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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/09/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “foam injection coils” within the Claims and utilized in references to the cleaning apparatus will be interpreted as a -- foam injection tube --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 is drawn to injection ports through the top plate, wherein Claim 1 is drawn to the emitters being positioned within the HVAC coil. Are the injection ports through the top plate different from the emitters being proffered within Claim 1? It is unclear as to how these different emitters are interacting with one another. Further clarification is required.
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 4, 10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4 the limitation “the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are vertically oriented foam injection coils” in ll. 2 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the emitter is a coil. A coil is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “a series of loops”, wherein the injection apparatus is not described or shown in such a manner within the disclosure. Further, the emitters are described in the instant specification as “self-cleaning mechanisms (e.g., emitters or injection ports)”, wherein an injection port would not comprise a coil. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are vertically oriented foam injection coils’ will be interpreted as — the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are vertically oriented foam injection coils --.
Regarding Claim 6 the limitation “the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters comprise injection ports” in ll. 2 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the emitter comprises ports or rather what specific structure defines the emitter. The emitters are described in the instant specification as “self-cleaning mechanisms (e.g., emitters or injection ports)”, wherein an injection port would not comprise a further injection port. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters comprise injection ports” will be interpreted as — the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are injection ports --.
Regarding Claim 6 the limitation “the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters comprise injection ports through a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil” in ll. 2 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the emitter that is claimed to be within the interior of the HVAC coil (as proffered within Claim 1) is being further defined as being placed through the top plate. Further clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “cleaning foam or solution generating system in fluid communication with the at least two foam or spray emitter coils” in ll. 11 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the emitter comprises a coil or rather what specific structure defines the emitter. The emitters are described in the instant specification as “self-cleaning mechanisms (e.g., emitters or injection ports)”, wherein an injection port would not comprise a coil. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “cleaning foam or solution generating system in fluid communication with the at least two foam or spray emitter coils” will be interpreted as — cleaning foam or solution generating system in fluid communication with the at least two foam or spray emitters--.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennon (USP 5186240A), hereinafter referred to as Kennon.
Regarding Claim 1, Kennon discloses a self-cleaning heat transfer coil of an HVAC system (see intended use analysis below) comprising:
a deep draw HVAC coil (the heat exchanger shown in figure 4, “A coil cleansing assembly for automated cleaning of dirt and debris from within banks of heat exchanger coils”, see abstract) having a depth of at least 18 inches having a depth (“Typically, banks of heat exchanger coils may be assembled to a depth of approximately 24 to 60 inches, a width of approximately 24 to 70 inches and a length of approximately 48 to 240 inches”, col. 3 ll. 62-66);
a plurality of cooling coils (shown in figured 4-5, “plural stacked arrays of heat exchanger coils” col. 2 ll. 45-46) and cooling fins (“Each coil bank 12, 14 and 16 is comprised of individual layers of individual, interlocking serpentine coils to which the closely spaced, parallel heat exchanger fins are conductively joined”, col. 4 ll. 29-32) with spaces therebetween that permit air to flow therethrough (shown in figure 4); and
a plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters (258), at least one foam or spray emitter being positioned to emit foam or spray at or near a front surface of the deep draw HVAC coil (shown in figure 4, being the most front facing spray nozzle (258)) and at least one other foam or spray emitter being positioned within an interior region of the deep draw HVAC coil to emit foam or spray therein (shown in figure 4).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “HVAC” and “foam or spray”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 1, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Kennon meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 1, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitation “deep draw” is drawn to a method of sheet metal forming and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Kennon further discloses the deep draw HVAC coil has a depth of at least 24, or at least 36 inches, or at least 48 inches, or at least 60 inches (“Typically, banks of heat exchanger coils may be assembled to a depth of approximately 24 to 60 inches, a width of approximately 24 to 70 inches and a length of approximately 48 to 240 inches”, col. 3 ll. 62-66).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Kennon further discloses the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters (258) are vertically oriented foam injection coils (shown in figure 4) positioned between cooling coils at predetermined intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil (shown in figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Kennon further discloses a cleaning foam or spray generating system in fluid communication with the deep draw HVAC coil (“an inlet port 230 mounted on a transverse header pipe 232 receives fluid from an external source (not shown)”, col. 6 ll. 22-24, see intended use analysis below).
Regarding Claim 10, Kennon further discloses the self-cleaning heat transfer coil is configured to introduce foam or spray into the coils while an air handler of the HVAC system is operating, which pushes or pulls air through the coils to assist movement of cleaning foam or spray through spaces in the coils (see intended use analysis below).
The limitations of Claims 7 and 10 are directed to a cleaning foam or spray generating system and “while an air handler of the HVAC system is operating, which pushes or pulls air through the coils to assist movement of cleaning foam or spray through spaces in the coils“, which are superfluous to the claimed self-cleaning heat transfer coil. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. It has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 16, Kennon discloses a self-cleaning deep draw HVAC coil system (see intended use analysis below), comprising:
a deep draw HVAC coil (the heat exchanger shown in figure 4, “A coil cleansing assembly for automated cleaning of dirt and debris from within banks of heat exchanger coils”, see abstract) having a depth corresponding to a cooling path length of at least 18 inches (“Typically, banks of heat exchanger coils may be assembled to a depth of approximately 24 to 60 inches, a width of approximately 24 to 70 inches and a length of approximately 48 to 240 inches”, col. 3 ll. 62-66);
a plurality of cooling coils (shown in figured 4-5, “plural stacked arrays of heat exchanger coils” col. 2 ll. 45-46) and cooling fins (“Each coil bank 12, 14 and 16 is comprised of individual layers of individual, interlocking serpentine coils to which the closely spaced, parallel heat exchanger fins are conductively joined”, col. 4 ll. 29-32) with spaces therebetween that permit air to flow therethrough (shown in figure 4); and
at least two foam injection coils (242, 244, 246, 248 and 250, 252, 254, 256) configured to emit cleaning foam or spray (shown in figure 4),
at least one foam injection coils being positioned to emit foam or spray at or near a front surface of the deep draw HVAC coil (shown in figure 4, being the most front facing spray nozzle (258)) and at least one other foam or spray emitter being positioned within an interior region of the deep draw HVAC coil to emit foam or spray therein (shown in figure 4); and
a cleaning foam or solution generating system in fluid communication with the at least two foam or spray emitter coils (“an inlet port 230 mounted on a transverse header pipe 232 receives fluid from an external source (not shown)”, col. 6 ll. 22-24, see intended use analysis below).
Regarding limitations “HVAC” and “foam or spray emitters” recited in Claim 16, which are directed to a working fluid for cleaning, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 16, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Kennon meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 16, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitation “deep draw” is drawn to a method of sheet metal forming and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 18, Kennon further discloses the deep draw HVAC coil has a depth corresponding to a cooling path length of at least 24, or at least 36 inches, or at least 48 inches, or at least 60 inches (“Typically, banks of heat exchanger coils may be assembled to a depth of approximately 24 to 60 inches, a width of approximately 24 to 70 inches and a length of approximately 48 to 240 inches”, col. 3 ll. 62-66).
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 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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennon (USP 5186240A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 16 and 18 above and in further view of Wen et al. (Translation of CN104215120A), hereinafter referred to as Wen.
Regarding Claim 3, although Kennon teaches the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are spaced-part at intervals of the coil (shown in figure 4), Kennon fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are spaced-part at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches, at least 8 inches, at least 10 inches, or at least 12 inches.
Wen, also drawn to a cleaning device for a heat exchanger, teaches a plurality of spaced-apart emitters are spaced-part at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil (shown in figure 1) of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches (“the distance between the adjacent cleaning branch pipes is preferably 50 mm to 200 mm” ¶27).
Regarding Claim 3, Kennon fails to disclose the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are spaced-apart at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches, at least 8 inches, at least 10 inches, or at least 12 inches. Wen does, however, teach a spray emitter spaced-apart at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches or at least 6 inches thereby contributing to the cleaning of heat exchanger fins. Therefore, the spacing of the spray emitters is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with a decreased number of emitters, the cleaning area of each emitter must be expanded to provide the same cleaning area (pressure of cleaning fluid, angle of spray opening, larger pump pressure, etc..), which correlates with a decrease in the amount of emitters required, and vice versa, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has a plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters, was disclosed in the prior art by Kennon/ Wen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger disclosed by Kennon having the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters being spaced-part at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches, at least 8 inches, at least 10 inches, or at least 12 inches. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Further, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennon (USP 5186240A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 16 and 18 above and in further view of Lindstrom et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0211819A1), hereinafter referred to as Lindstrom.
Regarding Claim 8, Kennon fails to disclose the cleaning foam or spray generating system is programmable to introduce cleaning foam or spray into the deep draw HVAC coil at predetermined intervals.
Lindstrom, also drawn to a heat exchanger cleaning apparatus, teaches the cleaning foam or spray generating system is programmable to introduce cleaning foam or spray into the deep draw HVAC coil at predetermined intervals (“The nozzle 7 is designed for distributing and controlling the flow/distribution of the cleaning media through the cooling battery. The cleaning media include fluids such as chemical detergents (D), water (W) and steam (S). The nozzle 7 is adapted to be connected via a connector 71 to a machine (not shown) feeding the nozzle 7 with the required cleaning media (steam, water, detergents, etc.) at different pressures and temperatures.” An example of a machine suitable for the purpose is provided by the company TECNOVAP Scandinavia AB (www.tecnovap.se) and has the designation Steam Pressure”, ¶41, wherein the machine is capable of providing cleaning fluid at intervals, see intended use analysis below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cleaning system of Kennon being programmable to introduce cleaning foam or spray into the deep draw HVAC coil at predetermined intervals, as taught by Lindstrom, the motivation being to conserve resources by providing cleaning fluid when needed or to mitigate degradation or failure of the heat exchanger by regulating the temperature and pressure of the cleaning fluid.
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Kennon further teaches the cleaning foam or spray generating system is programmable to introduce different types of cleaning foam or spray at predetermined intervals (“The cleaning media include fluids such as chemical detergents (D), water (W) and steam (S)” ¶41 of Lindstrom, see intended use analysis below).
The limitations of Claims 8-9 are directed to a cleaning foam or spray generating system that is superfluous to the claimed self-cleaning heat transfer coil. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennon (USP 5186240A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 16 and 18 above and in further view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN104896711A), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 17, Kennon teaches cleaning a deep draw HVAC coil by applying cleaning foam or spay to the deep draw HVAC coil, Kennon fails to disclose one or more sensors that detect when the deep draw HVAC coil is in need of cleaning and activating an automated coil cleaning system that applies the cleaning foam or spay to the deep draw HVAC coil.
Wang, also drawn to an air conditioner cleaning system, teaches one or more sensors (“a pressure difference sensor”) that detect when the deep draw HVAC coil is in need of cleaning and activating an automated coil cleaning system that applies the cleaning fluid to the deep draw HVAC coil (“it is determined that serious deposited soot removing device for heat exchanger, control module sends automatic cleaning signal to the cleaning water pump; cleaning water pump is started, the water remaining in the delivery to the sprinkler, spraying directly on to the heat exchanger by the sprinkler”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cleaning system of Kennon with one or more sensors that detect when the deep draw HVAC coil is in need of cleaning and activating an automated coil cleaning system that applies the cleaning foam or spay to the deep draw HVAC coil, as taught by Wang, the motivation being to effectively improve “the timeliness and efficiency heat exchanger so as to improve the reliability of the operation of the air conditioner”.
Regarding Claim 20, although Kennon teaches cleaning a deep draw HVAC coil by applying cleaning foam to the deep draw HVAC coil, Kennon fails to disclose the cleaning foam or solution generating system is programmable to introduce cleaning foam or spray into the deep draw HVAC coil at predetermined intervals.
Wang, also drawn to an air conditioner cleaning system, teaches the cleaning foam or solution generating system is programmable to introduce cleaning foam or spray into the deep draw HVAC coil at predetermined intervals (“the water remaining in the delivery to the sprinkler, spraying directly on to the heat exchanger by the sprinkler, automatic cleaning, and when the differential pressure sensor detects the pressure difference p y (x) (parameter threshold range) or the cleaning time reaches T minutes (preset cleaning time). the automatic cleaning command is finished, cleaning pump is stopped to finish the automatic cleaning operation”, underline for reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cleaning system of Kennon with the cleaning foam or solution generating system is programmable to introduce cleaning foam or spray into the deep draw HVAC coil at predetermined intervals, as taught by Wang, the motivation being to effectively improve “the timeliness and efficiency heat exchanger so as to improve the reliability of the operation of the air conditioner”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennon (USP 5186240A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 16 and 18 above and in further view of Wen et al. (Translation of CN104215120A), hereinafter referred to as Wen.
Regarding Claim 19, although Kennon discloses the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are spaced-part at intervals, Kennon fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are spaced-part at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches, at least 8 inches, at least 10 inches, or at least 12 inches.
Wen, also drawn to a cleaning device for a heat exchanger, teaches a plurality of spaced-apart emitters are spaced-part at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches (“the distance between the adjacent cleaning branch pipes is preferably 50 mm to 200 mm” ¶27).
Regarding Claim 19, Kennon fails to disclose the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters are spaced-apart at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches, at least 8 inches, at least 10 inches, or at least 12 inches. Wen does, however, teach a spray emitter spaced-apart at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches or at least 6 inches thereby contributing to the cleaning of heat exchanger fins. Therefore, the spacing of the spray emitters is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with a decreased number of emitters, the cleaning area of each emitter must be expanded to provide the same cleaning area (pressure of cleaning fluid, angle of spray opening, larger pump pressure, etc..), which correlates with a decrease in the amount of emitters required, and vice versa, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has a plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters, was disclosed in the prior art by Kennon, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger disclosed by Kennon having the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters being spaced-part at intervals along the depth of the deep draw HVAC coil of at least 1 inch, at least 2 inches, at least 4 inches, at least 6 inches, at least 8 inches, at least 10 inches, or at least 12 inches. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Further, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Claim 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindstrom et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0211819A1) in view of Kennon (USP 5186240A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lindstrom discloses a self-cleaning heat transfer coil of an HVAC system comprising:
a deep draw HVAC coil (2) having a depth (shown in figure 3);
a plurality of cooling coils (shown in figure 2, wherein the pipe coil (21) is formed with a plurality of passes within the core (2)) and cooling fins (2) with spaces therebetween that permit air to flow therethrough (shown in figure 3); and
a plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters (73), at least one foam or spray emitter being positioned to emit foam or spray at or near a front surface of the deep draw HVAC coil (shown in figure 3) and at least one other foam or spray emitter being positioned within an interior region of the deep draw HVAC coil to emit foam or spray therein (shown in figure 3).
Although Lindstrom states, “The constituent parts of the distributing device 720 can of course be adapted in size to enable them to be used for cooling batteries 2 having both smaller and greater depths than the one described above” (¶50), Lindstrom fails to explicitly disclose cleaning a deep draw HVAC coil having a depth of at least 18 inches.
Kennon, also drawn to cleaning a coil of a heat exchanger (see abstract), teaches cleaning a deep draw coil (the heat exchanger shown in figure 4, “A coil cleansing assembly for automated cleaning of dirt and debris from within banks of heat exchanger coils”, see abstract) having a depth of at least 18 inches (“Typically, banks of heat exchanger coils may be assembled to a depth of approximately 24 to 60 inches, a width of approximately 24 to 70 inches and a length of approximately 48 to 240 inches”, col. 3 ll. 62-66);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the coil of Lindstrom being deep draw, and having a depth of at least 18 inches, as taught by Kennon, the motivation being that having a larger heat exchanger coil allows for greater heat exchange in large scale industrial settings, wherein larger heat exchangers require cleaning.
Alternately, Lindstrom discloses the claimed invention except for a deep draw HVAC coil having a depth of at least 18 inches. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to increase the size of the coil of Lindstrom, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
Regarding limitations “HVAC”, “foam or spray emitters” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to a working fluid for cleaning, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 1, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 1, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitation “deep draw” is drawn to a method of sheet metal forming and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 6, in the embodiment of Lindstrom previously proffered within the instant rejection, Lindstrom fails to disclose the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters comprise injection ports through a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil, with the foam or spray initially flowing through and at least partially filling a gap between the top plate and the cooling coils and fins beneath the top plate and then descending vertically downward between the cooling coils and cooling fins in the absence of air flow and then flowing horizontally through spaces through the coil upon activating air flow through the coil.
However, in a different embodiment Lindstrom teaches the plurality of spaced-apart foam or spray emitters comprise injection ports through a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil (“For instance, it is appreciated that detergents, steam, etc. can expelled from the nozzle 7 through passages, said passages being an integrated part of the top portion 70 of the actual nozzle. A conceivable embodiment comprises a flat distribution box, for the purpose of minimizing the quantity of cleaning medium therein, wherein a lower plate comprises said distributing openings”), with the foam or spray initially flowing through and at least partially filling a gap between the top plate and the cooling coils and fins beneath the top plate (referenced in figure 3, wherein when the passages are integrated into the top portion or through the lower plate, as previously stated, the cleaning fluid enters the area between the coil and the top portion) and then descending vertically downward between the cooling coils and cooling fins in the absence of air flow and then flowing horizontally through spaces through the coil upon activating air flow through the coil (see intended use analysis below).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting the injection ports being located on a separate pipe located on a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil with the injection ports being located on a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil; further the prior art to Lindstrom teaches it is known to integrate the ports directly on the top portion. Therefore, since having the injection ports being located on a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil for cleaning a coil, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger cleaning device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Lindstrom there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the embodiment of figure 3 of Lindstrom by having the injection ports being located on a top plate of a housing for the deep draw HVAC coil in order to minimize the components required to produce the heat exchanger cleaning system.
Regarding limitations “and then descending vertically downward between the cooling coils and cooling fins in the absence of air flow and then flowing horizontally through spaces through the coil upon activating air flow through the coil” recited in Claim 6, which are directed to a working fluid flow direction, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763