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 .
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 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation “wherein the ventilation system comprises or more extension systems”. This language is vague and unclear because it is unknown whether the limitation is supposed to be “one or more extension systems” or something other than that. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the block" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mack GMBH & CO Rehinhold DE 2931359 (hereinafter “Mack”).
Regarding claim 1, Mack discloses a ventilation system (FIG. 1 and 2) for air ventilation in greenhouses (pages 2-3), comprising:
a shaft (1, 1a, 1b) with an upper inlet side 6 and a lower outlet side 3, wherein the
shaft is configured for suspending from a truss (see page 9), and
a first fan 4 that is fluidly connected to the lower outlet side of the shaft,
wherein the first fan is configured for displacing air in a first air displacement
direction L from the upper inlet side to the lower outlet side of the shaft and into the
greenhouse, and
wherein a height of the shaft is adjustable to a height of the truss. See FIG. 1 and 2 and pages 4-9.
Regarding claim 2, Mack discloses wherein the shaft comprises an upper part and a bottom part, wherein the upper part and the bottom part are telescopically arranged. See FIG. 1 and 2 and pages 4-9.
Regarding claim 3, Mack discloses wherein at least a portion of the upper part telescopically extends within the bottom part. See FIG. 1 and 2 and pages 4-9.
Regarding claim 7, Mack discloses wherein the shaft comprises one or more attachment means for attaching the shaft to the truss. See FIG. 1 and 2 and pages 4-9.
Regarding claim 15, Mack discloses further comprising drive means configured for driving the first fan and/or second fan; wherein the drive means are controlled by a climate control system. See FIG. 1 and 2 and pages 4-9.
Regarding claim 21, Mack discloses a method of ventilating comprising:
utilizing of a ventilation system according to claim 1 in a greenhouse. See page 5.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack, as applied above, in view of Hongxing et al CN 208778031 (English translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but Hongxing et al discloses wherein the telescopically arranged upper part and bottom part are connected by an extension system, wherein the extension system comprises a block comprising internal threading, a lower bar that is fixedly attached to the bottom part and the block, and an upper bar comprising a threaded part, wherein the upper bar is rotatably attached to the upper part of the shaft and protrudes through the block, and wherein the threaded part of the upper bar engages the internal threading of the block. See FIG. 1 and corresponding text.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Hongxing et al in the system of Mack to affix the two parts together securely.
Regarding claim 5, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but Hongxing et al discloses wherein the ventilation system comprises or more extension systems. See FIG. 1 and corresponding text.
Claims 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack.
Regarding claim 6, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the height of the shaft is adjustable in the range of 10-80 cm. Figuring out an optimum range is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 8, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the attachment means are mounted to the upper part of the shaft. Figuring out a location of mounting the attachment means without having a unique improvement is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 9, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein an upper edge of the bottom part comprises recesses for accommodating the attachment means when the shaft is in a retracted position. Including a recess to receive the attachment means without having a unique improvement is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 10, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the attachment means are interchangeable and/or extendable such that the attachment means are compatible to a width of a truss beam. Having the attachment means compatible to a width of a truss beam without having a unique improvement is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 11, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the shaft in cross section perpendicular to the first air displacement direction has a flat configuration. Including a shape configuration without having a unique improvement is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 12, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the ventilation system comprises an air deflector attached to the first fan, wherein the air deflector is configured for deflecting air in a direction perpendicular to the first air displacement direction. Including an air deflector is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 13, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include further comprising a second fan configured for displacing air in a second air displacement direction, wherein the second air displacement direction comprises a radial component relative to the first air displacement direction. Including a multiple of an already known and used structure without having a unique improvement is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Regarding claim 14, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the second fan comprises vertical blades. Including an orientation of a structure without having a unique improvement is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the system of Mack.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack, as applied above, in view of Penna, IV US 2006/0248807.
Regarding claim 17, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but Penna, IV discloses a greenhouse comprising a plurality of trusses and climate screens and comprising at least one ventilation system according to claim 1 which is attached to a truss and is positioned in a gap in between adjacent climate screens. See FIG. 8 and paragraphs [0044]-[0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Penna, IV in the system of Mack to locate the ventilation system between climate screens for optimizing efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but Penna, IV discloses wherein the ventilation system is positioned vertically. See FIG. 8 and paragraphs [0044]-[0046].
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack, as applied above, in view of Zander US 2011/0214268.
Regarding claim 19, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but Zander discloses comprising the step of adjusting the height of the shaft, thereby obtaining a shaft height that is compatible to the height of the truss, and further comprising the step of attaching the attachment means to the truss. See FIG. 5 and 6 and corresponding text.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Zander in the system of Mack to make it easier to adjust components to fit and work better together.
Regarding claim 20, Mack fails to explicitly disclose, but Zander discloses wherein adjusting the height of the shaft comprises rotating the upper bar in the internal threading of the
block in a rotation direction, thereby moving the block upwards or downwards on the upper bar depending on the rotation direction, thereby decreasing or increasing the height of the shaft. See FIG. 5 and 6 and corresponding text.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J DALLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4844. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-7pm ET M-Th.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOSEPH J DALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights