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 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:
support elements for supporting at least one wall in claim 22; structure found in e.g. instant specification p. 10 lines 8-35;
means of at least one mounting element in claim 31; structure found in e.g. instant specification p. 13 lines 19-23.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 22, 33, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegdam (EP 3251725 A1; 12/06/2017; cited in IDS), hereinafter Wegdam ‘725 in view of Wegdam (WO 2008140315 A1; 11/20/2008; cited in IDS), hereinafter Wegdam ‘315.
Regarding claim 1, Wegdam ‘725 teaches device for radiating UV and/or IR radiation to a human body (Abstract; [0001]);
an upright housing comprising a wall and a rear wall connected to said circumferential wall, wherein said upright housing defines an accommodating space (Fig. 1; [0003] “upright housing…rear and/or side walls of the upright housing” [0012] “space 13 between…the rear and/or side walls 14 of the upright housing 2”).
Wegdam ‘725 does not explicitly teach a circumferential wall. Note that the side walls ([0012]) would read on “circumferential” due to these walls enclosing or surrounding the space. However, for the sake of clarity of the record and to avoid doubt, Wegdam ‘315 teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1) a circumferential wall (Fig. 1; p. 5 lines 1-5). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wegdam ‘725 to include this feature as taught by since this enables enclosing inlet as needed (p. 5 lines 1-5), moreover this is an obvious change in shape; MPEP 2144.04.
In the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches at least one radiation unit accommodated within said accommodating space, wherein each radiation unit comprises at least one radiation source for radiating UV and/or IR radiation, and at least one reflector ([0011]), and
an inner radiation transmitting wall, covering the at least one radiation unit, and an outer radiation transmitting wall, covering said inner radiation transmitting wall, and, directly or indirectly, connected to the housing to close the accommodating space at least partially, wherein the inner radiation transmitting wall and outer radiation transmitting wall are spaced apart ([0011]); and
a cooling circuit for cooling the one or more radiation units and/or the inner radiation transmitting wall and/or outer radiation transmitting wall (Fig. 1; [0012]), which cooling circuit comprises:
at least one cooling channel inlet at the bottom part of the housing ([0012]),
at least one cooling channel outlet at the bottom part of the housing ([0013]),
a cooling channel connecting to both the at least one channel inlet and the at least one channel outlet (Fig. 1; [0012]-[0013]); and
at least one fan arranged to force cooling air sucked by said fan into the at least one cooling channel inlet to flow through the cooling channel and to be removed via at least one cooling channel outlet meanwhile cooling the at least one radiation unit and/or the inner radiation transmitting wall and/or outer radiation transmitting wall, wherein the at least one cooling channel inlet and the at least one cooling channel outlet are aligned in width direction of the housing (Fig. 1; [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein the cooling circuit comprises at least one protective valve to close the channel inlet and/or the channel outlet when the fan is off, and/or to open the channel inlet and the channel outlet when the fan is on ([0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 3, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein each channel inlet is provided with at least one protective valve and each channel outlet is provided with at least one protective valve ([0014]-[0016]). Alternatively, if the instant claim is to be interpreted such that there is at least two valves, this would be an obvious duplication of parts; MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein at least one valve comprises a flap which is hingeably mounted by the housing, and which is forced, when the fan is off and due to gravitational forces, towards a position wherein the flap substantially closes the channel inlet and/or channel outlet ([0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 5, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one cooling channel inlet and the at least one cooling channel outlet are located in a front section of the bottom part of the housing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 does not teach wherein the at least one channel inlet is larger than the at least one channel outlet. However, Wegdam ‘725 depicts channel outlet larger than inlet (Fig. 1-2). It would be an obvious modification to do the opposite, have at least one channel inlet is larger than the at least one channel outlet since this also predictably results in providing cooling air flow; MPEP 214404 reversal of parts.
Regarding claim 8, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein the depth of the at least one channel inlet is identicial to the depth of the at least one channel outlet (Fig. 1; both inlet 9 and outlet 16 have the same depth from bottom to fan 15).
Regarding claim 9, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein both the channel inlet and channel outlet have an elongated shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 does not teach wherein the width of the at least one channel inlet is least five times the depth of said at least one channel inlet. However, this is an obvious change in shape with predictable results for obtaining air flow with dimensional constraints of shower; MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 does not teach wherein the width of the at least one channel outlet is less than three times the depth of said at least one channel outlet. However, this is an obvious change in shape with predictable results for obtaining air flow with dimensional constraints of shower; MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one fan is an inlet fan arranged adjacent to at least one channel inlet (Fig. 1-2; fan 15 is next to or “adjacent” inlet 9; [0013] “cooling air 17 sucked by the ventilator 15 into the cooling circuit…via channel inlet”).
Regarding claim 22, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein opposing inner surfaces of the circumferential wall are provided with support elements for supporting at least one wall (Wegdam ‘725 Fig. 1, side wall 14 is depicted as connected to other walls such as transmitting wall 7 and so inherently would possess support elements).
Regarding claim 33, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein the outer surface of the housing is a substantially smooth surface and/or wherein the device comprises an outer casing configured to enclose the housing at least partially, wherein said casing is configured to be encased in a wall of a humid room (Fig. 1; [0001]; [0011]; radiation transmitting walls 6 and 7 are depicted as smooth and device is described to be within wall of humid room).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 does not teach wherein the at least one cooling channel inlet and the at least one cooling channel outlet are aligned according to a side by side, in width direction of the housing, as seen from the left to the right seen from a front view of the device. However, this is an obvious rearrangement of parts for arranging the placement of the inlet and outlets relative to one another and the housing; MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 teaches a housing for use in a device according to claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a circumferential wall (Wegdam ‘315 Fig. 1; p. 5 lines 1-5) and a rear wall connected to said circumferential wall, wherein said housing defines an accommodating space (Wegdam ‘725 Fig. 1; [0003] “upright housing…rear and/or side walls of the upright housing” [0012] “space 13 between…the rear and/or side walls 14 of the upright housing 2”;), and wherein a bottom part of the housing is provided with at least one cooling channel inlet at the bottom part of the housing, and at least one cooling channel outlet at the bottom part of the housing, wherein the at least one cooling channel inlet and the at least one cooling channel outlet are aligned in width direction of the housing (Wegdam ‘725 Fig. 1; [0012]-[0013]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ullrich (US 20030078635 A1; 4/24/2003; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 does not teach wherein the cooling circuit comprises a plurality of cooling channel outlets which mutually enclose at least one cooling channel inlet. However, Ullrich teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; [0007]) wherein the cooling circuit comprises a plurality of cooling channel outlets which mutually enclose at least one cooling channel inlet (Fig. 9; [0052] “intake openings 11…air exhaust tubes 7”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 to include these features as taught by Ullrich because this can enhance cooling ([0007]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang (US 20220040030 A1; Filed 9/21/2020).
Regarding claim 13, in the combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315, Wegdam ‘725 teaches wherein the device comprises at least one controller to control the at least one fan ([0014] “ventilator 15 is (switched) on (under control of control means”).
The combination of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 does not teach wherein the device comprises at least temperature sensor which is connected to the controller, and wherein the controller is programmed to adjust the fan speed dependent on the detected temperature. However, Tang teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; [0013]) wherein the device comprises at least temperature sensor which is connected to the controller, and wherein the controller is programmed to adjust the fan speed dependent on the detected temperature ([0013]; [0040]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wegdam ‘725 and Wegdam ‘315 to include these features as taught by Tang because this enables control of cooling as needed ([0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-15, 31 is/are 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 prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 14 and its dependents when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein, in coupled condition of housing segments, the circumferential wall segments of said housing segments overlap partially, and the rear wall segments of said housing segments overlap partially.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 31 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the assembly of the rear reflector and front reflector is mounted hingeably within the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights