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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the through-hole comprises a protrusion” is indefinite. The through-hole as defined by the Applicant is intended to be an open space which is defined by the partition. It is not clear how an open space can comprise a protrusion. It appears that the Applicant may be intending to claim that the portion of the partition which forms the through-hole comprises a protrusion, but is not clear. Please amend the claims accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spryshak (US 2013/0160648).
Regarding claim 1, Spryshak (US 2013/0160648) discloses an apparatus for introducing outside air (Fig. 3), the apparatus comprising: a duct-shaped body (28); at least one filter member (70) configured to filter foreign substances or moisture from the outside air (para. [0035] – [0040]), wherein the at least one filter is disposed in the duct-shaped body (Fig. 3); and a discharger (44) configured to discharge the filtered foreign substances or moisture, wherein the discharger is disposed in a lower portion of the duct-shaped body, and wherein the lower portion is closer to the ground. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 15, Spryshak further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is connected to a mixing chamber (the central chamber portion at leader line 22 which 20 feeds air into as shown in Fig. 1) configured to provide a space for mixing the outside air and circulating indoor air.
Regarding claim 20, Spryshak further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the discharger is configured to discharge the filtered foreign substances or moisture to reduce noise associated with an operation of the apparatus. (para. [0029]; the apparatus of Spryshak is at least capable of reducing noise; note this limitation is relative)
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.
Claim(s) 2-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spryshak in view of Siegel (US 5,679,074).
Regarding claim 2, Spryshak further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the duct-shaped body comprises: an inlet (30) disposed on one side to allow outside air to flow in; an outlet (68) disposed on another side; and at least one partition (32) dividing an internal space into a plurality of regions, but fails to disclose an inlet grill is mounted on the inlet.
Siegel teaches an apparatus comprising an inlet grill (15) mounted on the inlet. (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 2-12)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the inlet of Spryshak to include a grill as taught by Siegel in order to provide a means to filter larger objects from being able to go into the system. (Col. 3, lines 2-12)
Regarding claim 3, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein: a first inclined surface (the inclined surface formed to the left of the inlet) is formed on a first surface of the duct-shaped body, and the inlet is formed on the first inclined surface. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 4, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one partition has a curved cross-section that is curved at least once. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 5, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein: a through-hole (80) is formed in the middle of the at least one partition, the filter member includes at least a first filter member (the central portion of 70 that goes through 80 and which is intended to filter the fluid flowing through 70), and the first filter member is mounted in the through-hole.
Regarding claim 6, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the through-hole comprises a protrusion, and wherein the protrusion is formed by curving at least one edge of the through-hole. (as best understood, see the protrusion at the edge of 32 forming 80)
Regarding claim 7, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein: a second inclined surface (the inclined surface at 46) is formed on a second surface of the duct-shaped body (Fig. 3), the discharger is connected to an end of the second inclined surface, and foreign substances or moisture filtered by the first filter member are guided to the discharger along the second inclined surface or the at least one partition and discharged to an outside of the duct-shaped body. (Fig. 3; para. [0029])
Regarding claim 8, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the filter member further comprises a second filter member (the end portion of 70 that goes 80 and abuts against the outer wall), and the second filter member is mounted on the outlet. (as shown in Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 9, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein one end of the at least one partition is spaced apart from a surface of the duct-shaped body or the discharger to form a gap (the gap between 48 and 44) between the at least one partition and the surface of the duct-shaped body or the discharger, and foreign substances or moisture filtered by the second filter member are guided to the discharger by the gap and discharged to an outside of the duct-shaped body. (para. [0029] – [0032])
Regarding claim 10, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein a guide (48) is formed in a portion of the at least one partition, and wherein a thickness of the guide is incrementally increased from one end of the guide to another end of the guide. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 11, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the guide has a triangular cross-section, and wherein the triangular cross-section has a shape of a triangle that is not a right triangle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the shape of the guide of Spryshak to have a triangular cross-section, and wherein the triangular cross-section has a shape of a triangle that is not a right triangle since a change in shape of an element involves only
routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimized shape based on user defined criteria.
Regarding claim 12, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second filter member is configured to filter foreign substances or moisture that are smaller in size than those filtered by the first filter member. (for the purposes of this claim, the Fig. 4 embodiment of the filter is being interpreted as the filter and the first filter member is the portion of the filter at 88, and the second filter member is the portion of the filter at 70)
Regarding claim 13, Spryshak in view of Siegel further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein: the first filter member comprises a mesh filter, and the second filter member comprises a particle filter. (for the purposes of this claim, the Fig. 4 embodiment of the filter is being interpreted as the filter and the first filter member is the portion of the filter at 88, and the second filter member is the portion of the filter at 70)
Regarding claim 14, Spryshak further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the discharger comprises: a collection portion (the sloped surfaces of 46) having an upper portion (the portion of 46 at the top of the sloped surface) and a lower portion (the portion of 46 directly around 44), wherein the upper portion has a wider shape than the lower portion; a discharge port (the port defining 44) at the lower portion of the collection portion; but fails to disclose a discharge pipe connected to the discharge port.
Siegel teaches a discharge pipe connected to the discharge port. (as shown in Fig. 1, see the small pipe portion at 23 extending downward from the drain)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the discharger of Spryshak to include a small pipe extending downward from the drain as taught by Siegel in order to provide a portion to guide the flow discharged through the discharger as desired by the user.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spryshak in view of Ferdows (US 5,285,654)
Regarding claim 16, Spryshak further discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein a circulation duct (the duct which would connect the apparatus and mixing chamber) is connected to a portion of the mixing chamber, wherein the circulation duct is configured to allow the indoor air to flow into the mixing chamber, but fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is provided as a pair, wherein: a first one of the pair is connected to front of the mixing chamber and a second one of the pair is connected to rear of the mixing chamber.
Ferdows teaches an apparatus wherein the apparatus is provided as a pair (see how there are duplicate sections 12 on each side), wherein: a first one of the pair is connected to front of the mixing chamber and a second one of the pair is connected to rear of the mixing chamber (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the apparatus of Spryshak to include duplicate portions as taught by Ferdows since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an additional system in case the first system fails.
Regarding claim 17, Spryshak further discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but fails to disclose a condenser is connected to one side of the mixing chamber, an evaporator is connected to another side of the mixing chamber, and blowers are disposed downstream of both the condenser and the evaporator.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the apparatus of Spryshak to include a condenser, evaporator and blowers disposed downstream of the condenser and evaporator since this is combining prior art elements (condensers, evaporators, and blowers) according to known methods (HVAC systems) to yield predictable results (providing a condenser, evaporators, and blowers in HVAC systems)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights