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 11-30 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 11 requires that “the second fan discharges the air suctioned outside the first fan in a direction between a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction and the first direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear if “orthogonal to” modifies “the first direction and the second direction” or “the first direction and the second direction and the first direction” where in the latter case the second recitation of the first direction would be redundant. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “the second fan discharges the air suctioned outside the first fan in a direction between a third direction and the first direction, where the third direction is orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction”. Furthermore, the first, second, and third orthogonal directions define the entire physical space, therefore, any direction that is neither parallel to the first or third directions is interpreted as between the first and third directions.
Claim 15 requires “an accommodation space” in line 2, claim 11 from which claim 15 depends already introduces “an accommodation space”. It is unclear if the accommodation space introduced in claim 15 is the same structure as that claimed in claim 11. For the purposes of examination, the structures are interpreted as the same.
Claim 16 requires “an accommodation space” in line 2, claim 11 from which claim 15 depends already introduces “an accommodation space”. It is unclear if the accommodation space introduced in claim 15 is the same structure as that claimed in claim 11. For the purposes of examination, the structures are interpreted as the same.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the discharge port" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 requires “a second fan disposed at both sides of the first fan” in line 4, it is unclear how a single second fan can be disposed on both sides of a single first fan. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “a second fan disposed on one side of the first fan”.
Claim 28 requires “a second fan disposed at both sides of the first fan” in line 3, it is unclear how a single second fan can be disposed on both sides of a single first fan. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring “a second fan disposed on one side of the first fan”.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 17-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riffel (US 4,556,046).
With respect to claim 11 Riffel discloses a movable hood comprising: a main body [reference character 1] having an accommodation space [see annotated Fig. below] formed therein; a first fan [reference character 7] accommodated in the accommodation space and configured to suction outside air in a first direction [see annotated Fig. below]; and a second fan [reference character 2] disposed not to overlap the first fan in the first direction, wherein the first fan and the second fan are arranged in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction [see annotated Fig. below], and wherein the second fan discharges the air suctioned outside the first fan in a direction [see annotated Fig. below] between a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction and the first direction1.
PNG
media_image1.png
617
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12 Riffel discloses that the second fan is accommodated inside the main body to be disposed at one side in the first direction more than the first fan [see Fig. 4].
With respect to claim 13 Riffel discloses that a pair of the second fans are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the second direction with the first fan interposed therebetween [see Fig. 4].
With respect to claim 14 Riffel discloses that main body is provided with an inlet [see annotated Fig. below] forming a passage for allowing the outside air to flow into the first fan, and an outlet [reference character 8] forming a passage for allowing the air suctioned into the first fan to be discharged to the outside of the main body, wherein the inlet forms a passage for opening the main body in the first direction, and wherein the inlet forms a passage for opening the main body in the second direction [see annotated Fig. below].
PNG
media_image3.png
397
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17 Riffel discloses a discharge port [see annotated Fig. below] forming a passage for allowing the air suctioned into the second fan to be discharged to the outside of the main body, and wherein the discharge port forms a passage for opening the main body in the third direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
294
553
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18 Riffel discloses that the discharge port is formed to pass through the main body in the third direction [see annotated Fig. above], wherein the main body further includes a partition wall [see annotated Fig. below] configured to block the second fan and the inlet, and wherein the discharge port communicates with a space in which the second fan is disposed.
PNG
media_image5.png
284
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19 Riffel discloses a louver [reference character 29] protruding from the main body in the second direction at an unfolded location.
With respect to claim 21 Riffel discloses that the second fan suctions the air from one side in the first direction and discharges the air in the third direction [see Fig. 4, the inlets to fans 7 and 2 are both in the first direction].
With respect to claim 22 Riffel discloses that the second fan suctions the air from the other side in the first direction and discharges the air in the third direction [see Fig. 4, the inlets to fans 7 and 2 are both in the first direction], and wherein an auxiliary inlet [reference character 3] forming a passage for allowing the outside air to flow into the second fan is provided on the main body.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kling (US 4,450,756).
With respect to claim 27 Kling discloses a movable hood comprising: a first fan [reference character 19] configured to form a suction flow at a front side; and a second fan [reference character 20] disposed at both sides of the first fan2 and configured to discharge air toward the front side at both sides of the first fan, wherein the second fan forms a discharge flow moving in a direction away from the suction flow toward the front side [see Fig. 7a].
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riffel (US 4,556,046).
With respect to claim 28 Riffel discloses a movable hood comprising: a first fan [reference character 7] configured to form a suction flow at a front side [see annotated Fig. below]; and a second fan [reference character 2] disposed at both sides of the first fan and configured to discharge air toward the front side at both sides of the first fan, wherein the second fan forms a discharge flow [see annotated Fig. below] moving in a direction away from the suction flow toward the front side.
PNG
media_image6.png
324
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 29 Riffel discloses a filter [reference character 9] disposed at the front side of the first fan; and a case [reference character 80] configured to accommodate the first fan, the second fan, and the filter, wherein the case is provided to be seated on the ground [see Fig. 1, the case sits on the ground via the intervening structure of the pizza delivery vehicle].
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riffel (US 4,556,046) in view of Hike (US 3,589,266).
With respect to claim 15 Riffel discloses that the main body includes a case [reference character 80] having an accommodation space [reference character 70] formed therein and having an open one side [see annotated Fig. below] in the first direction; and a cover [reference character 23] configured to cover the case at one side in the first direction.
Riffel does not disclose an inlet forming a passage for opening the main body in the first direction is formed to pass through the cover in the first direction.
Hike discloses a stove hood that includes main body with a case [reference character 20] a cover [reference character 42] configured to cover the case in the upstream direction, and a passage [at reference character 44] for opening the main body in the first direction is formed to pass through the cover in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Riffel by forming a passage for opening the main body in the first direction is formed to pass through the cover in the first direction, as taught by Hike, in order to allow for the use of an upstream facing axial extraction fan.
With respect to claim 20 Riffel discloses that the discharge port forming a passage for opening the main body in the third direction is provided on the main body [see rejection for claim 17 and Fig. 4], and wherein the louver is provided to cover a third surface outside the main body [see reference character 29 in Fig. 6].
Riffel does not disclose that the louver moves between a closed location at which the discharge port is closed and the unfolded location.
Hike discloses a stove hood that includes a louver [reference character 60] positioned in a duct [reference character 58] communicating with the ambient exterior environment which can be moved between a closed and open position [column 3 lines 1-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Riffel by allowing louvers 29 to be opened and closed, as taught by Hike, in order to prevent the ingress of insects and debris when the exhaust system is not being used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 See 112(b) rejection above.
2 See 112(b) rejection above.
Prosecution Insights