`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/640,479
`
`03/06/2015
`
`Mitsunori MATSUBARA
`
`CS PT— 137US
`
`3171
`
`7590
`52473
`2200 RENAIS SANCE BLVD
`S UITE 350
`
`05’1“)” —
`RUBY, TRAVIS C
`
`3744
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/18/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`pcorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/640,479 MATSUBARA ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`3744TRAVIS RUBY $233
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions 0137 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/11/2017.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:| This action is non-final.
`2a)IZ| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170515
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) L6is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`s L6 is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`I )
`
`_
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:l Claim(s
`I
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PRI-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)|:l All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA 0r AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`2.
`
`The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 4/11/2017 are as follows:
`
`Claims 1—6 are pending and being examined.
`
`3.
`
`The replacement title was received on 4/11/2017 and is accepted.
`
`Specification
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`Lestage (US8118236B2, as previously cited).
`
`Re Claim 1. Lestage teaches an air conditioning system (Figure 2) comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`a main room (16) having an air conditioner and an air ventilating device (50) mounted
`
`therein (Figure 1; Column 1 lines 20—21 and Column 2 lines 10—15 teaches the main household
`
`area 16 is air conditioned); and
`
`at least one sub—room (10) each communicating with the main room through the air
`
`ventilating device mounted in the main room, the air ventilating device (50) distributes the air in
`
`the main room to the respective sub—rooms communicating with the main room (Figure 2;
`
`Column 4 line 59 to Column 5 line 4).
`
`Re Claim 2. Lestage teaches the air ventilating device corresponds to one or more sub—
`
`rooms (10) (Figure 2).
`
`Re Claim 3. Lestage teaches wherein the air ventilating device is a ceiling—embedded air
`
`ventilating fan (56) (Figure 2, the ventilator 50 is mounted to 14 which is the ceiling of the
`
`basement 10; Column 4 line 60);
`
`each sub—room is provided with an air eXiting part (58) (Figure 2; Column 4 line 59 to
`
`Column 5 line 4); and
`
`the ceiling—embedded air ventilating fan is connected with the air exiting part in the sub—
`
`room via a duct (54) (Figure 2; Column 4 line 59 to Column 5 line 4).
`
`Re Claim 4. Lestage teaches wherein the air ventilating device is provided with a control
`
`part (36), and the main room or the sub—room is provided with a remote controller connected
`
`with the control part (Figure 2; Column 5 lines 6—37, the humidistat, humidity sensor, or
`
`temperature sensor will all remotely control the controller 36).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Re Claim 6. Lestage teaches each sub—room is provided with an air exiting part (58), the
`
`air ventilating device (50) is connected with the air exiting part, and the air exiting part and the
`
`air ventilating device are disposed at a lower portion of a side wall of the sub—room (Figure 2,
`
`wall 14 is a side of the room 10).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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.
`
`7.
`
`The factua1 inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 US. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
`
`USC. 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.
`
`8.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentabi1ity of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various c1aims 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lestage
`
`(US8118236B2, as previously cited) in View of Aronstam (US7347774B2, as previously
`
`cited).
`
`Re Claim 5. Lestage teaches the sub—room (Figure 2), but fails to specifically teach the
`
`sub—room is provided with a temperature sensor communicating with the control part.
`
`However, Aronstam teaches a sub—room (122) is provided with a temperature sensor (8b)
`
`communicating with the control part (40b) (Figures 2—3; Column 6 lines 18—67).
`
`Therefore, in view of Aronstam's teaching it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of filing to add a temperature sensor to the sub—room of Lestage in
`
`order to better regulate the airflow from the main room to the sub—room to achieve a desired sub—
`
`room temperature efficiently.
`
`10.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 4/11/2017 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that “Lestage's air ventilating device 50 is mounted in the sub—room
`
`10”. However, the device 50 is mounted onto the surface of the main room 16 and thus is
`
`considered a part of said main room. Assuming, arguendo, that device 50 is not part of the main
`
`room 16 but rather a part of sub—room 10 (which the Examiner is not conceding), the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`functionality of the device would be exactly the same and one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that moving the device to a different location would not change the operation (i.e.
`
`moving air) of said device. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that “In Lestage, the air in the household is utilized, and the subject of
`
`Lestage is merely limited to the basement. In contrast, the technical problem to be solved by the
`
`present application is how to condition the air in a series of rooms including a main room and a
`
`plurality of sub—rooms”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show
`
`certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies
`
`(i.e., a series of rooms and a plurality of sub—rooms) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
`
`Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`
`are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993).
`
`Applicant argues that Lestrange fails to teach an air conditioning device for the main
`
`room. Lestrange teaches in Column 1 lines 20—21 and Column 2 lines 10—15 that the main
`
`household area 16 is air conditioned. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that “Even if Lestage's basement with the ventilating device is deemed
`
`to correspond to the main room, and even if the air conditioner and ventilating device were
`
`installed in the basement, then Lestage's ventilation device would draw the air from the sub—room
`
`into the main room, instead of distributing the air from the main room to the sub—room”.
`
`However, this is not what was set forth by the examiner in the previous rejection, therefore the
`
`argument is moot.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Applicant argues “Also, it would not have been obvious to move Lestage's ventilating
`
`device/transfer unit 50 from the basement 10 (compared with the claimed main room) and into
`
`the living space of the main room 16 (compared with the claimed sub—room) because doing so
`
`would have increased the noise in the living space”. In response to applicant's argument that the
`
`references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon
`
`which applicant relies (i.e., noise generation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although
`
`the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not
`
`read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/640,479
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270—5760. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on Monday—Friday 9:30—5:00.
`
`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 on 571—270—7740. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/TRAVIS RUBY/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`