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 .
Claims 1-17 are currently pending. Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wick and water” tanks and assembly of Claims 12-17 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Line 3 of Claim 8 and Line 2 of Claim 15 use reference numerals “(102)”, “(134)” respectively. All other instances of reference numerals have been removed. Applicant is suggested to amend so that the usage or deletion of reference numerals is consistent throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10, Lines 2-3 “air treatment system” modified by the function of being “configured to treat air displaced by the air displacement appliance”. This is interpreted to be an air purification system, an air heating system, an air cooling system, an air humidification system, an air dehumidification system, a fragrance emitting unit, or equivalents thereof as described in Pg. 24, Lines 11-19 of the disclosure filed May 13, 2025.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3, 7, 14-17 are 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 3, Line 2 recites “substantially the entirety”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, it is unclear how much of the entirety is considered “substantially”. It is noted that parts of the disclosure, such as Pg. 5, Lines 1-3 give at least 70% of an example of something that is considered “substantially”. However, this does not clearly establish what is encompassed by “substantially”, but rather merely one example that does not establish any clear bounds.
Regarding Claim 7, Lines 2 and 3 recite “proximal”. The term “proximal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, it is unclear what distance from the ends is bound by the term “proximal”.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Line 4 of Claim 14 recites “the first wick and water tank”, Line 4 of Claim 15 recite “the second wick and water tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they have not been previously recited. It is unclear what wicks and tanks the claims refer to. Please note the recitation of “moist air” in the claims may also need to be amended pending how this issue is resolved.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Line 3 of Claim 16 recites “the first filter”, Line 3 of Claim 17 recites “the second filter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since they have not been previously recited. It is unclear what filters the claims refer to. Please note the recitation of “filtered air” in the claims may also need to be amended pending how this issue is resolved.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0191153 A1), hereinafter Park, in view of Inouchi (US 2023/0265853 A1), hereinafter Inouchi.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1-3 of Park teach an air displacement appliance comprising: a housing (exterior of 20) delimiting a first air inlet (21), a second air inlet (23), and an air outlet (26, 28); a first impeller (130) arranged such that air from the first inlet (21) is drawn axially into the first impeller (130) and radially expelled from the first impeller (130) (see arrow out of 26); a second impeller (230) arranged such that air from the second air inlet (23) is drawn axially into the second impeller (230) and radially expelled from the second impeller (230) (see arrow out of 28), the air outlet (26, 28) being arranged to permit the air radially expelled from the first impeller (130) and from the second impeller (230) to pass therethrough to exit the housing, wherein the air outlet (26, 28) is provided around a perimeter of the housing such that the air exits the housing in frontwards, backwards, and sidewards directions (see the outlet extending around the entire housing), wherein the air displacement appliance further comprises motors (170, 236) being sandwiched between the first impeller (130) and the second impeller (230) and rotating the first impeller (130) and the second impeller (230), drive shafts of the motors comprising a first drive shaft portion (171) extending from the motors to the first impeller (130), and a second drive shaft portion (236a, labeled in Figure 13) extending from the motors, in an opposite direction relative to the first drive shaft portion (171), to the second impeller (230) [0070-0078, 0099, 201]. Please note that the “first” and “second” as claimed currently does not particularly limit which is which with respect to Park and may all be swapped at the same time. For instance, the inlet (21) and inlet (23) are equally interpretable as second inlet (21) and first inlet (23). Unless otherwise noted, the notation initially used above will be used with the swapped notation understood to be equally applicable.
Park does not expressly teach a singular motor as claimed. However, a motor would have been obvious in view of Inouchi.
Figure 2 of Inouchi teaches an air displacement appliance having a motor (30) being sandwiched between the first impeller (40) and the second impeller (50), a first drive shaft portion (top part of 310 with respect to view in Figure 2) extending from the motor (30) to the first impeller (40), and a second drive shaft portion (bottom part of 310 with respect to view in Figure 2) extending from the motor (30), in an opposite direction relative to the first drive shaft portion, to the second impeller (50) [0016, 0029]. By rotating both impellers (40, 50) through the use of one motor (30) rather than multiple rotors, the number of bearings is reduced and the configuration is simplified [0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the appliance taught by Park with a motor being sandwiched between the first impeller and the second impeller, a first drive shaft portion extending from the motor to the first impeller, and a second drive shaft portion extending from the motor, in an opposite direction relative to the first drive shaft portion, to the second impeller as suggested by Inouchi, to provide the benefit of a simplified configuration.
Regarding Claim 2, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the air outlet (26, 28) is provided around the perimeter of the housing (exterior of 20) such that the air (follow the arrows leaving 26, 28 in Figure 2) exits the housing in the frontwards and backwards direction, a first sidewards direction, and a second sidewards direction facing away from the first sidewards direction [0075-0078]. It can be seen the outlet goes all around the housing.
Regarding Claim 3, as far as it is definite and understood, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Park teach wherein the air outlet (26, 28) is provided around substantially the entirety of the perimeter of the housing (exterior of 20). What is illustrated is interpreted to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially”.
Regarding Claim 4, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the first impeller (130) has a first periphery (peripheral, i.e. radially outer, part of 130) from which air is radially expelled from the first impeller (130), and the second impeller (230) has a second periphery (peripheral, i.e. radially outer part of 230) from which air is radially expelled from the second impeller (230), the air outlet (26, 28) aligning with the first periphery and the second periphery.
Regarding Claim 5, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the housing (exterior of 20) is an elongate housing whose length extends from a first end (top end with respect to Figure 2) of the housing to a second end (bottom end with respect to Figure 2) of the housing.
Regarding Claim 6, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 5.
Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the first impeller (130) and the second impeller (230) are arranged at an intermediate region along the length of the housing (from top to bottom of 20) between the first end (top of 20 with respect to Figure 2) and the second end (bottom of 20 with respect to Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 5.
Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the first air inlet (21) is arranged at or proximal to the first end (top of 20 with respect to Figure 2), and the second air inlet (23) is arranged at or proximal to the second end (bottom of 20 with respect to Figure 2), and the air outlet (26, 28) is arranged in a central region along the length of the housing (from top to bottom of 20) between the first air inlet (21) and the second air inlet (23).
Regarding Claim 8, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the first air inlet (21) is provided around the perimeter of the housing (exterior of 20) such that the air enters the housing, via the first air inlet (21), from frontwards, backwards and sidewards directions; and wherein the first air inlet (21) is provided at an end (top of 20 with respect to Figure 2) of the housing. See in Figure 1, the inlet (21) is open all around the perimeter to receive air from all directions.
Regarding Claim 9, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
As noted above in Claim 1, the interpretation of first and second notations are interchangeable. Using the swapped notations, Figures 1-3 of Park teach wherein the second air inlet (21) is provided around the perimeter of the housing (exterior of 20) such that the air enters the housing, via the second air inlet (21), from frontwards, backwards and sidewards directions; and wherein the second air inlet (21) is provided at an end (top of 20 with respect to Figure 2) of the housing. See in Figure 1, the inlet (21) is open all around the perimeter to receive air from all directions.
Regarding Claim 10, interpreting “air treatment system” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as noted above, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 4 and 13 of Park teach an air treatment system (107, 297) configured to treat air displaced by the air displacement appliance. (107) and (297) are stated to be filters [0109, 0212].
Regarding Claim 11, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 10.
Figures 4 and 13 of Park teach wherein the air treatment system is a filter assembly comprising a first filter (107) and a second filter (297) for filtering air displaced by the air displacement appliance [0109, 0212].
Regarding Claim 14, as far as it is definite and understood, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 11.
Figures 1-3, 4 of Park teach wherein the first filter (107) and the first impeller (130) are arranged such that air (follow arrows from 21 to 26 in Figure 2) from the first air inlet (21) is drawn through the first filter (107) prior to the filtered air being drawn axially into the first impeller (130) and radially expelled from the first impeller (130) [0109].
Regarding Claim 15, as far as it is definite and understood, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 11.
Figures 1-3, 13 of Park teach wherein the second filter (297) and the second impeller (230) are arranged such that air (follow arrows from 23 to 28) from the second air inlet (23) is drawn through the second filter (297) prior to the filtered air being drawn axially into the second impeller (230) and radially expelled from the second impeller (230) [0212].
Claims 12-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Inouchi as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Montagnino et al. (US 2019/0353362 A1), hereinafter Montagnino.
Regarding Claim 12, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement device as set forth in Claim 10.
Park does not expressly teach wherein the air treatment system is a wick and water tank assembly comprising a first wick and water tank and a second wick and water tank for supplying moisture as claimed. However, a wick and water tank assembly would have been obvious in view of Montagnino.
Figures 3-4 of Montagnino teach an air displacement device with an air treatment system, wherein the air treatment system is a wick and water tank assembly comprising a wick (06) and a water tank (02) for supplying moisture [0067-0068]. This type of treatment helps control the humidity of the room [0072-0073]. Applying this teaching to both ends of the combination for both inlets (see 21, 23 in Figures 1-2 of Park) results in first and second wicks and water tanks as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the appliance taught by Park-Inouchi such that the air treatment system is a wick and water tank assembly comprising a first wick and water tank and a second wick and water tank for supplying moisture as suggested by Montagnino, to provide the benefit of controlling humidity.
Regarding Claim 13, Park and Inouchi teach the air displacement device as set forth in Claim 10.
Figure 4 of Park teaches wherein the air treatment system is a filter assembly comprising a first filter (107) [0109].
Park does not expressly teach wherein the air treatment system is a filter and wick and water tank assembly also comprising a second wick and water tank for supplying moisture as claimed. However, a wick and water tank assembly would have been obvious in view of Montagnino.
Figures 3-4 of Montagnino teach an air displacement device with an air treatment system, wherein the air treatment system is a wick and water tank assembly comprising a wick (06) and a water tank (02) for supplying moisture [0067-0068]. This type of treatment helps control the humidity of the room [0072-0073]. Montagnino also contemplates combining this with a filter, resulting in a filter and wick and water tank assembly that performs both the function of humidification and air purification [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the appliance taught by Park-Inouchi such that the air treatment system is a filter and wick and water tank assembly comprising a first filter for filtering air and a second wick and water tank and a second wick and water tank for supplying moisture as suggested by Montagnino, to provide the benefit of controlling humidity as well and purifying air with one unit.
Regarding Claim 16, as far as it is definite and understood, Park, Inouchi, and Montagnino teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 12.
Figures 1-3, 4 of Park teach wherein the first impeller (130) is arranged such that air (follow arrows from 21 to 26 in Figure 2) from the first air inlet (21) is drawn through the first filter (107) prior to the filtered air being drawn axially into the first impeller (130) and radially expelled from the first impeller (130) [0109].
The modification in Claim 12 by Montagnino results in the first wick and water tank and moist air from humidifying, as exemplified by Montagnino with wick (06) and tank (02) (Figures 3-4, [0067-0068]).
Regarding Claim 17, as far as it is definite and understood, Park, Inouchi, and Montagnino teach the air displacement appliance as set forth in Claim 13.
Figures 1-3, 13 of Park teach wherein the second impeller (230) is arranged such that air (follow arrows from 23 to 28) from the second air inlet (23) is drawn through the second filter (297) prior to the filtered air being drawn axially into the second impeller (230) and radially expelled from the second impeller (230) [0212].
The modification in Claim 13 by Montagnino results in the second wick and water tank and moist air from humidifying, as exemplified by Montagnino with wick (06) and tank (02) (Figures 3-4, [0067-0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hwang et al. (US 2023/0332784 A1), Armbruster (US 4,526,592 A), Peterson (US 4,152,973 A) disclose other examples of air displacement appliances with multiple inlets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
