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) 1-4, 8-14, 16 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 frame 108 (see abstract) at an installation location (e.g. the location the frame is installed at), the support duct frame including a longitudinal axis (not labeled) and the multi-unit support duct system including a plurality of cooling units 134 rotatably coupled to the support duct frame (see Figs. 5-7), each of the plurality of cooling units being in a first configuration relative to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame (see Figs. 5-7); and (wherein each unit is capable of being) independently rotating each of the plurality of cooling units from the first configuration to a second configuration relative to the support duct frame.
With respect to the recitation of “method of installing a multi-unit support duct system, the method comprising: installing, etc.”, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 2,
Garg teaches wherein each of the plurality of cooling units has a longitudinal axis (not labeled) and wherein: the longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of cooling units is at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame when the plurality of cooling units is in the first configuration relative to the support duct frame; and the longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of cooling units is offset from the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame when the plurality of cooling units is in the second configuration relative to the support duct frame (see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 3,
Garg teaches wherein the longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of cooling units is approximately 45 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame (see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 4,
wherein the longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of cooling units is between approximately 15degrees and approximately 45 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame.
Regarding claim 8,
Garg teaches independently moving at least one of the plurality of cooling units along the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame relative to the others of the plurality of cooling units.
Regarding claim 9,
Garg teaches wherein the support duct frame further includes: a plurality of mounting bracket supports 180, each of the plurality of mounting bracket supports being movable relative to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame; and a plurality of mounting brackets 182, each of the plurality of mounting brackets being coupled to a corresponding one of the plurality of mounting bracket supports, each of the plurality of cooling units being removably and rotatably coupled to a corresponding one of the plurality of mounting brackets.
Regarding claims 10-13,
Garg teaches wherein the support duct frame further includes two longitudinal frame member extending at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame (e.g. two edges of the frame), each of the plurality of mounting bracket supports being slidably coupled to each of the two longitudinal frame members, each of the plurality of mounting bracket supports extending between the two longitudinal frame members (e.g. wherein the mounting bracket supports are capable of being slid to be coupled to the frame members), wherein the support duct frame further includes an air duct within the support duct frame (not labeled), the air duct including a plurality of cooling unit inlets (not labeled), wherein each of the plurality of cooling unit inlets is in fluid communication with a corresponding one of the plurality of cooling units (see Figs. 5-7), and wherein each of the plurality of mounting brackets at least partially defines a corresponding one of the plurality of cooling unit inlets (see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claims 14, 16,
The subject matter of claims 14, 16 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as at least claim 1 and has been addressed in the rejection of at least claim 1.
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) 5-7, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg.
Regarding claims 5-7,
Garg does not teach a plurality of adjustable feet coupled to the support duct frame wherein each of the plurality of adjustable feet extends at least substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the support duct frame, wherein adjusting the length of each of the plurality of adjustable feet includes adjusting the length of each of the plurality of adjustable feet independently of each other, 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.
Further, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 15,
The subject matter of claim 15 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 5-7 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 5-7.
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
