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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2025 & 12/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “defining a clearance between the fan inlet casing and the fan shroud” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a radiation shield between the heating device and the fan” of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fan positioned upstream of the heat exchanger” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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:
“supplemental heating device” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “supplemental heating”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A packaged rooftop indoor air management system” in claim 6.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “air management ”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
“other heat transfer devices” in claim 12.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heat transfer”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
Review of the specification found no described structure for the supplemental heating device, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Review of the specification found no described structure for the packaged rooftop indoor air management system, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Review of the specification found no described structure for the other heat transfer devices, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Claim Rejections from 112(F) above - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4, and the claims depending from these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a supplemental heating device”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “a supplemental heating device”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “a supplemental heating device” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “a supplemental heating device”.
Claims 5 are rejected for dependence from claim 4 above.
Claims 6, and the claims depending from these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system”.
Claims 12, and the claims depending from these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “other heat transfer devices”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “other heat transfer devices”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “other heat transfer devices” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “other heat transfer devices”.
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 4, 6, & 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 include the limitations “a supplemental heating device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to implement “a supplemental heating device”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a supplemental heating device”. 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.
Claim 6 include the limitations “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to implement “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a packaged rooftop indoor air management system”. 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.
Claim 12 include the limitations “other heat transfer devices” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to implement “other heat transfer devices”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “other heat transfer devices”. 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 5 is rejected for dependence from one of the rejected claims above.
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.
Claim 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fan shroud" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a fan shroud”.
Claim 1 recites “upstream and downstream flow control clearances” This is an indefinite statement as one skilled in the art is not fully apprised of what would read on this limitation. It is unclear where these distances are measured or how, further it is unclear if they are required to have an effect on the flow. To read on the claim. Applicants figures do not identify this clearance. This limitation will be examined as any clearance between the elements meeting it.
Claim 3 recites “the air handling unit comprises a ducted fan coil” which is indefinite as it would be unclear to one skilled in the art what applicant is claiming. It is unclear if applicant is claiming an additional coil of some sort beyond the already claimed heat exchanger or if applicant is claiming a location of the heat exchanger, or if applicant is trying to claim a specific type of heat exchanger thus making it indefinite. Applicants own specification states “the heat exchanger 110 may be a ducted fan coil unit (FCU) (as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 1)” in paragraph 0049. The claim will be examined as reading “the heat exchanger is located in a duct with the fan”.
Claim 12 recites “the heat exchanger comprises a primary heat exchanger and other heat transfer devices” which is indefinite as it would be unclear to one skilled in the art what applicant is claiming. It is unclear if applicant is claiming. It is unclear if this is splitting the already claimed heat exchanger into two heat exchangers or simply modify the previously claimed heat exchanger into a heat exchanger and some sort auxiliary device (controls/valves/shielding/etc), or if applicant is trying to claim a relationship between the already claimed heat exchanger and the supplemental heating device in dependent claims 4 and 5 differently. Applicants’’ specification and figures provide no guidance to one skilled in the art. The claim will be read as a claiming “The air handling unit of claim 1, wherein the air handling unit comprises the heat exchanger and an other heat transfer devices.”
The term “about” in claims 15-18 & 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The term about in these claims is applied to degrees and number of impeller blades, the specification provides no guidance as to how much variance the term about is to apply thus the term is indefinite. These claims will be examined with the specific numbers given MPEP 2173.05 (III) A.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to dependence from 1 or more of the above rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2025/0172299 A1) in view of HAAF(U.S. PGPub 2022/0049715 A1), and Dygert (U.S. PGPub 2015/0354598 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Mercer teaches an air handling unit (element 200) for use with an air conditioning system (elements 212 and 210 see para 0041-0042), the air handling unit comprising: a housing duct (element 202) through which air is moved from an inlet (element 204) to an outlet (element 206); a heat exchanger (element 210 para 0043) configured to facilitate a transfer of heat to and from the air moving through the housing duct; and a fan disposed (element 220) inside the housing duct, configured for moving air within the housing duct, the fan comprising: having a plurality of blades (FIG. 3A) extending therefrom, and an axis of rotation (element 329) arranged in-line with a direction (FIG. 3B) of flow of air through the housing duct, , and wherein the impeller is operable by a direct-drive motor (element 328); a fan inlet casing (element 330) disposed circumferentially around, a set of axial outlet guide vanes (element 224) disposed downstream of the impeller, comprising a plurality of vanes (element 224) extending radially from a stator hub (element 325) towards a stator shroud (the section of wall 330 that elements 224 connect to, see fig. 3A), and configured to redirect a flow of air (FIG. 3B) exiting the impeller such that the flow of air exiting the impeller is substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of the impeller.
Mercer does not teach a diagonal flow impeller with airflow through a housing duct, wherein an air flow path through the impeller has a mean angle. Mercer further does not teach a fan shroud and a clearance between the fan inlet casing and the fan shroud, with upstream and downstream flow control clearances (see 112b above).
HAAF teaches a diagonal flow impeller that can be used in an air handling unit (element 12), and discloses flow of air through the housing duct, wherein an air flow path through the impeller has a mean angle (Fig 2 Theta). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s impeller to be the impeller design of HAAF, the motivation would be to optimized diagonal impeller for increasing efficiency (paragraph 2).
Dygert discloses a fan shroud (element 32) and the clearance (element 78 Figure 2) between the fan inlet casing and the fan shroud, with upstream and downstream flow control clearances (element 76). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s impeller to include the shroud and spacing design of Dygert, the motivation would be to avoid detrimental tonal noise generation between the recirculation flow (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 2, Dygert teaches a rotating shroud extending circumferentially around the impeller, and wherein the rotating shroud is secured to the plurality of blades (FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, Mercer teaches the heat exchanger is located in a duct with the fan (per fig 2A- note the 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 4, Mercer teaches the air handling unit further comprises a supplemental heating device (element 226 paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Mercer teaches the fan is positioned downstream relative to the heat exchanger (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 8, Mercer teaches the fan is positioned upstream relative to the heat exchanger (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 9, Mercer teaches the heat exchanger (element 210) is substantially V-shaped relative to the direction of flow of air through the housing duct.
Regarding claim 10, Mercer teaches the heat exchanger (element 210 paragraph 0041) is substantially A-shaped relative to the direction of flow of air through the housing duct.
Regarding claim 11, Mercer teaches the heat exchanger (element 210 paragraph 0041) comprises a single slab heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 12, Mercer the air handling unit comprises the heat exchanger (element 210) and an other heat transfer devices (element 226).
Regarding claim 13, Mercer teaches the air handling unit wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool the air moving through the housing duct (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 14, Mercer teaches the heat exchanger is configured to heat the air moving through the housing duct (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 18, Dygert teaches in some embodiments, the fan rotor (element 24) has 7, 9, or 11 fan blades (element 28).
Regarding claim 19, Dygert teaches circumferential sweep along at least a portion of the guide vane span (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 20 Dygert teaches the stacking axis (element 80) leans circumferentially from a radial direction at an angle r1 of about 10 degrees to about 25 degrees (paragraph 0030).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2025/0172299 A1) in view of HAAF(U.S. PGPub 2022/0049715 A1), and Dygert (U.S. PGPub 2015/0354598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duhamel (U.S. PGPub 1972/3692977 A).
Regarding claim 5, Duhamel teaches the fan is after the circular sheet metal heat radiation shield (element 28). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s to include a radiation shield of Duhamel, motivation minimizes the temperature rise within the unit. It also increases the heating efficiency within the unit.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2025/0172299 A1) in view of HAAF(U.S. PGPub 2022/0049715 A1), and Dygert (U.S. PGPub 2015/0354598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meirav (U.S. PGPub 2016/9399187 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Meirav teaches the air management system (element 100) is a packaged central air conditioning system, the integrated system comprises ATA mounted on an AHU configured as a packaged rooftop unit (PU) (element 218). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s to include the packaged rooftop indoor air management system of Meirav, motivation in order to maintain good air quality, HVAC systems are typically configured to indoor air with outdoor air or, alternatively, to allow the air to flow through air scrubbers. Outdoor air may be air from out of the enclosed space (Column 1 last two sentences of background).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2025/0172299 A1) in view of HAAF(U.S. PGPub 2022/0049715 A1), and Dygert (U.S. PGPub 2015/0354598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azzouz (U.S. PGPub 2020/0232475 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Azzouz teaches an impeller (element 1a), and wherein the air flow path through the impeller has a mean angle oriented diagonally between about 30 degrees and about 80 degrees relative to the axis of rotation of the impeller (para 0112). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s to the impeller of Azzouz, motivation optimize the agitation of a flow of air (paragraph 0120).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2025/0172299 A1) in view of HAAF(U.S. PGPub 2022/0049715 A1), and Dygert (U.S. PGPub 2015/0354598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rezaei (U.S. PGPub 2024/0360842 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Rezaei teaches the beta is defined as the slope of a camber line the angle beta is in the range of -3 degrees to -43 degrees (paragraph 007). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s to the impeller of Rezaei, motivation the angle beta and angle theta for the blades are selected to provide improved performance of the vane axial blower system (last sentence of paragraph 0188).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2025/0172299 A1) in view of HAAF(U.S. PGPub 2022/0049715 A1), and Dygert (U.S. PGPub 2015/0354598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LI(U.S. PGPub 2022/0333613 A1).
Regarding claim 17, LI teaches impeller (element 60) is between 35 to 45 degrees (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Mercer’s to the impeller of LI, motivation significantly higher efficiency and improved heat transfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mercer(US-2015/0153111 A1), Innocenti(US-2015/0098817 A1), Nurzynski (U.S. PGPub 2013/0302156 A1), Gault (U.S. PGPub 2001/6176306 B1) and Mercer (U.S. PGPub 2014/0099086 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY F CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)-272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763