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 .
The claims received 1/23/2026 are entered. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 19-20 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “pass around” was previously rejected under §112(b). Applicant clarified the meaning of pass around to be “passing over, around, onto, applied to, and through the coil(s) for the purpose of heat exchange” in the reply received 11/13/2025:
PNG
media_image1.png
315
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “durable material” was previously rejected under §112(b). Applicant clarified the meaning of durable to be “materials capable of withstanding environmental conditions associated with outdoor HVAC installations, including exposure to weather, temperature variation, and the corrosive effects of exhaust airflows.” in the reply received 11/13/2025:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazimirovich et al (US 11,655,996) in view of Suzuki et al (US 4,838,150).
Regarding claims 1-3, Kazimirovich discloses (references are made to figures 2 and 3 unless otherwise noted) a ventilation system for improving cooling of a building, comprising: a cooling apparatus, wherein the cooling apparatus includes:
a cooling apparatus coil (8), and
a source/sink fan (9); and
an exhaust plenum system (3) including and an exhaust plenum, wherein the exhaust plenum system is configured to collect an airflow, direct the airflow through the exhaust plenum, and output the directed airflow from the exhaust plenum system to create an airflow mixture in an outdoor environment (figures 2 and 3 provide the mixing of exhaust and ambient air in outdoor space as opposed to figure 1 which does so in the indoor space) including air from the building, and the source/sink fan is operable to direct the airflow mixture to pass around (the phrase “pass around” is understood in the context of the disclosure to mean to interact with the coil as opposed to a bypass) the cooling apparatus coil (8).
Kazimirovich lacks open grating as part of the exhaust plenum system. Previously the examiner took official notice that open grating is old and well known for use in air plenums, including using durable materials such as metals. Suzuki discloses the use of metal grating (41) in HVAC systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kazimirovich with durable open grating in order to protect the plenum. Moreover Suzuki discloses additional benefit such as the metal grating flooring permitting air flow in the clean room environment.
Kazimirovich is silent concerning industrial processes from a plurality of building sources. Although Kazimirovich does provides that the building could be “medium to large industrial buildings such as skyscrapers and hospitals”. The examiner previously took official notice that buildings include industrial processes, e.g. hospital equipment operation constitutes an industrial process, data centers include servers which constitute an industrial process, hotels include kitchens and laundry which constitute industrial process. Suzuki discloses the use of buildings for industrial processes including electronics manufacture including ICs and VLSIs, which are used in data center processes. It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Kazimirovich provides for a ventilation system. Suzuki evidences that buildings include industrial processes. Merely applying the known ventilation system of Kazimirovich to the known purpose of conditioning buildings having industrial processes is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Kazimirovich discloses the airflow mixture is a first airflow mixture and, after passing around the cooling apparatus coil, is rejected from the cooling apparatus and mixes with a second airflow mixture outside of the exhaust plenum system (the mixing of air occurs after exiting plenum 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kazimirovich discloses the directed airflow exits the exhaust plenum system open grating into the outdoor environment and combines with an airflow outside of the exhaust plenum system when creating the airflow mixture (the mixing of air occurs after exiting plenum 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Kazimirovich discloses (references are made to figures 2 and 3 unless otherwise noted) a method for improving cooling of a building using a ventilation system, comprising:
directing an airflow into an exhaust plenum (3) of an exhaust plenum system toward a cooling apparatus (8), wherein the exhaust plenum system includes an exhaust plenum system that enables the directed airflow to exit the exhaust plenum into an outdoor environment, and the exhaust plenum system is positioned adjacent to the cooling apparatus;
mixing the directed airflow with an airflow in the outdoor environment outside of the exhaust plenum system (the mixing of air occurs outside of plenum 3) to create an airflow mixture; and
passing the airflow mixture around a cooling apparatus coil (8) of the cooling apparatus.
Kazimirovich lacks open grating as part of the exhaust plenum system. Previously the examiner took official notice that open grating is old and well known for use in air plenums, including using durable materials such as metals. Suzuki discloses the use of metal grating (41) in HVAC systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kazimirovich with durable open grating in order to protect the plenum. Moreover Suzuki discloses additional benefit such as the metal grating flooring permitting air flow in the clean room environment.
Kazimirovich is silent concerning industrial processes from a plurality of building sources. Although Kazimirovich does provides that the building could be “medium to large industrial buildings such as skyscrapers and hospitals”. The examiner previously took official notice that buildings include industrial processes, e.g. hospital equipment operation constitutes an industrial process, data centers include servers which constitute an industrial process, hotels include kitchens and laundry which constitute industrial process. Suzuki discloses the use of buildings for industrial processes including electronics manufacture including ICs and VLSIs, which are used in data center processes. It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Kazimirovich provides for a ventilation system. Suzuki evidences that buildings include industrial processes. Merely applying the known ventilation system of Kazimirovich to the known purpose of conditioning buildings having industrial processes is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Kazimirovich discloses rejecting the airflow mixture out of the cooling apparatus through a top of a source/sink fan (9 as shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kazimirovich discloses rejecting the airflow mixture from the cooling apparatus to mix with the airflow mixture outside of the exhaust plenum system (mixture occurs outside of the plenum 3).
Regarding claim 10, Kazimirovich discloses (references are made to figures 2 and 3 unless otherwise noted) a ventilation system for a building, comprising: a cooling apparatus including a compressor, a condenser, and an evaporator (7:52-57); and
an exhaust plenum system (3)configured to:
collect an airflow into an exhaust plenum,
direct the airflow through the exhaust plenum,
output the directed airflow through an exhaust plenum system, and
mix the directed airflow with an airflow in an outdoor environment outside of the exhaust plenum system to provide an airflow mixture including air (ambient air and exhaust air from the plenum is mixed in an outdoor environment as shown in figures 2 and 3)
Kazimirovich is silent concerning a reversing valve. Kazimirovich does provide for reversing (6:30-38). In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that reversing valves are old and well known for reversing refrigeration cycles. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kazimirovich with a reversing valve in order to provide a reliable means for switching between cooling and heating modes.
Kazimirovich lacks open grating as part of the exhaust plenum system. Previously the examiner took official notice that open grating is old and well known for use in air plenums, including using durable materials such as metals. Suzuki discloses the use of metal grating (41) in HVAC systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kazimirovich with durable open grating in order to protect the plenum. Moreover Suzuki discloses additional benefit such as the metal grating flooring permitting air flow in the clean room environment.
Kazimirovich is silent concerning industrial processes from a plurality of building sources. Although Kazimirovich does provides that the building could be “medium to large industrial buildings such as skyscrapers and hospitals”. The examiner previously took official notice that buildings include industrial processes, e.g. hospital equipment operation constitutes an industrial process, data centers include servers which constitute an industrial process, hotels include kitchens and laundry which constitute industrial process. Suzuki discloses the use of buildings for industrial processes including electronics manufacture including ICs and VLSIs, which are used in data center processes. It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Kazimirovich provides for a ventilation system. Suzuki evidences that buildings include industrial processes. Merely applying the known ventilation system of Kazimirovich to the known purpose of conditioning buildings having industrial processes is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Kazimirovich discloses the system of claim 10, but is silent concerning addition ductwork. The examiner previously took official notice that ductwork is used in multi-room buildings, including multiple duct connections and dampers or louvers. Suzuki evidences a multiroom building including a plurality of ducts and at least one damper or louver connector (56) to prevent backflow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kazimirovich with ductwork coupled at a first end of a building infrastructure system that produces the airflow and coupled at a second end to the exhaust plenum system in order to communicate a plurality of building rooms with the exhaust air plenum.
Regarding claim 14, Kazimirovich discloses the airflow mixture is rejected from the cooling apparatus and mixes with the airflow mixture outside of the exhaust plenum system (mixture occurs outside of plenum 3)
Regarding claim 15, Kazimirovich discloses (references are made to figures 2 and 3 unless otherwise noted) a method for ventilating a building, comprising:
entering a first airflow (A2) into a cooling apparatus via source/sink fans (9);
passing the first airflow through the cooling apparatus (4);
converting the first airflow into an exhaust airflow;
rejecting the exhaust airflow from the cooling apparatus;
collecting a second airflow (A1) into an exhaust plenum (3) of an exhaust plenum system;
passing the second airflow through the exhaust plenum (airflow through 3 indicated by flow arrow);
outputting the second airflow from the exhaust plenum;
outputting the second airflow from the building (the second airflow exits the building envelope by crossing border 1);
mixing the exhaust airflow with the second airflow in an outdoor environment outside of the exhaust plenum system, thereby creating an airflow mixture including air (air from the plenum and outdoor air are mixed in an outdoor environment); and
directing the airflow mixture into a cooling apparatus (8) to restart a cycle of converting and mixing airflows.
Kazimirovich lacks open grating as part of the exhaust plenum system. Previously the examiner took official notice that open grating is old and well known for use in air plenums, including using durable materials such as metals. Suzuki discloses the use of metal grating (41) in HVAC systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kazimirovich with durable open grating in order to protect the plenum. Moreover Suzuki discloses additional benefit such as the metal grating flooring permitting air flow in the clean room environment.
Kazimirovich is silent concerning industrial processes from a plurality of building sources. Although Kazimirovich does provides that the building could be “medium to large industrial buildings such as skyscrapers and hospitals”. The examiner previously took official notice that buildings include industrial processes, e.g. hospital equipment operation constitutes an industrial process, data centers include servers which constitute an industrial process, hotels include kitchens and laundry which constitute industrial process. Suzuki discloses the use of buildings for industrial processes including electronics manufacture including ICs and VLSIs, which are used in data center processes. It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Kazimirovich provides for a ventilation system. Suzuki evidences that buildings include industrial processes. Merely applying the known ventilation system of Kazimirovich to the known purpose of conditioning buildings having industrial processes is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Kazimirovich discloses restarting the cycle with the airflow mixture improves efficiency of the air source heat pump (2:4).
Regarding claim 17, Kazimirovich discloses the airflow mixture is recycled by the cooling apparatus once (the mixture is used in the recycling process and then exhausted to the outdoor space).
Regarding claim 18, Kazimirovich further discloses an inline fan (9) with the exhaust plenum system (3).
Regarding claim 19, Kazimirovich further discloses the airflow mixture is created outside of the exhaust plenum system (the mixture occurs just before heat exchanger 8 as shown in figure 2 which is outside of plenum system 3).
Regarding claim 20, Kazimirovich further discloses the cooling apparatus is positioned to draw the airflow mixture from the outdoor environment (from A2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As was discussed in the advisory action dated (1/28/2026) the mixing of the air occurs outside of the building as is shown in figures 2 and 3 of Kazimirovich.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Workman et al (US 12,372,268)
Bhosale et al (US 11,162,706) – exhaust air to supplement ambient air
Li (US 7,266,970) mixing indoor and outdoor air
Turbard et al (US 4,414,818) mixing of fresh and return air
Imaizumi et al (US 2021/0108805) mixing of return and fresh air
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799