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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 9/2/2026, with respect to the §112(b) rejections of claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of the amendments to the claims replacing the term “near” with the term “adjacent”. The §112(b) rejections of claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 9/2/2026, with respect to the §102 and §103 rejections of claims 1-5, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 6) that Dolison does not disclose an air supplier that is a pillar or column; the following annotated copy of figure 2 clearly delineates (via the included box) the portion of air supplier 32 that is at least pillar shaped, if not column shaped:
PNG
media_image1.png
252
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Merriam Webster defines a pillar using the word column, and the word column using the word pillar, but additionally defines a column as “an accumulation arranged vertically”. Understanding that figure 2 of Dolison includes a floor 22 and a ceiling 20, the highlighted portion of air supplier 32 (in the annotated copy of figure 2, above) is an accumulated structure that is arranged vertically. It is abundantly clear from this illustration that this portion of air supplier 32 has a shape which can reasonably be described as “a pillar or column” as required by the claim. The fact that Dolison does not explicitly use the term “pillar” or “column” is irrelevant as such a shape is clearly identified in figure 2, above.
Applicant contends that Dolison refers to element 32 as a “vent” or “outlet” rather than a pillar or column, as claimed. The terms “pillar” and “column” in the claims are interpreted to describe the shape of the structure rather than what the structure is. It is unclear if Applicant intends that the claimed pillar or column requires structural support (that the air supplier contacts the floor, contacts the ceiling, and provides structural support to the ceiling), but such language is not included in the claim and, if the specification supports such language, it is unclear that the claim is specifically limited to such an interpretation. Since some pillars or columns may be ornamental, or a mere design choice, and are not necessarily load-bearing, the claim language “the air supplier is a pillar or column” is interpreted merely to describe the shape of the air supplier as opposed to a function, where Dolison clearly identifies such a shape in figure 2.
Applicant describes element 32 (of Dolison) as “having a generally cylindrical appearance”, the terms “pillar” and “column” are not limited merely to a cylindrical shape, and Examiner has not asserted that Dolison includes a cylindrical shape. Rather it is the generally vertical orientation of the air supplier 32 (illustrated in figure 2) that clearly anticipates the limitation “the air supplier is a pillar or column”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 6) that element 32 is not a separate structural component that could reasonably be identified as a pillar or column; the portion of element 32 that is highlighted in the annotated copy of figure 2, above, is a separate structural component that has the general shape of a pillar or column.
Applicant asserts that element 32 is the terminal end of supply duct 28, and these elements form a continuous, unitary structure with no distinct connection point between them; however, the language of the claims does not include any connection point between structurally distinct, separable elements. Claim 1 recites “an air supplier connected at a first end to the air supply vent”, such an arrangement is illustrated in the annotated copy of figure 2 of Dolison, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
254
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 does not specify that the air supplier and air supply vent are separate elements which are joined by something such as a weld, seal, adhesive, rivet, clamp, or any structure. Claim 1 merely identifies an air supplier and an air supply vent and it is reasonable that these elements may be portions of a single structure, as illustrated in Dolison. Since, in Dolison, these elements are connected to one another in a unitary structure, the structure of Dolison clearly anticipates the language of claim 1, as currently presented.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 6) that element 32 dos not function as a pillar or column since element 32 of Dolison is not “equipped with one or more air supply vent openings 225 at or adjacent the floor of the enclosure”; figure 2 of Dolison illustrates that air supplier 32 extends downward “a distance” [col. 4; line 47] and describes that “While specific distances are not crucial and are not provided for the purpose of limiting the present invention, the second or comfort zone 38 may extend to approximately 8 feet above the floor 22. Such distance may be increased or decreased depending upon the particular purpose or application to which the building 10 generally and the interior 12 more specifically is intended” [col. 4; line 62 – col. 5; line 1]. Therefore, Dolison is not limited merely the interpretation (asserted by Applicant on page 6) that element 32 is simply a passive opening where conditioned air exits the delivery duct adjacent the ceiling.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 7) that Dolison fails to disclose an air supplier that projects downward adjacent the floor of the enclosure; Merriam Webster defines “adjacent” as “not distant: nearby” or “immediately preceding or following with nothing similar intervening”. Figure 2 of Dolison illustrates that the terminus of air supplier 32 is adjacent the floor 22 with “nothing similar intervening”. There are no structural elements separating the terminus of the air supplier 32 from the floor 22, and Applicant makes no assertion to the contrary – Applicant has not identified any structural element allegedly separating the terminus of the air supplier 32 from the floor 22 such that these elements are located other than adjacent to one another. Further, since Dolison describes that the distance between the terminus of the air supplier 32 and the floor 22 is variable (“While specific distances are not crucial and are not provided for the purpose of limiting the present invention, the second or comfort zone 38 may extend to approximately 8 feet above the floor 22. Such distance may be increased or decreased depending upon the particular purpose or application to which the building 10 generally and the interior 12 more specifically is intended” [col. 4; line 62 – col. 5; line 1]), it is clear that the terminus of the air supplier 32 and the floor 22 are “not distant: nearby” one another (fulfilling the definition according to Merriam Webster).
Applicant contends that the description in Dolison (cited above) that the distance between the terminus of the air supplier 32 and the floor 22 “may be increased or decreased depending upon the particular purpose or application” [col. 4; line 62 – col. 5; line 1], is “the mere possibility that a configuration could theoretically exist”. However, this description is clearly more than theoretical and is instead a contemplated embodiment of the device of Dolison and clearly identifies that the distance between the terminus of the air supplier 32 and the floor 22 is a variable quantity, and the any value of this quantity is contemplated as part of Dolison.
Applicant contends (on pages 7 and 8) that Dolison does not disclose a supply-side structure that extends “significantly” or substantially downward toward the floor of the enclosure. However, the terms “substantial” (see the bottom of page 7 of Applicant’s arguments) and “significantly” (see the top of page 8 of Applicant’s arguments), do not appear in the claim, and such terms are relative. Rather, the claims specify that “the air supplier projects downward from the air supply vent into the enclosure adjacent a floor of the enclosure”, and Dolison illustrates in figure 2 that the air supplier 32 projects downward from the air supply vent portion of 28 into the enclosure 10 adjacent (with no intervening structural elements) a floor 22 of the enclosure 10.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4; Applicant repeats the arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 and the Dolison reference, where these arguments are addressed, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dolison et al. U.S. Patent No. 4,838,345.
Regarding claim 1, Dolison discloses an air flow delivery system for delivering conditioned air to an enclosure, comprising: an air handler 24 (“the air conditioning assembly 24 may in fact comprise separate units including a separate condensor unit and air handler unit working in cooperation with one another” [col. 4; lines 29-33]) coupled at a first end to an air supply duct 28 (“the delivery duct 28” [col. 4; line 44]) and at second end to an air return duct 40 (“this air return means comprises at least one and preferably a plurality of return ducts 40 mounted on the building interior 12 and including a first air intake 42 and a second air intake 44” [col. 5; lines 18-22]); an air supply vent attached to the air supply duct 28 (figure 2 illustrates the portion of duct 28 which extends through the ceiling 20 can be considered a vent), wherein the air supply vent is in or adjacent the ceiling 20 of the enclosure 10 (figure 2 illustrates the portion of duct 28 which extends through the ceiling 20 can be considered a vent); an air return vent 44 attached to the air return duct 40 (“this air return means comprises at least one and preferably a plurality of return ducts 40 mounted on the building interior 12 and including a first air intake 42 and a second air intake 44” [col. 5; lines 18-22]), wherein the air return vent 44 is in or adjacent the ceiling 20 of the enclosure 10 (“First and second air intakes 42 and 44 are purposely located in spaced relation to one another along the length of the return duct 40 and also purposely disposed at the opposite extreme heights within the building interior 12” [col. 5; lines 22-26]); and an air supplier 32 connected at a first end to the air supply vent (since figure 32 illustrates that a first end of air supplier 32 is connected to the vent formed at the portion where duct 28 extends through ceiling 20), wherein the air supplier projects downward from the air supply vent into the enclosure (“The opposite or delivery end of the delivery duct 28 is indicated as vent or outlets 32 which are purposely disposed in depending relation to the exposed surface of the ceiling 20 so as to extend down into the interior of the building as at 12 a distance to deliver the treated air to appropriate portions of the interior 12” [col. 4; lines 43-49]) adjacent a floor 22 of the enclosure (see discussion below), wherein an opening in the air supplier 32 providing an air passage from the interior of the air supplier 32 to the enclosure 10 ([col. 4; lines 43-49] – see figure 2), wherein the air supplier is a pillar or column (as illustrated in figure 2, air supplier 32 has a generally columnar shape).
The claim specifies that the air supplier projects downward form the air supply vent into the enclosure “adjacent a floor of the enclosure”. Figure 2 of Dolison illustrates that air supplier 32 extends downward “a distance” [col. 4; line 47] and specifically illustrates air supplier 32 extending to the interface between a first zone 34 and a third zone 36. Dolison describes that “the interior 12 of the building may be appropriately divided into a first zone 34, a second zone 38 and a third zone 36” [col. 4; lines 51-53], wherein “While specific distances are not crucial and are not provided for the purpose of limiting the present invention, the second or comfort zone 38 may extend to approximately 8 feet above the floor 22. Such distance may be increased or decreased depending upon the particular purpose or application to which the building 10 generally and the interior 12 more specifically is intended” [col. 4; line 62 – col. 5; line 1]. Dolison then describes that “the outlets 32 of the supply duct 28 channelling conditioned air (either hot or cold) into the interior 12 extends at least through the first zone 34 such that the conditioned air preferably issues into the third zone 36 defining the transitionary space of the interior 12 as set forth above” [col. 5; lines 9-14]. The term “adjacent” in the claim denotes that no structural elements exist between the air supplier 32 and the floor 22, and figure 2 of Dolison illustrates that no structural elements exist between the air supplier 32 and the floor 22.
Regarding claim 2, Dolison discloses that multiple downwardly projecting air suppliers 32 are provided within the enclosure (figure 2 illustrates at least two air suppliers 32 and figure 1 appears to indicate four air suppliers 32).
Regarding claim 3, Dolison discloses that the air supplier 32 is not located within a wall of the enclosure (as illustrated in figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Dolison discloses that the air supplier opening 32 is adjacent a bottom end of the air supplier (as illustrated in figure 2, the opening in the air supplier 32 is the bottom of the air supplier):
PNG
media_image2.png
254
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolison et al. U.S. Patent No. 4,838,345 in view of Luetkemeyer U.S. Patent No. 5,858,041.
Regarding claim 4, Dolison discloses the claimed invention, except that while Dolison discloses that “Appropriate filters of course can be utilized throughout the system in order to freshen any air coming from the interior of the building 12” [col. 7; lines 22-24], there is no explicit disclosure that the air supplier includes a disinfection unit therein.
Luetkemeyer discloses an air flow delivery system for delivering conditioned air to an enclosure 1 (“The air delivery system may also be connected to an HVAC system so that the air entering the room can be conditioned” [col. 2; lines 48-50]), comprising: an air supply vent 15 attached to an air supply duct 19, wherein the air supply vent 15 is in or near the ceiling 7 of the enclosure 1; an air return vent 17 attached to the air return duct 19, wherein the air return vent 17 is in or near the ceiling 7 of the enclosure 1; and an air supplier 27 connected at a first end to the air supply vent 15, wherein the air supplier 27 projects downward from the air supply vent 15 into the enclosure 1, wherein an opening in the air supplier 27 providing an air passage from the interior of the air supplier 27 to the enclosure 1 (“the filter 11 extends beyond the shield 27 so that air which passes through the filter 11 will enter the clean zone 25 and the clean room 1 outside of the clean zone 25” [col. 4; lines 41-43]), wherein the air supplier 27 is a pillar or column (as illustrated in figure 2); wherein the air supplier includes a disinfection unit 11 therein (Luetkemeyer discloses that filter 11 is a HEPA filter (“The air delivery system 9 includes an HEPA filter 11” [col. 3; lines 57-58]) where a HEPA filter is a disinfection unit, as evidenced by Marsden et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2010/0034936: “The air inside the clean area 16 may additionally be sterilized/disinfected by passing through a filter, such as a HEPA filter” [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dolison with the disinfection unit of Luetkemeyer in order to ensure that clean air is provided through the air conditioning system so as to protect the health of occupants in the room in which the conditioned air is introduced.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
