicant’s original disclosure, particularly Figures 6-8, the limitation is being interpreted as “wherein the orifice shell further includes a ring- shaped support wing protruding from an inner circumferential surface of the orifice shell in a centrifugal direction that is a direction facing the inside in the radial direction, and wherein a location of the filter in the first direction is restricted by the support wing.”
Claim 26 is also rejected because it depends from claim 25.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “wherein the battery is disposed at one side or the other side of the case in the second direction.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second direction” in the claim. It is not clear to what direction this is referring. For the purposes of this Office Action and in light of Applicant’s specification (paragraph [0173]), “the second direction” is being interpreted as “a second direction, wherein the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first fan" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “the first fan” is intended to refer to the previously introduced “fan” or if it is intended that there is more than one fan. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the first fan” is being interpreted as “the fan”.
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.
(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 11-13, 18-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. 5,263,897 issued to Kondo et al (hereinafter “Kondo”).
Regarding claim 11, Kondo teaches a movable hood (Fig 7, hood shown in Fig 7; note that movable is a broad term and the hood shown in the figure is capable of being moved) comprising:
a case in which an accommodation space having an open one side in a first direction is formed (Fig 7 casing 50 with an accommodation space having an open side in the direction shown at bottom of figure);
a fan accommodated in the accommodation space, configured to suction outside air through an inlet, and discharge at least some of the suctioned air through a discharge port (Fig 7 first centrifugal fan 52 suctions air through first suction port 56 and discharges air through first discharge port 57);
a shroud accommodated in the accommodation space and surrounding the fan outside in a radial direction (Fig 7 partition member 51); and
an orifice shell disposed between the fan and the shroud with respect to the radial direction and surrounding the fan outside in the radial direction (see Examiner Annotated Figure A below),
wherein the inlet and the discharge port are disposed at a location biased to one side in the first direction more than the fan (Fig 7 inlet 56 and discharge port 57 are both disposed further towards lower side of figure than fan),
wherein a discharge passage connecting the fan with the discharge port is formed between the shroud and the orifice shell (Fig first fluid passage 66), and
wherein the discharge port is disposed outside the inlet with respect to the radial direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Fig 7 of Kondo, showing the shroud and orifice shell
Regarding claim 12, Kondo teaches that the fan discharges at least some of the suctioned air in a centrifugal direction that is a direction facing outside in the radial direction (Fig 7 discharge port 57 discharges air in a direction having a component in a centrifugal direction), and
wherein the discharge passage guides movement of the air discharged from the fan so that a movement direction of the air moving toward the discharge port becomes a direction between the first direction and the centrifugal direction (Fig 7 discharge passage 66 performs this function).
Regarding claim 13, Kondo teaches that a width of the discharge port is smaller than or equal to a width of the discharge passage (Fig 7, width of discharge port 57 is smaller than or equal to a width of the discharge passage 66), and wherein the width of the discharge passage is gradually reduced toward the discharge port (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 18, Kondo teaches that an interval between the shroud and the orifice shell is gradually reduced toward one side in the first direction (Fig 7 and Examiner Annotated Figure A, interval between shroud and orifice shell is gradually reduced towards the lower side of figure).
Regarding claim 19, Kondo discloses that the case is disposed at a location biased to one side in the first direction more than the fan (Fig 7) and including a cover surface forming a surface orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 7 bottom surface of hood which includes suction grille 63 and discharge port 57),
wherein a second through hole is formed to pass through the cover surface in the first direction (Fig 7 cover surface at bottom of hood in figure comprises a second through hole for air to pass in/out), and
wherein a first through hole (Fig 7 hole at bell mouth 65 leading to fan) and the second through hole communicate with the discharge passage (Fig 7 first through hole 65 and second through hole 63 communicate with discharge passage 66 through fan 52).
Regarding claim 20, Kondo discloses that an end portion of the one side in the first direction of the shroud is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the cover surface surrounding the second through hole (Fig 7 an end of shroud 51 is connected to an inner circumferential surface of the cover surface at bottom of hood surrounding second through hole),
wherein the end portion of the one side in the first direction of the orifice shell is disposed to be spaced at a predetermined interval from the shroud in the radial direction inside the second through hole (Fig 7), and
wherein the second through hole is partitioned into an inlet inside the radial direction and the discharge port outside in the radial direction using the orifice shell as a boundary (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 21, Kondo discloses that the inlet and the discharge port are arranged coplanarly in the radial direction (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 22, Kondo discloses that the case is disposed at a location biased to the other side in the first direction more than the fan and including a first surface forming a surface orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 7 case 50 biased towards top side more than fan 52 and includes a first surface at top side of case), and
wherein the orifice shell is disposed to be spaced at a predetermined interval from the first surface in the first direction and includes a ring-shaped portion having a first through hole formed therein in the radial direction (Fig 7 and Examiner Annotated Figure A, orifice shell spaced predetermined distance from first surface at top of case and includes a ring-shaped portion, shown as the horizontal portion in figure having a through hole at center for bell-mouth 65), and the shroud and the ring-shaped portion or the first surface and the ring-shaped portion are spaced at a predetermined interval from each other in the first direction and are coupled in the first direction (Fig 7 ring-shaped portion, which is the horizontal portion of orifice shell is spaced at a predetermined distance from both the shroud and the first surface in the top/bottom direction of figure and are coupled in this direction).
Regarding claim 24, Kondo discloses that the movable hood further comprises a filter disposed between the inlet and the fan to filter the air suctioned into the fan (Fig 7 filter 64 between inlet 56 and fan 52).
Regarding claim 25 (as interpreted, see claim rejection and interpretation under 35 USC 112(a)/(b) above), Kondo discloses that the orifice shell further includes a ring- shaped support wing protruding from an inner circumferential surface of the orifice shell in a centrifugal direction that is a direction facing the inside in the radial direction (see Examiner Annotated Figure B below showing a support wing protruding from an inner circumferential surface of the orifice shell; the support wing shown extends radially around the hood, making a ring shape; the support wing shown has an inverted L-shape such that the support wing protrudes in a direction facing the inside in addition to protruding downward), and
wherein a location of the filter in the first direction is restricted by the support wing (see Examiner Annotated Figure B below, support wing shown restricts filter 64).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
887
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure B, from Figure 7 of Kondo, showing the support wing protruding from orifice shell
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20180058047 by Kang et al (hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding claim 28, Kang discloses a movable hood (Fig 1 portable hood device; paragraph [0001], hood is movable) comprising:
a fan configured to suction air through an inlet and discharge at least some of the suctioned air through a discharge port (Fig 4 fan 240, airflow shown with arrows in figure with air suctioned through intake plate 221 and discharged through discharge port 270); and
a flow guide part configured to guide a movement of the air discharged from the fan toward the discharge port (Fig 4 duct section 260),
wherein the inlet and the discharge port are disposed at a location biased to one side in a first direction more than the fan (Fig 4 inlet 221 and discharge port 270 are biased toward one side, that being the lower side in the figure, more than fan 240), and
wherein the discharge port is disposed outside the inlet with respect to the radial direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 4 discharge port 270 is radially outside of inlet 221).
Regarding claim 29, Kang discloses that the movable hood further comprises:
a filter disposed at a front side of the fan (Fig 4 filters 230 are disposed at a front side of fan 240); and
a case configured to accommodate the fan and the filter (Figs 2 and 4, hood casing 210 with connecting part 300),
wherein the case is provided to be seated on the ground or a bottom surface (Fig 2 case 210/300 is seated on mounting part 100).
Please note that the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2173.01 I). Applicant’s specification recites “a direction in which a grill is installed with respect to the center of the movable hood is defined as a front side” and “a direction in which outside air enters the movable hood through the grill becomes a rear side” (paragraph [0161] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, “front” is being interpreted as the intake side of the moveable hood.
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.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of JP 2000234776 by Miyake et al (hereinafter “Miyake”).
Regarding claim 11, Kang teaches a movable hood (Fig 1 portable hood device; paragraph [0001], hood is movable) comprising:
a case in which an accommodation space having an open one side in a first direction is formed (Figs 2 and 4, hood casing 210 along with connecting part 300, case forms an accommodation space for hood components in 210 having an open lower side);
a fan accommodated in the accommodation space, configured to suction outside air through an inlet, and discharge at least some of the suctioned air through a discharge port (Fig 4 fan 240 with suction air flow shown with arrows); and
the case comprised of a shroud surrounding the fan outside in a radial direction (Fig 4 case 210 can be interpreted as comprising a shroud surrounding the fan);
an orifice shell disposed between the fan and the shroud with respect to the radial direction and surrounding the fan outside in the radial direction (Fig 3 partition wall 250),
wherein the inlet and the discharge port are disposed at a location biased to one side in the first direction more than the fan (Fig 4),
wherein a discharge passage connecting the fan with the discharge port is formed between the shroud and the orifice shell (Fig 4 duct section 260), and
wherein the discharge port is disposed outside the inlet with respect to the radial direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 4 discharge port 270 is radially outside of inlet 221).
But Kang does not teach that the movable hood comprises the shroud as an element separate from the case and accommodated in the accommodation space formed by the case.
However, Miyake teaches a similar vent hood (Fig 1 ventilation device 1) comprising a case in which an accommodation space having an open one side in a first direction is formed (Fig 1 case comprises top plate 3a and outer plate 3b of air supply chamber 3), a fan accommodated in the accommodation space configured to suction air through an inlet (Fig 1 exhaust fan 19), a shroud accommodated in the accommodation space and surrounding the fan outside in a radial direction (Fig 1 inner plate 3c), an orifice shell disposed between the fan and the shroud (Fig 1 rectangular exhaust chamber), and a discharge passage formed between the shroud and the orifice shell (Fig 1 air outlet 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable hood of Kang by including a case separate from the shroud and surrounding the shroud such that the shroud is located at the interior of the case, such as taught by Miyake, in order to prevent the conduction of heat to the outer surface of the case and so that the case, which is positioned outside of the shroud, may be selected to have a more aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 14, Kang modified by Miyake teaches the movable hood of claim 11 (see details in claim 11 rejection above). But Kondo does not explicitly teach that the case and the shroud are formed integrally.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the case and the shroud integrally, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144 V-B)
Claims 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2843054 by Tagnon (hereinafter “Tagnon”) in view of Miyake.
Regarding claim 11, Tagnon discloses a movable hood (hood shown in Fig 5; note that movable is a broad term and the hood shown in the figure is capable of being moved) comprising:
a case in which an accommodation space having an open one side in a first direction is formed (Fig 5 support (b) forming an accommodation space having an open side at the bottom of figure; the first direction here is interpreted as the up/down direction in the figure);
a fan accommodated in the accommodation space, configured to suction outside air through an inlet, and discharge at least some of the suctioned air through a discharge port (Fig 5 centrifugal fan (a), with arrows showing air flow);
the case comprised of a shroud surrounding the fan outside in a radial direction (Fig 5 case/support (b) acts as a shroud surrounding fan); and
an orifice shell disposed between the fan and the shroud with respect to the radial direction and surrounding the fan outside in the radial direction (Fig 5 ferrule (c));
wherein the inlet and the discharge port are disposed at a location biased to one side in the first direction more than the fan (Fig 5 where arrows show inlet to zone (1) and discharge port from expansion zone (3), where both inlet and discharge port art at the bottom of figure with fan at top),
wherein a discharge passage connecting the fan with the discharge port is formed between the shroud and the orifice shell (Fig 5), and
wherein the discharge port is disposed outside the inlet with respect to the radial direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 5).
But Tagnon does not teach that the movable hood comprises the shroud as an element separate from the case and accommodated in the accommodation space formed by the case.
However, Miyake teaches a similar vent hood (Fig 1 ventilation device 1) comprising a case in which an accommodation space having an open one side in a first direction is formed (Fig 1 case comprises top plate 3a and outer plate 3b of air supply chamber 3), a fan accommodated in the accommodation space configured to suction air through an inlet (Fig 1 exhaust fan 19), a shroud accommodated in the accommodation space and surrounding the fan outside in a radial direction (Fig 1 inner plate 3c), an orifice shell disposed between the fan and the shroud (Fig 1 rectangular exhaust chamber), and a discharge passage formed between the shroud and the orifice shell (Fig 1 air outlet 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable hood of Tagnon by including a case separate from the shroud and surrounding the shroud such that the shroud is located at the interior of the case, such as taught by Miyake, in order to prevent the conduction of heat to the outer surface of the case and so that the case, which is positioned outside of the shroud, may be selected to have a more aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 15, Tagnon modified by Miyake teaches that the case is disposed at a location biased to the other side in the first direction more than the fan and including a first surface forming a surface orthogonal to the first direction (Fig 5 case at upper side of figure and having a first surface as a horizontal surface at the top portion of the case, case biased further towards top side than fan),
wherein the shroud includes an outer skirt portion forming a surface extending from the first surface in a direction between the first direction and the centrifugal direction (see Examiner Annotated Figure C below; note that the modification with Miyake would result in a case at the first surface at the top and extending around the outer skirt portion), and an outer connection portion connecting the first surface with the outer skirt portion to be rounded (see Examiner Annotated Figure C below), and wherein the orifice shell is disposed between the fan and the outer skirt portion with respect to the radial direction (Examiner Annotated Figure C, orifice shell (c) between fan (a) and outer skirt portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure C, from Figure 5 of Tagnon
Regarding claim 16, Tagnon further teaches the orifice shell includes: a ring-shaped portion disposed to be spaced at a predetermined interval from the first surface in the first direction and having a first through hole therein in the radial direction (Fig 5 horizontal portion of orifice shell shown in figure which extends around the fan inlet in the radial direction, making a ring-shaped portion spaced from the first surface and having a through hole at the fan inlet for air flow; see also Examiner Annotated Figure D below);
an inner skirt portion forming a surface extending from the ring-shaped portion in a direction between the first direction and the centrifugal direction (see Examiner Annotated Figure D); and
an inner connection portion connecting the ring-shaped portion with the inner skirt portion to be rounded (Examiner Annotated Figure D), and
wherein the inner skirt portion is disposed between the fan and the outer skirt portion with respect to the radial direction (Fig 5 and Examiner Annotated Figures C and D).
PNG
media_image4.png
412
771
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure D from Figure 5 of Tagnon
Regarding claim 17, Tagnon teaches that the outer connection portion and the inner connection portion are disposed to be spaced at a predetermined interval from each other in the first direction (see Fig 5 and Examiner Annotated Figures C and D),
wherein the outer skirt portion and the inner skirt portion are disposed to be spaced at a predetermined interval from each other in the radial direction (see Fig 5 and Examiner Annotated Figures C and D), and
wherein the discharge passage is formed between the outer connection portion and the inner connection portion and between the outer skirt portion and the inner skirt portion (see Fig 5 and Examiner Annotated Figures C and D).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of US 2014/0053793 by Sullivan et al (hereinafter “Sullivan”).
Regarding claim 23, Kondo teaches the movable hood of claim 22 (see details in claim 22 rejection above). Kondo further teaches a coupling protrusion protruding from the first surface of the shroud in the first direction (see Examiner Annotated Figure E below). Kondo does not explicitly teach a coupling boss provided on one side surface of the ring-shaped portion facing the first surface and coupled to the coupling protrusion in the first direction. Kondo appears to show the coupling protrusion as a threaded fastener coupled with the ring-shaped portion, but it is not clear that the ring-shaped portion is provided with a coupling boss.
However, Sullivan teaches a fan housing wherein portions of the fan housing are connected using coupling protrusions (Fig 6 bosses 110) coupled to coupling bosses (Figs 3 and 6, mounting bosses 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection movable hood to have a coupling boss provided on one side surface of the ring-shaped portion facing the first surface and coupled to the coupling protrusion in the first direction. Kondo discloses the claimed invention except that the coupling protrusion of Kondo is not coupled with a coupling boss . Sullivan shows that a coupling protrusion coupled to a coupling boss is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two connection structures were art-recognized- equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the connection mechanism of the coupling protrusion with a coupling boss for the connection mechanism taught by Kondo. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention.
PNG
media_image5.png
400
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure E, from Fig 7 of Kondo
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Miyake and in further view of KR 20180099393 by Son et al (hereinafter “Son”).
Regarding claim 27, Kang as modified by Miyake, teaches the movable hood of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 under 103 to Kang and Miyake above).
Kang teaches that power is supplied to the fan from a power supply unit (paragraph [0056]). But Kang does not explicitly teach that the movable hood comprises a driver configured to rotate the fan; and a battery electrically connected to the driver, wherein the battery is disposed at one side or the other side of the case in the second direction.
However, Son teaches a similar movable hood (Fig 1 portable hood 10; paragraph [0001]) having a case (Fig 4 hollow tube 124 of head 100) and a fan accommodated in the case and configured to suction air from a cooking process (Fig 4 blower 135; paragraph [0031] and [0099]). Son teaches that the movable hood further comprises a driver configured to rotate the fan (Fig 4, motor 140; paragraph [0101]); and a battery electrically connected to the driver (paragraph [0101]), wherein the battery is disposed at one side or the other side of the case in a second direction, wherein the second direction is orthogonal to an intake direction of the fan (Fig 1 and paragraph [0051], battery is located in main body 300 and connected to charging port 310, which is positioned at a side of the case in a second direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable hood of Kang/Miyake by including a driver configured to rotate the fan and a battery electrically connected to the driver, wherein the battery is disposed in the mounting section at the base of the hood, in order to driving power to the fan without connecting to an external power source, thus improving portability (Son paragraph [0020]). It would also be obvious to locate the battery at one side or the other side of the case in the second direction (i.e. a direction perpendicular to vertical), since a battery at a side of the case would provide convenient access for a charging port.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Son.
Regarding claim 30, Kang teaches a movable hood (Fig 1 portable hood device; paragraph [0001], hood is movable) comprising:
a case provided to be seated on a ground or a bottom surface (Figs 2 and 4, hood casing 210 with connecting part 300, case is seated on mounting part 100);
a fan accommodated in the case and configured to form a suction flow at a front side and suction air rearward (Fig 4 fan 240 with suction air flow shown with arrows);
a flow guide part configured to guide a flow of at least some of the air discharged after being suctioned into the fan (Fig 4 duct section 260 guides air flow to discharge port 270); and
wherein the flow guide part guides a flow of the air so that the at least some of the air discharged from the fan is discharged forward toward an area in which the suction flow is generated (Fig 4 flow guide part 260 guides a flow of air to discharge port 270 such that it is discharged forward, i.e. toward the suction inlet side).
But Kang does not teach a battery electrically connected to the fan.
However, Son teaches a similar movable hood (Fig 1 portable hood 10; paragraph [0001]) with a fan configured to suction air from a cooking process (Fig 4 blower 135; paragraph [0031] and [0099]) and a battery electrically connected to the fan (paragraph [0101], motor 140 of blower 135 receives power from battery, also see paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable hood of Kang by including a battery electrically connected to the fan, in order to provide electrical power to the fan without connecting to an external power source, thus improving portability (Son paragraph [0020]).
Please note that the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2173.01 I). Applicant’s specification recites “a direction in which a grill is installed with respect to the center of the movable hood is defined as a front side” and “a direction in which outside air enters the movable hood through the grill becomes a rear side” (paragraph [0161] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, “front” is being interpreted as the intake side of the moveable hood, with the rear side being the side opposite the front side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a movable hood with all of the limitations of claim 26, particularly the limitation “wherein the fixing cover is in contact with the support wing and coupled to the orifice shell.” Therefore, this limitation, combined with all of the other limitations of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Kondo teaches the movable hood of claim 25 (see details in claim 25 rejection above). Kondo further teaches a fixing cover configured to fix the filter to the orifice shell (Fig 7 shows fixing cover including suction grille 63 at bottom of hood). But Kondo does not teach that the fixing cover is in contact with the support wind, nor would it have been obvious to modify Kondo with this limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,874,356 issued to Jeong et al teaches a movable vent hood having a discharge port surrounding a suction intake, the discharge port configured to create a swirl pattern of air.
CN 210241707 by Huang, KR 20180064640 by Kim, KR 100823674 by Choi, US 3,430,551 issued to Hauville, and US 2002/0088211 by Lin teach portable hoods.
US 4,450,756 issued to Kling teaches a hood having a discharge port surrounding a suction intake and a coupling protrusion protruding from a top surface of a casing and coupled with a coupling boss of an orifice shell (Fig 2c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights