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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirpourian (US 2010/0070090) in view of Mizufune (US 2015/0329125).
As for claim 1, Mirpourian discloses a compressed air energy storage system for a building (abstract), the system comprising: an air intake configured to receive air from an environment external to the building (fig. 8, entering 852); a compressor operably coupled to the air intake ([0111], fig. 8, air compressor); an air dryer operably coupled to the cooler (750 fluidly coupled to 710-712, fig. 7); an air receiver operably coupled to the air dryer (102, [0039], air receiver downstream of air dryer/filter); and a displacement ventilation system operably coupled between the air receiver and a room, the displacement ventilation system comprising: a ventilation air delivery assembly operably coupled between the air receiver and the room (760a, 760b, fig. 7); and a ventilation air extraction assembly operably coupled between the air receiver and the room (102, [0039] air receiver upstream of 864 to the vent loop and 864 to building), wherein the ventilation air extraction assembly is further fluidly coupled to the air intake to form a loop (862, fig. 8).
Mirpourian discloses the claimed invention except for a cooler operably coupled to the compressor. Mizufune teaches a cooler operably coupled to the compressor (41, [0100]) in order to reduce the temperature of the air heated by the act of compression. Mirpourian would benefit equally from reducing the temperature of the air heated by the act of compression. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with a cooler operably coupled to the compressor as taught by Mizufune in order to reduce the temperature of the air heated by the act of compression.
Mirpourian discloses a heat pump [0005] and the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing a heat pump operably coupled to the air receiver; wherein the ventilation air delivery assembly is fluidly coupled to the heat pump. However, adding the heat pump contemplated in [0005] would be operably coupled to the air receiver (in line with air receiver and thus operably coupled); wherein the ventilation air delivery assembly is fluidly coupled to the heat pump (heat pump would be in line with ventilation air delivery system 760a, 760b, fig. 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with a heat pump operably coupled to the air receiver; wherein the ventilation air delivery assembly is fluidly coupled to the heat pump because doing so would only require incorporating the heat pump contemplated in paragraph [0005] with the system disclosed in fig. 7).
As for claim 7, Mirpourian discloses the displacement ventilation system further comprises one or more vortex tubes operably coupled between the air receiver and the room (810a, 810b, fig. 8, [0052]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirpourian in view of Mizufune as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tauscher (US 2023/017472).
As for claim 2, Mirpourian discloses the claimed invention except for the displacement ventilation system further comprises a splitter valve positioned to selectively direct air from the air receiver to the ventilation air delivery assembly and/or the ventilation air extraction assembly. Tauscher teaches the displacement ventilation system further comprises a splitter valve positioned to selectively direct air from the air receiver to the ventilation air delivery assembly and/or the ventilation air extraction assembly (29, 42, 2, fig. 1) in order to provide a recirculation line back to the compressed air supply for increased process control. Mirpourian would benefit equally from providing a recirculation line back to the compressed air supply for increased process control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with the displacement ventilation system further comprises a splitter valve positioned to selectively direct air from the air receiver to the ventilation air delivery assembly and/or the ventilation air extraction assembly as taught by Tauscher in order to provide a recirculation line back to the compressed air supply for increased process control.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirpourian in view of Mizufune as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wright (US 2020/0147425).
As for claim 4, Mirpourian discloses a channel coupled between the air receiver and the ventilation air delivery assembly (864, 860, fig. 8) and the claimed invention except for a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires extending from an interior surface of the channel, wherein the shape-memory alloy wires are configured to exchange heat with fluid flowing through the channel. Wright teaches a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires extending from an interior surface of the channel, wherein the shape-memory alloy wires are configured to exchange heat with fluid flowing through the channel (abstract, claim 1, heat exchange with fluid triggers actuator) in order to reduce the potential for accidental combustion. Mirpourian would benefit equally from reducing the potential for accidental combustion. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires extending from an interior surface of the channel, wherein the shape-memory alloy wires are configured to exchange heat with fluid flowing through the channel as taught by Wright in order to reduce the potential for accidental combustion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirpourian in view of Mizufune as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of JP7531243B1, hereinafter “JP’243.”
Mirpourian discloses an air filter (750, fig. 7) and the claimed invention except for the air dryer comprises a hollow membrane air filter. JP’243 teaches the air dryer comprises a hollow membrane air filter (p. 4, fifth full paragraph) in order to remove a certain amount of water vapor from the compressed air. Mirpourian would benefit equally from removing a certain amount of water vapor from the compressed air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with the air dryer comprises a hollow membrane air filter as taught by JP’243 in order to remove a certain amount of water vapor from the compressed air.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirpourian in view of Mizufune as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Snyder (US 2014/0202449).
Claim 8 discloses the claimed invention except for heat recovered from the cooler and/or the vortex tubes is transferred to a domestic hot water supply. Snyder teaches heat recovered from the cooler and/or the vortex tubes is transferred to a domestic hot water supply ([0070], second last sentence waste heat from cooler/heat pump) in order to make use of waste energy for increased efficiency. Mirpourian would benefit equally from making use of waste energy for increased efficiency. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with heat recovered from the cooler and/or the vortex tubes is transferred to a domestic hot water supply as taught by Snyder in order to make use of waste energy for increased efficiency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirpourian in view of Mizufune as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hill (US 2024/0261719).
Mirpourian discloses the claimed invention except for a carbon dioxide extraction assembly operably coupled between the ventilation air extraction assembly and the air intake, wherein the carbon dioxide extraction assembly is configured to extract carbon dioxide from air flowing from the ventilation air extraction assembly to the air intake. Hill teaches a carbon dioxide extraction assembly operably coupled between the ventilation air extraction assembly and the air intake, wherein the carbon dioxide extraction assembly is configured to extract carbon dioxide from air flowing from the ventilation air extraction assembly to the air intake [0019] in order to purify the air delivered to the air intake. Mirpourian would benefit equally from purifying the air delivered to the air intake. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Mirpourian with a carbon dioxide extraction assembly operably coupled between the ventilation air extraction assembly and the air intake, wherein the carbon dioxide extraction assembly is configured to extract carbon dioxide from air flowing from the ventilation air extraction assembly to the air intake as taught by Hill in order to purify the air delivered to the air intake.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 3 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the displacement ventilation system further comprises a sensor operably coupled to the splitter valve, wherein the sensor comprises: an absorptive medium configured to increase in weight via absorption of carbon dioxide in the room; and a trigger mechanism configured to actuate the splitter valve when the absorptive medium reaches a threshold weight with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. CO2 sensors are well known in the art but none could be find to actuate a splitter valve as required by independent claim 1.
Claim 6 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the displacement ventilation system further comprises a second air receiver operably coupled to the first air receiver, the ventilation air delivery assembly, and the ventilation air extraction assembly. The closest prior art is found in applications like Vertriest (US 2009/0049984) which discloses a second air receiver for regeneration, but said second receiver is not coupled to the ventilation air extraction assembly as required by claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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 at 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 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights