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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/24 is being 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 1-14 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.
The term “major portion” in claims 1 and 8-9 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “major portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art would not know how much of the element is required to be surrounded in the claims. The term “major portion” is not defined in the specification and does not have clear meaning. It is not clear if applicant means a majority, an important or special section, or just significant amount (note this itself would be indefinite as there is no clear meaning to it). The claim will be considered to read on with any clear amount of coverage/surrounding.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Selg et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0318837).
Regarding claim 1, Selg teaches a fan assembly (Fig. 4) comprising: a refrigeration system (as shown fig. 4) comprising a first heat exchanger (element 405), a second heat exchanger (element 403), and a compressor (element 401); and an airflow generator (element 411) for generating an airflow over the second heat exchanger (per fig. 4), wherein the first heat exchanger surrounds a major portion of the compressor (per fig. 4), and the second heat exchanger is located above the first heat exchanger (per fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Selg teaches the first heat exchanger subtends a central angle of at least 270o (per fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Selg teaches the first heat exchanger is cylindrical in shape (per fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Selg teaches the second heat exchanger is cylindrical in shape (per fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Selg teaches the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger are concentric (per fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Selg teaches the fan assembly comprises a filter assembly (element 1700) for filtering the airflow, and the filter assembly surrounds a major portion of the second heat exchanger (per fig. 17).
Regarding claim 11, Selg teaches the fan assembly comprises: a main body (body of element 300 which holds 400) within which the refrigeration system and the airflow generator are located (para. 0052), the main body comprising an inlet (side opening shown on 301) through which the airflow is drawn into the main body and an outlet (where element 305 is) through which the airflow is emitted from the main body, wherein the inlet is located in a side of the main body and the outlet is located in a top of the main body (per fig. 3b); and a nozzle (created by elements 305 and 303 reasonably reads on this) attached to the main body and receiving the airflow emitted from the main body, the nozzle comprising an outlet through which the airflow is emitted from the fan assembly (per fig. 3b and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Selg teaches the fan assembly comprises a condensation collector (Fig. 8) for collecting condensate that forms on the first heat exchanger, and the condensation collector comprises a tray (element 807) located between the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Selg teaches the compressor is configured to move a refrigerant between the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger (per fig. 4 and para. 0040-0045); and the refrigeration system comprises a metering device (“expansion device” para. 0040-0045) for reducing a pressure of the refrigerant.
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selg et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0318837) in view of Ma et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0292775).
Regarding claim 4, Selg does not teach the fan assembly comprises a thermal store, and the first heat exchanger exchanges heat with the thermal store.
Ma teaches a first heat exchanger (condenser element 120) exchanges heat with the thermal store (para. 0015). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Selgs fan assembly to include the thermal store of Ma with the first heat exchanger, the motivation would be to increase the cooling capacity (para. 0018)
Regarding claim 5, Ma further teaches the thermal store comprises a phase change material (para. 0015).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selg et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0318837) in view of Ma et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0292775).
Regarding claim 9, Selg does not teach the second heat exchanger surrounds a major portion of the airflow generator.
Swanson teaches positioning the fan partially with second heat exchanger (“C-shaped condenser” para. 0098). It would have bene obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Selg as taught by Swanson, the motivation would have been to allow the overall size of the system to be reduced (para. 0098)
Regarding claim 10, Selg teaches the second heat exchanger subtends a central angle of at least 270o (per Fig. 4).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selg et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0318837) in view of Swanson (U.S. PGPub 2018/0328600).
Regarding claim 9, Selg does not teach the second heat exchanger surrounds a major portion of the airflow generator.
Swanson teaches positioning the fan partially with second heat exchanger (“C-shaped condenser” para. 0098). It would have bene obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Selg as taught by Swanson, the motivation would have been to allow the overall size of the system to be reduced (para. 0098)
Regarding claim 10, Selg teaches the second heat exchanger subtends a central angle of at least 270o (per Fig. 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selg et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0318837) in view of Howard (U.S. PGPub 2017/0108233).
Regarding claim 13, Selg does not teach the condensation collector comprises a bottle, the tray comprises a drain through which condensate collected by the tray drains into the bottle, and the bottle is located in a gap in the first heat exchanger.
Howard teaches condensation collector comprises a bottle (element 215), the tray (element 200) comprises a drain (element 205) through which condensate collected by the tray drains into the bottle (per para. 0033). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Selg to include the bottle of Howard located in a gap in the first heat exchanger (this is an obvious design choice based on the limited space with the compressor located as taught by Selg), the motivoant would be remove unwanted water when humidifying is unwanted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/720714. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each.
Claim 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 5-7, 11-16, 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/720711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel Attey whose telephone number is (571) 272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763