DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 07/23/2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a housing of the fan” in lines 2-3, which should recite “the housing of the fan” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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: “closing mechanism” and locking mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraphs 0028-0030 recite "the closing mechanism comprises an extension spring, an extension spring and a cable, or an elastic cable". Paragraphs 0027-0028 recite "the locking mechanism comprises a latch or an electric resistance element". Therefore, the Examiner interprets " closing mechanism" to be at least one of an extension spring, an extension spring and a cable, or an elastic cable" and "locking mechanism" to be at least one of a latch or an electric resistance element.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seitz (European Patent Publication EP2816880B1, provided by Applicant on 10/02/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
A device (anti-recirculation device, title) for use with a fan (FM), the device (anti-recirculation device, title) comprising:
a shaft (the shaft of SM, in which the curtain BL is wound about in the closed position, as illustrated in Figure 2) mounted at (the shaft of SM is mounted via RC to FG, as illustrated in Figure 6) opposite ends (the top and bottom ends of FM, as illustrated in Figure 5) via brackets (FG, as illustrated in Figure 6) to a housing (the housing of FM) of the fan (FM);
a curtain (BL) for blocking airflow (AF2) through the fan (FM) in a closed position (closed position illustrated in Figure 2), the curtain (BL) being wound onto (as illustrated in Figures 2 and 5) the shaft (the shaft of SM) in an open position (open position illustrated in Figure 1);
a closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) for unwinding (as illustrated in Figure 6) the curtain (BL) to the closed position (closed position illustrated in Figure 2);
a locking mechanism (HK1) for locking (as described in Paragraphs 0050 and 0051, HK1 engages in TP1 in the open position of BL as illustrated in Figure 1, thus locking BL in the open position until FM is pulled and removed from the CH) the curtain (BL) in the open position (open position illustrated in Figure 1); and
in response to detection of malfunction (when an operator needs to replace FM due to malfunction or maintenance) of the fan (FM), the locking mechanism (HK1) is released (from TP1, as described in Paragraph 0050), and the closing mechanism (BE) unwinds (as illustrated in Figure 6) the curtain (BL) to the closed position (position illustrated in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
A frame (RC) having (as illustrated in Figure 6) the brackets (FG), the frame (RC) being attachable to (as illustrated in Figure 1) the housing (the housing of FM) of the fan (FM).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
The locking mechanism (HK1) comprises a latch (HK1 is a latch, as illustrated in Figure 3) which engages with a mating member (TP1) of the closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) at the free end (the distal end of BL) of the curtain (BL) when the curtain (BL) is in the open position (position illustrated in Figure 1) and locks (as illustrated in Figure 1) the curtain (BL) in the open position (position illustrated in Figure 1).
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 of this title, 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 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz (European Patent Publication EP2816880B1, provided by Applicant on 10/02/2024), as recited in Claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Tong-Viet (U.S. Patent No. 9,007,763).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
The closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) comprises an extension spring (SM) and is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 6, BE is attached to the distal end) one end (the distal end) of the curtain (BL) and the other end (the end attached to SM) is attached to a fixed element (RC).
However, Seitz lacks showing the extension spring having one end attached to the curtain, the extension spring being loaded when the curtain is in the open position.
In the same field of cooling electronic equipment, Tong-Viet teaches (Figures 4, 5, and 8):
It is known in the cooling electronic equipment art for a curtain device (400) to have a closing mechanism (mechanism illustrated in Figure 8) comprising an extension spring (844) having one end attached to (“844 is coupled to the extremity of 410 by 842”, Col. 4, lines 35-38) the curtain (410) and the other end is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 8) a fixed element (841), wherein the extension spring (844) is loaded (as illustrated in Figure 8, as 410 is pulled upward, 844 is loaded) when the curtain (410) is in the open position.
Further, “one advantage is that less vertical space is used for the storage of the web [curtain]”, Col. 4, lines 50-51.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the extension spring taught by Tong- Viet for the extension spring shown by Seitz, to provide the advantage that less vertical space is required for storage of the curtain, since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results, which in this case is raising and lowering the curtain.
Regarding Claim 4 and 13, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
The closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) comprises an extension spring (SM) and is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 6, BE is attached to the distal end) one end (the distal end) of the curtain (BL) and the other end (the end attached to SM) is attached to a fixed element (RC).
However, Seitz lacks showing the closing mechanism further comprises a cable, which links via a guiding element, the curtain and one end of the extension spring, the extension spring being loaded when the curtain is in the open position.
In the same field of cooling electronic equipment, Tong-Viet teaches (Figures 4, 5, and 8):
It is known in the cooling electronic equipment art for a curtain device (400) to have a closing mechanism (mechanism illustrated in Figure 8) comprising an extension spring (844) and a cable (842) linking (“844 is coupled to the extremity of 410 by 842”, Col. 4, lines 35-38), via a guiding element (743), the curtain (410) and one end (the right end, as illustrated in Figure 8) of the extension spring (844), wherein the other end (the left end, as illustrated in Figure 8) of the extension spring (844) is attached to a fixed element (841), wherein the extension spring (844) is loaded (as illustrated in Figure 8, as 410 is pulled upward, 844 is loaded) when the curtain (410) is in the open position.
Further, “one advantage is that less vertical space is used for the storage of the web [curtain]”, Col. 4, lines 50-51.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the extension spring and cable taught by Tong- Viet for the extension spring shown by Seitz, to provide the advantage that less vertical space is required for storage of the curtain, since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results, which in this case is raising and lowering the curtain.
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
The closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) comprises an extension spring (SM) and is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 6, BE is attached to the distal end) one end (the distal end) of the curtain (BL) and the other end (the end attached to SM) is attached to a fixed element (RC).
However, Seitz lacks showing the extension spring is an elastic cable having one end attached to the curtain, the extension spring being loaded when the curtain is in the open position.
In the same field of cooling electronic equipment, Tong-Viet teaches (Figures 4, 5, and 8):
It is known in the cooling electronic equipment art for a curtain device (400) to have a closing mechanism (mechanism illustrated in Figure 8) comprising an elastic cable (844, “844 may comprise an elastic member”. Col. 4, lines 35-36) having one end attached to (“844 is coupled to the extremity of 410 by 842”, Col. 4, lines 35-38) the curtain (410) and the other end is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 8) a fixed element (841), wherein the elastic cable (844) is loaded (as illustrated in Figure 8, as 410 is pulled upward, 844 is loaded) when the curtain (410) is in the open position.
Further, “one advantage is that less vertical space is used for the storage of the web [curtain]”, Col. 4, lines 50-51.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the elastic cable taught by Tong- Viet for the extension spring shown by Seitz, to provide the advantage that less vertical space is required for storage of the curtain, since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results, which in this case is raising and lowering the curtain.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Tong-Viet teaches (Figures 4, 5, and 8):
The elastic cable (844) goes via at least one guiding element (743).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
The closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) comprises an extension spring (SM) and is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 6, BE is attached to the distal end) one end (the distal end) of the curtain (BL) and the other end (the end attached to SM) is attached to a fixed element (RC).
However, Seitz lacks showing the extension spring is cable having one end attached to the curtain and the other end attached to a spool, wherein the spool comprises a winding member and the winding member is loaded when the curtain is in the open position.
In the same field of cooling electronic equipment, Tong-Viet teaches (Figures 4, 5, and 8):
It is known in the cooling electronic equipment art for a curtain device (400) to have a closing mechanism (mechanism illustrated in Figure 8) comprising a cable (842) having one end attached to (as illustrated in Figure 8) the curtain (410) and the other end is attached to (as illustrated in Figure 8) a spool (841), wherein the spool (841) comprises a winding member (844) and the winding member (844) is loaded (as illustrated in Figure 8, as 410 is pulled upward, 844 is loaded) when the curtain (410) is in the open position.
Further, “one advantage is that less vertical space is used for the storage of the web [curtain]”, Col. 4, lines 50-51.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the cable and spool taught by Tong- Viet for the extension spring shown by Seitz, to provide the advantage that less vertical space is required for storage of the curtain, since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results, which in this case is raising and lowering the curtain.
Regarding Claim 8, Tong-Viet teaches (Figures 4, 5, and 8):
The guiding element (743) comprises a pulley (as described in Col. 4, lines 61-64, an electric motor can be used to actuate 743; accordingly, since 743 transmits a force to lift the curtain, 743 is a pulley).
Regarding Claim 20, Seitz shows (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
The locking mechanism (HK1) comprises a latch (HK1 is a latch, as illustrated in Figure 3) which engages with a mating member (TP1) of the closing mechanism (SM and BE/CH) at the free end (the distal end of BL) of the curtain (BL) when the curtain (BL) is in the open position (position illustrated in Figure 1) and locks (as illustrated in Figure 1) the curtain (BL) in the open position (position illustrated in Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent on 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.
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Seitz shows the claimed invention except the locking mechanism comprises electric resistance element, the electric resistance element being operative to increase its temperature when connected to an electric current source in response to detection of malfunction of the fan and melt the latch.
Modifying Seitz accordingly teaches away from the principle operation of Seitz.
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Seitz shows the claimed invention except the latch comprises an electromechanical latch.
Modifying Seitz accordingly teaches away from the principle operation of Seitz.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related curtain systems:
Eggenberger et al. (U.S Patent No. 11,970,904): see Figures 1B and 1C
Chan et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0162904): see Figure 5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Helena Kosanovic, can be reached on 571-272-9059. 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.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights