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 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 06/14/2024, 01/09/2025 & 05/20/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-10 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.
A) Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second blower" in 3rd from last line. This render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if it is different from either the supply or exhaust blower or is in addition to these blowers. For the purposes of examination, “a second blower” has been construed to be one of the supply or exhaust blower.
B) Claims 2-10 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2020134094A to Hattori.
A) As per Claim 1, Hattori teaches a ventilation apparatus (Hattori: Figure 6) comprising:
a supply air passage (Hattori: Figure 6, duct from OA to SA) to allow a current of supply air to pass as a current of outdoor air in a direction of a room;
an exhaust air passage (Hattori: Figure 6, duct from RA to EA) to allow a current of exhaust air to pass outdoors as a current of air from the room;
an air supply blower (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 3) installed in the supply air passage;
an exhaust blower (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 4) installed in the exhaust air passage;
an air quality sensor (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 18) to detect air quality indicative of how much indoor air is polluted; and
a controller (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 5) to control air flow rates for the air supply blower and the exhaust blower, wherein
upon receipt of an externally set instruction for an operation based on an air flow differential that is information indicating a difference between a specified supply air flow rate as a specified air flow rate for the air supply blower and a specified exhaust air flow rate as a specified air flow rate for the exhaust blower (Hattori: maintains same airflow rate for both), for a first blower that is either the air supply blower or the exhaust blower, the controller obtains a first air flow rate corresponding to an air quality level detected by the air quality sensor from air flow rate setting information establishing a relationship between the air quality level and the air flow rates and controls the first blower at the first air flow rate (Hattori: Figure 7, Items S320-S340), and for a second blower different from the first blower, the controller computes a second air flow rate by use of the first air flow rate for the first blower and the air flow differential and controls the second blower at the second air flow rate (Hattori: Figure 7, Item S350).
B) As per Claim 2, Hattori teaches that the air flow differential is either a difference that is the specified supply air flow rate minus the specified exhaust air flow rate or a difference that is the specified exhaust air flow rate minus the specified supply air flow rate (Hattori: maintains airflow differential of zero).
C) As per Claim 3, Hattori teaches that the air flow differential is either a ratio of the specified exhaust air flow rate to the specified supply air flow rate or a ratio of the specified supply air flow rate to the specified exhaust air flow rate (Hattori: maintains ratio of 1:1 airflow).
D) As per Claim 4, Hattori teaches that the air quality sensor includes at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a carbon dioxide sensor, a dust sensor (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 18), a volatile organic compound gas sensor, an odor sensor, a carbon monoxide sensor, and an occupancy sensor.
E) As per Claim 6, Hattori teaches that the air quality sensor is installed in the exhaust air passage (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 18).
F) As per Claim 8, Hattori teaches that a housing including an air supply section including the air supply blower in the supply air passage and an air discharge section including the exhaust blower in the exhaust air passage.
G) As per Claim 9, Hattori teaches a heat exchanger that performs heat exchange between supply air flowing through the supply air passage and exhaust air flowing through the exhaust air passage (Hattori: Figure 6, Item 2).
H) As per Claim 10, Hattori teaches that an air supply section including the air supply blower in the supply air passage and an air discharge section including the exhaust blower in the exhaust air passage are configured as separate bodies (Hattori: alternate embodiment shown in Figure 12 with all same reference numbers as Figure 6 in regard to Claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori in view of US Patent Number 5,761,908 to Oas.
A) As per Claim 5, Hattori teaches all the limitations except that when either the first blower or the second blower reaches a lower-limit air flow rate, the controller performs control that causes another blower to reach a lower-limit air flow rate without maintaining the air flow differential.
However, Oas teaches when either the first blower or the second blower reaches a lower-limit air flow rate, the controller performs control that causes another blower to reach a lower-limit air flow rate without maintaining the air flow differential (Oas: Col. 16, lines 27-31; maintained airflows control stopped to shut off one while continuing to vent the other at a lower-limit rate).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hattori by shutting off the supply blower when a fire is present, thereby breaking the maintained differential, as taught by Oas, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hattori with these aforementioned teachings of Oas with the motivation of preventing fire spread in the event of a fire.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori in view of US Patent Publication Number 2024/0263826 A1 to Miyazaki.
A) As per Claim 7, Hattori teaches all the limitations except that the air quality sensor is installed in the room.
However, Miyazaki teaches the air quality sensor is installed in the room (Miyazaki: Figure 1, Item 80).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hattori by having the sensor in the room, as taught by Miyazaki, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hattori with these aforementioned teachings of Miyazaki since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the sensor location of Miyazaki for the sensor location of Hattori.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A) US Patent Number 12,566,009 B2 to Cho
B) EP3521715A1 to Komae
C) KR100765164B1 to Lee
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights