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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “According to various embodiments” is an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
an air temperature conditioning component in claim 1;
a hydronic control device in claim 16;
an electrical control device in claim 16;
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.
air temperature conditioning component 230, 0032 of Applicant Specification;
hydronic control devices that enable control of and communication with a water-based heating or cooling coil, 0034 of Applicant Specification;
electrical controls 273 include one or more electronic control devices that enable control of and communication with an electrical heating or cooling device included in air temperature-conditioning component 230, 0034 of Applicant Specification.
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 § 112
§ 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites the limitations “at least one of a hydronic control device or an electrical control device”. The term “device” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the control cabinet provides hydronic or electrical control. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of providing hydronic or electrical control. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
§ 112(b)
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 6-9 and 16 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.
Regarding Claims 6-8, the term “high-pressure” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “high-pressure” 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.
Thus, as used to qualify the pressure of a chamber, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim limitation “a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of a hydronic control device or an electrical control device” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification does not disclose a structure for a control device which is capable of providing hydronic or a control device which is capable of providing electrical control. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 9 is rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small (US20170089594A1) in view of Kim et al. (Kim, K., et al., Design Optimization of Fluid Machinery, 4.3.1 Centrifugal, Axial-Flow, Mixed-Flow, and Cross-Flow Fans, 2019, John Wiley & Sons. [retrieved on 1/22/2026]. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt0125AJ73/design-optimization-fluid/centrifugal-axial-flow>)
Regarding Claim 1, Small teaches an air-handling apparatus [air handling unit 40, Figure 7], comprising:
a housing [a rectangular cabinet, Figure 7;0039] having a plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7 and Figure 21A];
an air inlet [intake port 44, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7] and is configured to receive first air into the air-handling apparatus [where warm air from mobile home 1 enters intake port 44 coupled to return air flexible duct 34; 0039] while the first air moves in a first direction [annotated Figure 7];
an air outlet [outlet 43, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7] and is configured to discharge second air from the air-handling apparatus [where cooled air is impelled out through outlet 43, Figure 7;0039] while the second air moves in a second direction [annotated Figure 7], wherein the first direction differs from the second direction by at least 90 degrees [where the intake port 44 and outlet 43 are on the same wall therefore the first direction differs from the second direction by 180 degrees, Figure 7];
a fan [blower 46, Figure 7;0039] that is disposed within the housing and receives the first air and discharges the second air [where blower draws warm air from intake port 44 and impels cooled air back out through outlet 43;0039];
and an air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7;0039] that is disposed within the housing [Figure 7;0039] and in the path of one of the first air or the second air [where air entering intake 44 passes through evaporator 45 before outlet 43;0039].
Small does not explicitly teach the fan is a centrifugal fan.
However, Kim teaches types of fans [Section 4.3.1, p.146] where centrifugal fans are defined where air enters the fan in the axial direction and discharges air in the circumferential direction [Section 4.3.1.2, p.147], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of a known element for another and yield predictable results, i.e., providing a compact, high-efficiency fan [Kim, Section 4.3.1, p.146]
Therefore, 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 assembly of Small to where the fan is a centrifugal fan in view of the teachings of Kim where the substitution of an element for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a compact, high-efficiency fan [Kim, Section 4.3.1, p.146]
Regarding Claim 2, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7;0039] is disposed in a vertical plane [visible in view of annotated Figure 21A].
Regarding Claim 3, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7] is disposed in the air inlet [where air entering intake 44 passes through evaporator 45 before outlet 43, Figure 7;0039].
Regarding Claim 4, Small teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches the invention further comprising a low-pressure chamber [cabinet 41 where air is drawn through intake port 44 across evaporator 45 by the suction of blower 46, Figure 7, therefore describing a vacuum condition; 0039] that receives the first air [air from intake port 44, Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 5, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and further where the air inlet [intake port 44, Figure 7] is disposed in a vertical wall [annotated Figure 7] of the low-pressure chamber [cabinet 41, Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 6, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and, in light of indefiniteness, further teaches a high-pressure chamber [filter housing 171 adapted to hold filter 177 across outlet 43, Figure 24B and 24C; 0043] that receives the second air from the fan [where filter housing 171 is adapted to hold filter 177 across outlet 43, which is downstream blower 46, sealed by door panel 173;0043].
Regarding Claim 7, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and, in light of indefiniteness, further teaches where the air outlet [port 43, Figure 7] is disposed in a vertical wall [annotated Figure 7] of the high-pressure chamber [where filter module 170 comprises filter housing 171 adapted to hold filter 177 across outlet 43;0043, Figure 24B and 24C].
Regarding Claim 10, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air inlet [intake port 44, Figure 7] is disposed in a first vertical wall of the housing [annotated Figure 7] and the air outlet [outlet 43, Figure 7] is disposed in the first vertical wall of the housing [where the intake port 44 and outlet 43 are on the same wall, annotated Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 11, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the centrifugal fan [blower 46, Figure 7;0039, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above] comprises a fan inlet that receives the first air [where the blower draws warm air from intake port 44, implying a fan inlet;0039] and a fan outlet that discharges the second air [where the blower impels cooled air back out through outlet 43, implying a fan outlet;0039].
Regarding Claim 12, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the centrifugal fan [blower 46, Figure 7;0039, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above] rotates about an axis [annotated Figure 7, where a rotational axis is inherent to centrifugal fan, refer to Kim as applied to the rejection of claim 1], and the first air enters the fan inlet in a third direction [annotated Figure 7] that is parallel to the axis [annotated Figure 7, where air entering in the direction of the rotational axis is inherent to centrifugal fans, refer to Kim as applied in rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 13, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and further teaches where the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction [annotated Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 14, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7;0039] is configured to change a temperature of one of the first air or the second air [where air entering intake 44 passes through evaporator 45 to cool before outlet 43;0039].
Regarding Claim 15, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14, wherein the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7;0039] is configured to change the temperature by decreasing the temperature [where air entering intake 44 passes through evaporator 45 to cool before outlet 43;0039].
PNG
media_image1.png
804
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
806
980
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small (US20170089594A1) and Kim et al. (Kim, K., et al., Design Optimization of Fluid Machinery, 4.3.1 Centrifugal, Axial-Flow, Mixed-Flow, and Cross-Flow Fans, 2019, John Wiley & Sons. [retrieved on 1/22/2026]. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt0125AJ73/design-optimization-fluid/centrifugal-axial-flow>) and in further view of Choi (KR20020037207A).
Regarding Claim 8, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a partition wall [first vertical wall, annotated Figure 7] within the housing [unit 40 with filter housing 171, where filter module 170 comprises filter housing 171 adapted to hold filter 177 across outlet 43, Figure 24A shows how housing 171 is combined with unit 40; 0043] but does not teach the partition fluidly separates a low-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus from a high-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus.
However, Choi teaches an indoor unit of an air conditioner [0011] a partition wall [partition panel 62, Figure 4] within the housing that fluidly separates [where barrier 64 provides a pressure drop phenomenon where external air may flow backward; 0039] a low-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus [chamber 12, Figure 4] from a high-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus [chamber 11, Figure 4] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., minimizing noise by preventing external air from flowing back into the low pressure chamber [Choi, 0040]
Therefore, 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 assembly of the combined teachings to have a partition wall within the housing that fluidly separates a low-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus from a high-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus in view of the teachings of Choi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., minimizing noise by preventing external air from flowing back into the low pressure chamber [Choi, 0040]
Regarding Claim 9, Small, as modified teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach where the centrifugal fan is mounted on a surface of the partition wall.
However, Choi teaches an indoor unit of an air conditioner [0011] including a partition wall [partition panel 61, Figure 4] where the centrifugal fan [fan 51, Figure 4] is mounted on a surface of the partition wall [where the partition panel 61 and the fan receiving portion 62 are integrally manufactured, and the cover 63 is assembled thereto; 0037] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the element, a partition and fan, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing noise by preventing external air from flowing back into the low pressure chamber [Choi, 0040]
Therefore, 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 assembly of the combined teachings to have where the centrifugal fan is mounted on a surface of the partition wall in view of the teachings of Choi where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing noise by preventing external air from flowing back into the low pressure chamber [Choi, 0040]
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small (US20170089594A1) and Kim et al. (Kim, K., et al., Design Optimization of Fluid Machinery, 4.3.1 Centrifugal, Axial-Flow, Mixed-Flow, and Cross-Flow Fans, 2019, John Wiley & Sons. [retrieved on 1/22/2026]. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt0125AJ73/design-optimization-fluid/centrifugal-axial-flow>) and in further view of Wetzel (US5987908A).
Regarding Claim 16, in light of indefiniteness, Small teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a control cabinet within the housing that includes an electrical control device.
However, Wetzel teaches a ceiling air conditioner unit [col. 1, lines 8-15] where a control cabinet [electrical box 24 , Figure 1] within the housing that includes an electrical control device [where electrical box 24 within cabinet 12 contains electric power controls; col. 4, lines 14-20] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a more compact air handling apparatus by integrating the electrical power controls.
Therefore, 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 assembly of the combined teachings to have a control cabinet within the housing that includes an electrical control device in view of the teachings of Wetzel where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a more compact air handling apparatus by integrating the electrical power controls.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small (US20170089594A1) in view of Kim (Kim, K., et al., Design Optimization of Fluid Machinery, 4.3.1 Centrifugal, Axial-Flow, Mixed-Flow, and Cross-Flow Fans, 2019, John Wiley & Sons. [retrieved on 1/22/2026]. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt0125AJ73/design-optimization-fluid/centrifugal-axial-flow>) and in further view of Harmon (US5080282A)
Regarding Claim 17, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a mixing box that is fluidly coupled to the air-handling apparatus and receives additional conditioned air.
However, Harmon teaches a mixing box for use in single or multizone heating, ventilating, and air condition system [col. 1, lines 5-10] where a mixing box [mixing box 25, Figure 1; col. 5, lines 39-58] is fluidly coupled to the air-handling apparatus [air handling unit 10, Figure 1] and receives additional conditioned air [where hot air duct 17 and cold air duct 18, from air handling unit 10, supply air to mixing box 25, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 37- 48 and col. 5, lines 19 – 23] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving energy efficiency by reducing energy required to raise or lower temperature of air supplied [Harmon, col. 1, lines 13-15]
Therefore, 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 assembly of the combined teachings to have a mixing box that is fluidly coupled to the air-handling apparatus and receives additional conditioned air in view of the teachings of Harmon where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving energy efficiency by reducing energy required to raise or lower temperature of air supplied [Harmon, col. 1, lines 13-15].
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small (US20170089594A1) in view of Davis (US4560395A).
---
Regarding Claim 18, Small teaches an air-change system [air conditioning system 10; 0037;0038], comprising:
an air-handling apparatus [air handling unit 40, Figure 7] that includes:
a housing [a rectangular cabinet, Figure 7;0039] having a plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 21A];
an air inlet [intake port 44, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7] and is configured to receive first air into the air-handling apparatus [where warm air from mobile home 1 enters intake port 44 coupled to return air flexible duct 34; 0039] while the first air moves in a first direction [annotated Figure 7];
an air outlet [outlet 43, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7] and is configured to discharge second air from the air-handling apparatus [where cooled air is impelled out through outlet 43, Figure 7;0039] while the second air moves in a second direction [annotated Figure 7], wherein the first direction differs from the second direction by at least 90 degrees [where the intake port 44 and outlet 43 are on the same wall, Figure 7];
a fan [blower 46, Figure 7;0039] that is disposed within the housing and receives the first air and discharges the second air [where blower draws warm air from intake port 44 and impels cooled air back out through outlet 43;0039]; and
an air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7;0039] that is disposed within the housing [Figure 7;0039] and in the path of one of the first air or the second air [where air entering intake 44 passes through evaporator 45 before outlet 43;0039]; and
a return air duct [duct 33, Figure 7] fluidly coupled to the air inlet [via port 43, Figure 7]; and
a supply air duct [duct 34, Figure 7] fluidly coupled to the air outlet [via port 44, Figure 7].
Small doesn’t explicitly teach the fan is a centrifugal fan.
However, Davis teaches a compact blower and filter assembly [col. 1, lines 14-30] where the fan is a centrifugal fan [where air flow rates of 90 feet per minute are obtained using squirrel cage type centrifugal fans; col. 2, line 65-col.3, line 4] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing the size of the air handling unit by using a compact centrifugal fan with sufficient air flow rates
Therefore, 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 assembly of Small to a have a centrifugal fan in view of the teachings of Davis where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing the size of the air handling unit by using a compact centrifugal fan with sufficient air flow rates
Regarding Claim 19, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches wherein the supply air duct [duct 34, Figure 7] is fluidly coupled to one of a ceiling-mounted [Figure 22B, Details 4A, 4B,4C] filter [where optional filter module 170 holds filter 177 across intake 44 or outlet 43, Figure 24C;0043] and a ceiling-mounted supply-air duct system [where duct 34 can be mounted flush with wall 5 beneath roof 3, Figure 22B, Details 4A, 4B,4C, or from ceiling supports 94 with ductwork 15, Detail 5A-5C, Figure 22B; 0062;0063].
Small does not teach the filter is a high-efficient particulate air (HEPA) filter.
However, Davis teaches a compact blower and filter assembly [col. 1, lines 14-30] where the filter is a high-efficient particulate air (HEPA) filter [where a conventional heap filter 48 is mounted downstream of blower assembly; col. 4, lines 46-48] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing contamination to clean air environments
Therefore, 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 assembly of Small to a a high-efficient particulate air (HEPA) filter in view of the teachings of Davis where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing contamination to clean air environments.
Regarding Claim 20, Small, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches wherein the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, visible in Figure 21A] is disposed in a vertical plane [annotated Figure 21A].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763