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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 9/5/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 6/12/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0076594 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Ventilation Apparatus with Intersecting Bypass Passages”
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 it exceeds 150 words. 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:
“Total heat exchange element” in claim 1. The nonce term “element” is modified by the functional language of “total heat exchange” without reciting sufficient structure. The limitation will be interpreted as a cross flow air to air heat exchanger (as seen in applicants’ Figure 2), and equivalent structures.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR100640799, as cited in the IDS) in view of Lee (WO2023/090594A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Choi teaches a ventilation apparatus (100), comprising:
a housing (101), including: an indoor air inlet (lower 103) and an outdoor air outlet (lower 102) which are formed to be spaced apart from each other on one side (Figures 1-3); and
an outdoor air inlet (upper 102) and an indoor air outlet (upper 103) which are formed to be spaced apart from each other on the other side corresponding to an opposite side of the one side, wherein the outdoor air inlet is formed at a position opposite to the indoor air inlet and the indoor air outlet is formed at a position opposite to the outdoor air outlet (Figures 1-3);
an intake fan (107) mounted inside the case and having an outlet connected to the outdoor air outlet (Figures 1-3);
an exhaust fan (108) mounted inside the case and having an outlet connected to the indoor air outlet (Figures 1-3); and
a total heat exchange element (106) mounted inside the case and placed at a point where a flow passage connecting the indoor air inlet and the indoor air outlet and a flow passage connecting the outdoor air inlet and the outdoor air outlet intersect (Figures 1-3; The heat exchange intersects the middle of the flow passages),
wherein an intake side bypass passage (opened by bypass damper (104a)) that guides outdoor air flowing into the outdoor air inlet to a space where the intake fan is located, and an exhaust side bypass passage (opened by bypass damper (105a)) that guides indoor air flowing into the indoor air inlet to a space where the exhaust fan is located, by bypassing the total heat exchange element, and wherein the intake side bypass passage and the exhaust side bypass passage are configured to intersect at a predetermined point between the indoor air outlet and the outdoor air outlet (Figure 3; The pathways intersect in the middle area, thereby satisfying the claim limitation).
Choi fails to specifically teach a case accommodated in the housing and that the intake fan, the exhaust fan, the total heat exchanger are arranged in the case and in that the bypass passages are formed on the case.
However, Lee teaches it is known to form a ventilation apparatus comprising a housing (400) accommodating a case (300) wherein an intake fan (109a), the exhaust fan (109b), the total heat exchanger (110) are arranged in the case (300) and a bypass passage (331) is formed on the case (300) (Figures 3-4). Lee teaches the internal case to be made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) to improve insulation (Paragraph 111 states “The housing 101 may include a first inner housing 310 and a second inner housing 320 . The second inner housing 320 may be coupled to the first inner housing 310 in the vertical direction (Z). The inner housings 310 and 320 may be made of an insulating material. For example, the inner housings 310 and 320 may be made of EPS insulation such as Styrofoam. However, it is not limited thereto, and the inner housings 310 and 320 may be formed of various insulating materials provided to maintain the temperature of the air flowing through the intake passage 102 and the exhaust passage 103 at a constant temperature.”). The skilled person does know, that EPS is a good insulating material but has a limited strength for attachment to a ceiling or connecting ducting. Therefore it is typically used as an inner case accommodated in a surrounding housing - as proposed in claim 1.
Therefore, in view of Lee's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the housing having an inner case in order to improve the insulation of the ventilation apparatus. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the bypass passage on the case in order to reduce the installation space of the entire assembly by integrating the bypass passages into the case as opposed to external ducts that take extra space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 2, Choi as modified by Lee teach the case includes a bypass passage (Choi Figures 1-5, each port for 102 and 103 contains guide holes; Lee Figures 3-4) but fails to specifically teach an intake guide hole formed at an edge adjacent to the outdoor air outlet and communicating with the space where the intake fan is placed; an exhaust guide hole formed at an edge adjacent to the indoor air outlet and communicating with the space where the exhaust fan is placed, wherein an outlet of the intake side bypass passage communicates with the intake guide hole, and wherein an outlet of the exhaust side bypass passage communicates with the exhaust guide hole. There would be no motivation to further modify Choi without utilizing impermissible hindsight reasoning or without changing the principle of operation of Choi. Therefore, the prior art fails to neither anticipate nor render obvious the applicants' invention. Thus, the applicants' invention is novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art. The remaining claims are allowable based on their dependency from allowable claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763