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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not distinct and that there is no burden of search. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are distinct as explained in the restriction requirement mailed 03/18/2026 and there is a burden for search as explained in the restriction requirement mailed 03/18/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matuska et al. (US 20200009497), hereinafter referred to as Matuska.
Re claim 1 and 4-5, Matuska teaches an air ventilation system comprising:
a conditioned water source (21/31), wherein the conditioned water source comprises chilled and heated water source
an air handling unit (2) comprising:
a housing (2) that defines an inlet and an outlet end (110/111);
a fan (9b) disposed between the inlet end and outlet end to generate and define an airflow from the inlet end to the outlet end;
a compressor (5), a first heat exchanger (6), an expansion valve (7) and a second heat exchanger (4), wherein the first heat exchanger is disposed downstream of the compressor, the expansion valve is dispose downstream of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger is disposed downstream of the expansion valve, wherein the compressor, first heat exchanger, the expansion valve and the second heat exchanger are fluidly coupled in series to the compressor to form a refrigerant closed loop (see Fig 2);
an hydronic coil (20/30) disposed between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger, wherein the hydronic coil is fluidly coupled to the conditioned water source to circulate one of the supply of chilled water and the supply of heated water through the hydronic coil in a water closed loop (e.g. Fig 2);
wherein the airflow moving between the inlet end and the outlet end contacts, in series, the first heat exchanger, the hydronic coil and the second heat exchanger such that the compressor, when operated, circulates a refrigerant through the refrigerant closed loop so that (1) the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger adjust a temperature and humidity of the airflow and (2) the conditioned water source, when operated, circulates one of the supply of chilled water and the supply of heated water through the hydronic coil in the water closed loop so that the hydronic coil adjusts the temperature and humidity of the airflow (e.g. see Fig 2); and
a controller (e.g. ¶ 38, “The regeneration air outlet 111 is closable and is connected to a control device for opening and closing this regeneration air outlet 111, which is connected directly, or via other elements, to the control device for opening and closing the flap 10 or is interconnected with a measuring device for measuring the water vapor content in both air ducts 1 and 2. This measuring device for measuring the water vapor content can be the same as the one which is interconnected to the control device for opening and closing the flap 10”) connected to and in communication with the conditioned water source and the air handling unit, wherein the controller is configured to operate the conditioned water source and the air handling unit in response to desired operational demands for a conditioned space (see e.g. ¶ 43).
Re claim 2, Matuska teaches the air ventilation system of claim 1, wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger comprises a precooling refrigerant to air heat exchanger (condenser) and a postcooling/reheating refrigerant to air heat exchanger (evaporator) respectively.
Re claim 3 and 6, Matuska teaches the air ventilation system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to operate in one of the desired modes of heating, cooling and dehumidification (inherent).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights