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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 03/10/2026. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-24 from which claims 4-5, 8-9, 13 and 22 are withdrawn remain pending for consideration.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
“circulation system” in claims 1 and 14.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“circulation system” corresponds to a system that provides process water from the source to the media pad as described in 4 of the specification.
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
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14-21, and 23-24 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations “…one of said media pads…” and “…one of said media pads…” which render the claim indefinite because the claims as written leave the structure ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claims are referencing a previously claimed element or disclosing an element in addition to the previously claimed element.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10-12, 15-21, and 23-24 are also rejected due to dependency.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10-11, 14, 17-18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Valazza (US 3306591).
Regarding claim 1, Valazza teaches a system (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Valazza) for evaluating an integrity (Col. 4 lines 42-55 where Valazza teaches a system that provides “an indication that the pads should be changed”) of media pads (evaporative pads 23 Figs. 2 and 8) within an adiabatic cooling system (cooler Fig. 1 and the disclosed “duct system” in Col. 2 lines 21-34) including process water (water 48 Fig. 2) within a circulation system (water supply tank 47, pump 49, and electric motor 51 Fig. 2), the system for evaluating comprising: at least one media compartment (right space 44 Fig. 2); at least one media coupon (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2) disposed within said media compartment (Fig. 2), the media coupon being representative of at least one of said media pads (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2 is one of the two provided media pads) within the adiabatic cooling system (Fig. 2); the media coupon and the media compartment being located other than as one of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system (Fig. 2 where left evaporative pad 23 is provided in a different location than right evaporative pad 23); at least a first conduit (right transverse apertured water supply pipe 54 Figs. 2-3), the first conduit being fluidly coupled to a source of process water (water supply tank 47 Fig. 2) within the circulation system (Fig. 2), the first conduit being fluidly coupled to provide said process water to said at least one media compartment (Fig. 2); a source of airflow (blower 26 Fig. 2) fluidly coupled to the at least one media compartment (Col. 3 lines 3-23); such that a flow of process water (the flow process described in Col. 3 lines 24-44) and an airflow (the airflow process described in Col. 3 lines 3-23) are provided to the at least one media compartment to simulate said adiabatic cooling system (the airflow and water flow provided in the right compartment 44 are identical to the airflow and water flow provided to the left compartment 44); whereby the at least one media coupon is adapted to be analyzed (Col. 4 lines 42-55 where Valazza teaches a system that provides “an indication that the pads should be changed”) as representative of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system (Col. 4 lines 42-55 where right evaporative pad 23 is representative of one of the media pads).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Valazza teaches wherein the at least one media coupon is removable (Col. 4 lines 42-55).
Regarding claim 10, Valazza teaches further including at least one valve (valve 82 Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Valazza teaches wherein the at least one valve is disposed in at least a second conduit (drain pipe 81 Fig. 2) fluidly coupled to the at least one compartment (Fig. 2) to drain said process water (Col. 6 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 14, Valazza teaches a method of evaluating an integrity (corresponds to the method that provides “an indication that the pads should be changed” as disclosed in Col. 4 lines 42-55) of media pads (evaporative pads 23 Figs. 2 and 8) within an adiabatic cooling system (cooler Fig. 1 and the disclosed “duct system” in Col. 2 lines 21-34) including process water (water 48 Fig. 2) within a circulation system (water supply tank 47, pump 49, and electric motor 51 Fig. 2), the method comprising: providing a flow of process water (the flow process described in Col. 3 lines 24-44) from the adiabatic cooling system through at least a first conduit system (right transverse apertured water supply pipe 54 Figs. 2-3) to at least one media compartment (right space 44 Fig. 2) containing at least one media coupon (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2) to simulate a flow of process water (the water flowing in compartments 44 Fig. 2) to said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system (the water flow provided in the right compartment 44 is identical to the water flow provided to the left compartment 44), the at least one media coupon being representative of at least one of said media pads (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2 is one of the two provided media pads) within the adiabatic cooling system (Fig. 2); the media coupon and the media compartment being located other than as one of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system (Fig. 2 where left evaporative pad 23 is provided in a different location than right evaporative pad 23); providing a flow of air (the airflow process described in Col. 3 lines 3-23) to the at least one media compartment to simulate the flow of air to said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system (the airflow provided in the right compartment 44 is identical to the airflow provided to the left compartment 44); removing the at least one media coupon (Col. 4 lines 42-55); and analyzing the at least one media coupon (Col. 4 lines 42-55 where Valazza teaches a system that provides “an indication that the pads should be changed”) as representative of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system (Col. 4 lines 42-55 where right evaporative pad 23 is representative of one of the media pads).
Regarding claim 17, Valazza teaches wherein providing said flow of process water from the adiabatic cooling system to said at least one media compartment containing said at least one media coupon and providing said flow of air to the at least one media compartment are applied in a manner and schedule of the adiabatic cooling system (referring to Col. 3 lines 3-23, a person skilled in the art would recognize that both left and right compartments 44 are receiving at the same time the same airflow and same water flow).
Regarding claim 18, Valazza teaches wherein providing said flow of process water from the adiabatic cooling system to said at least one media compartment containing said at least one media coupon and providing said flow of air to the at least one media compartment are applied in a manner of the adiabatic cooling system with continuous operation (referring to Col. 3 lines 3-23, a person skilled in the art would recognize that as long as the adiabatic cooling system of Valazza is running, both left and right compartments 44 will be receiving the same airflow and same water flow).
Regarding claim 23, Valazza teaches including fluidly coupling the at least one media compartment to the adiabatic cooling system (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Valazza teaches further including draining said process water from the at least one compartment (Col. 3 lines 41-44 where it is disclosed that a portion of the water in compartments 44 are drained).
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 2, 6, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valazza in view of Gunhan et al. (“Evaluation of the Suitability of Some Local Materials as Cooling Pads”, BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 96, no. 3, 14 February 2007 (2007-02-14), pages 369-377, XP005887803, herein after referred to as Gunhan).
Regarding claim 2, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein said at least one media compartment includes at least one transparent wall whereby the at least one media coupon is disposed to be viewed through the at least one transparent wall”.
However, Gunhan teaches wherein at least one media compartment (the disclosed “measurement section” in the method section and Fig. 1 corresponds to the at least one media compartment of Valazza) includes at least one transparent wall (disclosed “transparent Plexiglass sheet” in the method section) whereby at least one media coupon (the disclosed “evaporative cartridge” in the method section corresponds to the at least one media coupon of Valazza) is disposed to be viewed through the at least one transparent wall (see method section) to ease viewing of the media coupon while in use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Valazza to include “wherein said at least one media compartment includes at least one transparent wall whereby the at least one media coupon is disposed to be viewed through the at least one transparent wall” in view of the teachings of Gunhan to ease viewing of the media coupon while in use.
Regarding claim 6, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “further including a plurality of sensors, said plurality of sensors including at least two sensors of a group of sensors including temperature sensors, pressure sensors, humidity sensors, turbidity sensors, and conductivity sensors”.
However, Gunhan teaches further including a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1), said plurality of sensors including at least two sensors of a group of sensors (all the sensors illustrated in Fig. 1) including temperature sensors (thermocouples 11 Fig. 1), pressure sensors (pressure taps 14 Fig. 1), and humidity sensors (temperature and humidity sensor 12) to monitor parameters such as temperature, pressure, and humidity during operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Valazza to include “further including a plurality of sensors, said plurality of sensors including at least two sensors of a group of sensors including temperature sensors, pressure sensors, humidity sensors, turbidity sensors, and conductivity sensors” in view of the teachings of Gunhan to monitor parameters such as temperature, pressure, and humidity during operation.
Regarding claim 19, Valazza teaches including at least two media coupons (left and right evaporative pads 23 Fig. 2).
Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the steps of removing and analyzing are performed after different periods of time for the at least two media coupons”.
However, Gunhan teaches steps of removing and analyzing (referring to the “Experimental procedure section”, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed procedure will required steps of removing the pads and steps of analyzing the pads) are performed after different periods of time (“Experimental procedure” section where it is disclosed that more than two media pads are tested and where the tests are conducted at different period of times since the tests are “achieved in triplicate”) for at least two media coupons (the disclosed “fine pumice stones” and “volcanic tuff” in the “Experimental procedure” section correspond to the at least two media coupons of Valazza) to gather as much information about the pads during usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Valazza to include “the steps of removing and analyzing are performed after different periods of time for the at least two media coupons” in view of the teachings of Gunhan to gather as much information about the pads during usage.
Regarding claim 20, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “further including viewing the at least one media coupon through at least one transparent wall of the said at least one media compartment”.
However, Gunhan teaches further including viewing at least one media coupon (the disclosed “volcanic tuff” in the “Experimental procedure” section corresponds to the at least one media coupon of Valazza) through at least one transparent wall (disclosed “transparent Plexiglass sheet” in the method section) of at least one media compartment (the disclosed “measurement section” in the method section and Fig. 1 corresponds to the at least one media compartment of Valazza) to ease viewing of the media coupon while in use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Valazza to include “further including viewing the at least one media coupon through at least one transparent wall of the said at least one media compartment” in view of the teachings of Gunhan to ease viewing of the media coupon while in use.
Regarding claim 21, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “further including sensing at least two of water temperature, air temperature, pressure, humidity, turbidity, and conductivity”.
However, Gunhan teaches further including sensing at least two of water temperature (methodology section where the water temperature is set at 25 degrees Celsius), air temperature (methodology section with the used of thermocouples 11 Fig. 1), pressure (methodology section with the used of pressure taps 14 Fig. 1), humidity (methodology section with the used of temperature and humidity sensor 12 Fig. 1) to monitor different parameters during operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Valazza to include “further including sensing at least two of water temperature, air temperature, pressure, humidity, turbidity, and conductivity” in view of the teachings of Gunhan to monitor different parameters during operation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valazza in view of Baigas, Jr (US4556521, herein after referred to as Baigas).
Regarding claim 3, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “including at least three media coupons”.
However, Baigas teaches including at least three media coupons (Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-23 where cooler pads 20 correspond to the media coupons of Valazza).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Valazza to include “including at least three media coupons” in view of the teachings of Baigas to provide a plurality of media pads leading to more data which would improve the analysis phase.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valazza in view of Kinkel (US6367277B1, herein after referred to as Kinkel).
Regarding claim 12, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “further including at least one timer, and wherein the at least one timer is adapted to control opening and closing of the at least one valve”.
However, Kinkel teaches further including at least one timer (timer 108 Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one timer is adapted to control opening and closing of the at least one valve (Col. 4 lines 61-67 where control valve 104 Fig. 2 corresponds to the at least one valve of Valazza) to automate the operation of the valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Valazza to include “further including at least one timer, and wherein the at least one timer is adapted to control opening and closing of the at least one valve” in view of the teachings of Kinkel to automate the operation of the valve.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valazza in view of Dakshinamurthy et al. (“Accelerated degradation testing of rigid wet cooling media to analyze the impact of calcium scaling”, ASME INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONGRESS AND EXPOSITION, IMECE 2018 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS USA, vol. 13, 2018, herein after referred to as Dakshinamurthy).
Regarding claim 15, Valazza teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein providing the flow of process water from the adiabatic cooling system through at least said first conduit system to said at least one media compartment includes saturating the at least one media coupon; and providing the flow of air to the at least one media compartment includes drying out the at least one media coupon; wherein providing the flow of process water to saturate and providing the flow of air to dry out said at least one media coupon simulates a specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system; the method further including repeating the simulation of the specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system at least once”.
However, Dakshinamurthy teaches wherein providing the flow of process water from the adiabatic cooling system (the water flowing from the reservoir Fig. 5 corresponds to the flow of process water from the adiabatic cooling system of Valazza) through at least said first conduit system (the conduit connecting the reservoir with the sump Fig. 5 corresponds to the first conduit system of Valazza) to said at least one media compartment (the disclosed “airflow test bench” in the experimental test setup section corresponds to the media compartment of Valazza) includes saturating the at least one media coupon (disclosed “complete media pad wetting” in the methodology section); and providing the flow of air (the airflow generated by the airflow test bench corresponds to the flow of air of Valazza) to the at least one media compartment includes drying out the at least one media coupon (see methodology section where it is disclosed that the water present in the media pad Fig. 5 which corresponds to the media coupon of Valazza is evaporated); wherein providing the flow of process water to saturate and providing the flow of air to dry out said at least one media coupon simulates a specified period of time of operation (disclosed “3 minutes and 7 minutes” in the methodology section) of the adiabatic cooling system; the method further including repeating the simulation of the specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system at least once (Fig. 6 and Table 4 where several wetting/drying cycles are illustrated) to simulate the accelerated degradation of media pads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Valazza to include “wherein providing the flow of process water from the adiabatic cooling system through at least said first conduit system to said at least one media compartment includes saturating the at least one media coupon; and providing the flow of air to the at least one media compartment includes drying out the at least one media coupon; wherein providing the flow of process water to saturate and providing the flow of air to dry out said at least one media coupon simulates a specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system; the method further including repeating the simulation of the specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system at least once” in view of the teachings of Dakshinamurthy to simulate the accelerated degradation of media pads.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein simulating said specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system (disclosed “3 minutes and 7 minutes” in the methodology section of Dakshinamurthy) includes providing the flow of process water to a plurality of media coupons (left and right evaporative pads 23 Fig. 2 and Col. 3 lines 3-23 of Valazza) and providing said flow of air to the plurality of media coupons (Col. 3 lines 3-23 of Valazza), and repeating the simulation of said specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system includes repeating the step of simulating the specified period of time of operation of the adiabatic cooling system a different number of times (Table 4 of Dakshinamurthy where 720 cycles are disclosed) for at least two of said plurality of media coupons prior to the steps of removing the at least two of said plurality of media coupons and analyzing said at least two of said plurality of media coupons (Col. 4 lines 42-55 of Valazza).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments on page 8 that Valazza fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “a media coupon disposed within a media compartment as representative of media pads within the adiabatic cooling system”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). For clarity purposes, claims 1 and 14 recite “the at least one media coupon being representative of at least one of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system”.
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).
Furthermore, Applicant has not clearly distinguished the media pads from the media coupons. In other words, as recited, claims 1 and 14 do not preclude the disclosed “media coupon” as being included with the disclosed “media pads”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 that Valazza does not teach “analyzing the at least one media coupon as representative of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system” as recited by claims 1 and 14, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejections of claims 1 and 14 are repeated below:
Regarding claim 1, Valazza teaches at least one media coupon (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2) is adapted to be analyzed (Col. 4 lines 42-55 where Valazza teaches a system that provides “an indication that the pads should be changed”) as representative of media pads (left and right evaporative pads 23 Figs. 2 and 8) within an adiabatic cooling system (cooler Fig. 1 and Col. 4 lines 42-55 where right evaporative pad 23 is representative of one of the media pads).
Regarding claim 14, Valazza teaches analyzing at least one media coupon (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 42-55 where Valazza teaches a system that provides “an indication that the pads should be changed”) as representative of media pads (left and right evaporative pads 23 Figs. 2 and 8) within an adiabatic cooling system (cooler Fig. 1 and Col. 4 lines 42-55 where right evaporative pad 23 is representative of one of the media pads).
As previously stated above and repeated here, Applicant has not clearly distinguished the media pads from the media coupons. In other words, as recited, claims 1 and 14 do not preclude the disclosed “media coupon” as being included with the disclosed “media pads”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9 that Valazza does not teach “the media coupon and the media compartment being located other than as one of said media pads within the adiabatic cooling system” as recited by amended claims 1 and 14, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejections of claims 1 and 14 are repeated below:
Valazza teaches a media coupon (right evaporative pad 23 Fig. 2) and a media compartment (right space 44 Fig. 2) being located other than as one of said media pads (Fig. 2 where left evaporator pad 23 corresponds to one of said media pads) within an adiabatic cooling system (Fig. 2 where left evaporative pad 23 is provided in a different location than right evaporative pad 23).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights