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 § 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) 1-6, 10-11, 12, 13-15, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garg (US 20190360719).
Regarding claim 1,
Garg teaches a support duct system (see abstract), comprising: a support duct frame 108 including a longitudinal axis (not labeled) and at least one mounting bracket support 180, each of the at least one mounting bracket support being movable relative to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame (see Figs. 4-5); and at least one mounting bracket 182 coupled to a corresponding one of the at least one mounting bracket support, each of the at least one mounting bracket being removably couplable to a corresponding cooling unit 134 (e.g. when elements of the fan assembly are removed from the housing).
Regarding claim 2,
Garg teaches wherein each of the at least one mounting bracket is rotatably couplable to a corresponding cooling unit.
Regarding claim 3,
Garg teaches at least one longitudinal frame member 232 extending at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame, the at least one mounting bracket support being slidably coupled to the at least one longitudinal frame member (e.g. wherein the mounting bracket support 182 is capable of being slid to be coupled to the frame member).
Regarding claim 4,
Garg teaches wherein the at least one longitudinal frame member includes two longitudinal frame members, the at least one mounting bracket support extending between the two longitudinal frame members (e.g. two edges of the frame 108, see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5,
Garg teaches further comprising an air duct within the support duct frame (not labeled, see Figs. 9-10), the air duct including at least one cooling unit inlet (not labeled, see par. 65).
Regarding claim 6,
Garg teaches a service component conduit and a control box in communication with the service component conduit (e.g. the conduit comprising terminal block 46, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20,
The subject matter of claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1-6 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1-6.
Regarding claim 12,
Garg teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of cooling units is rotated clockwise or counterclockwise at approximately 45 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame when in the rotated position (see Figs. 9-10).
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(s) 7, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg.
Regarding claim 7,
Garg teaches the support duct frame is a first support duct frame (e.g. the support duct frame comprising fan assembly 134), the support duct system further comprising a second support duct frame (e.g. the support duct frame comprising evaporator coils 144) but does not teach the service component conduit is a first service component conduit of the first support duct frame; the support duct system further comprises a second service component conduit of the second support duct frame; and the first service component conduit is in communication with the second service component conduit.
However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing a second service component conduit within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing for multiple controls of the system), the mere duplication of the second service component conduit in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Garg to include a second service component conduit, in order to predictably provide multiple control systems.
Regarding claim 8,
Garg teaches wherein: the first support duct frame further includes a first end and a second end and the second support duct frame includes a first end and a second end (not labeled, See Fig. 5); and the support duct system further comprises an air duct within the second support duct frame, the second end of the first support duct frame being connected to the first end of the second support duct frame such that the air duct within the first support duct frame is in fluid communication with an air duct within the second support duct frame (not labeled, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9,
Garg does not teach a plurality of adjustable feet coupled to the support duct frame but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, adjustable feet coupled to the support duct frame would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Garg to comprise a plurality of adjustable feet coupled to the support duct frame to obtain the advantage of, for example, adjustably coupling the support duct frame to an uneven base.
Regarding claims 16, 19,
The subject matter of claims 16, 19 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 7 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamboli teaches a support duct system with a rotatably coupled mounting bracket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
