DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant’s amendment has introduced new drawing objections. Please see below.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations, which are addressed in the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment, below. In view of the deficiencies of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112, no allowable subject matter was indicated. However, it appears that if Applicant were to correct the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112, that the claims locating the fan may be found allowable as they further structurally limit the airflow path of the device to more specifically correspond with that illustrated in Applicant’s drawings. No attempt was made to map prior art to claim 38 in view of the severity of the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “heat transfer enhancement features” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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: heat transfer enhancement features (i.e. features [generic placeholder] for heat transfer enhancement [functional language]) in claim 61.
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. In the case of “heat transfer enhancement features”, the corresponding structure(s) are found in paragraph [0058].
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 45-67 are 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 1 has been amended to recite the limitation “a first air flow path disposed within the housing, extending from the at least one ambient air inlet, then across the back cooled surface, then across the front cooled surface, then through the gap between the front cooled surface of the heat exchanger and the permeable member, and then out through the screen mesh”. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to support “then across the front cooled surface, the through the gap between the front cooled surface of the heat exchanger and the permeable member, and then out through the screen mesh”, as it appears that the flow across the front surface and the flow through the gap are the same. Accordingly, claim 1 adds new matter to the disclosure. Claims 5-6, and 45-67 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 38 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 38 has been amended to recite the limitations a permeable member comprising a permeable surface exposed to surroundings external to the housing and defining a cooled air outlet adapted to expel the cooled and dehumidified air from the housing to the surroundings, the permeable member separated from the front cooled surface by a gap and oriented to accept heat radiation from the surroundings; at least one cooled air outlet comprising a surface exposed to surroundings external to the housing and oriented to accept heat radiation from the surroundings, the surface adapted to expel the cooled and dehumidified air from the housing to the surroundings;” and “an air flow path extending from the at least one ambient air inlet, contacting the back surface and the front cooled surface of the heat exchanger, passing through the gap, and exiting through the permeable surface and to the cooled air outlet”. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to supports “at least one cooled air outlet comprising a surface exposed to surroundings external to the housing and oriented to accept heat radiation from the surroundings, the surface adapted to expel the cooled and dehumidified air from the housing to the surroundings” in combination with “a permeable surface exposed to surroundings external to the housing and defining a cooled air outlet adapted to expel the cooled and dehumidified air from the housing to the surroundings” and “exiting through the permeable surface and to the cooled air outlet”. Accordingly, claim 38 adds new matter to the disclosure.
Claims 47, 49, 51, 54-55, 57, 60, and 64-65 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. Claims 47, 49, 54, 57, 60, and 64 recite the limitation “wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap”. Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding this limitation. Accordingly, Claims 47, 49, 54, 57, 60, and 64 are considered to add new matter to the disclosure. Claims 55 and 65 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claims 54 or 64 and therefore include the same error(s).
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.
Claim 38 is 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.
Claim 38 recites the limitations “defining a cooled air outlet” and “at least one cooled air outlet”. It is unclear if these are the same or different. In view of the level of detail regarding both recitations “cooled air outlet”, it appears that Applicant intended to claim them separately. However, please see rejection, above.
Normally a claim which fails to comply with the first and/or second paragraph of §112 will not be analyzed as to whether it is patentable over the prior art since to do so would of necessity require speculation with regard to the meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter, In re Steele, 308 F .2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F .2d 1382, 1385, 496 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a courtesy to Applicant, Examiner has attempted to apply art to the claims as best they could be understood as presented, with the exception of claim 38.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 56-59, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 2019/0285287).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura et al. discloses a dry surface radiative cooling device, comprising:
at least one ambient air inlet (see at least Figure 7, air inlet #3);
a housing (see at least chambers #1/#2);
a permeable member defining a cooled air outlet through which cooled and dehumidified air exits the housing (see at least air discharger #5);
a heat exchanger comprising a back cooled surface and a front cooled surface facing the permeable member and separated from the permeable member by a gap (see at least heat storage unit #6); and
a first air flow path disposed within the housing, extending from the at least one ambient air inlet (see at least arrows from #3 through #4), then across the back cooled surface (see at least arrows passing through across the back of #6), then across the front cooled surface (see at least arrows passing through across the front of #6), then through the gap between the front cooled surface of the heat exchanger and the permeable member (see at least arrows passing through the space between #6 and #5), and then out through the permeable member (see at least arrows passing out through the holes #9 in air discharger #5);
wherein the front cooled surface of the heat exchanger is adapted to have a radiative heat transfer line of sight, extending through the permeable member, with surroundings external to the housing (see at least heat storage unit #6, the front surface of which points downward toward space #S), and
wherein the permeable member is oriented to have a radiative heat transfer line of sight with the surroundings (see at least air discharger #5, the front surface of which points downward toward space #S).
Kimura et al. does not disclose that the permeable member comprises a screen mesh.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the permeable member comprises a screen mesh would result in a difference in function of the Kimura et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed screen mesh. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the screen mesh solves any stated problem, indicating that “Accordingly, the permeable surface may comprise a plurality of openings through which air can pass. In embodiments, the permeable surface may comprise one or more of screen (mesh), perforated plate, sponge, foam, paper, cardboard, or the like, including combinations thereof. The permeable surface may comprise a metal sheet formed with holes and/or slits. The permeable surface may be 3D printed, extruded, machined or woven.” (see paragraph [0045]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the type of permeable member as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Kimura et al. with the permeable member comprises a screen mesh as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Kimura et al. further discloses further comprising a secondary cooled air outlet upstream of the cooled air outlet in the first air flow path, configured such that a partial volume of air traveling through the first air flow path can exit through the secondary cooled air outlet (see at least air discharger #4 with apertures #8: the full volume of air exits through #4).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the permeable member is detachably connected to the housing (see at least paragraph [0049]: mounting to a frame member is indicative of detachable connection).
Regarding claim 56, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the heat exchanger comprises a plate-type heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0054]), and wherein the back cooled surface comprises a planar back cooled surface and the front cooled surface comprises a planar front cooled surface (see at least Figures 3 and 7, the fin edges form planar front/back surfaces).
Regarding claim 57, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the screen mesh comprises a plurality of holes defining the cooled air outlet (see at least holes #9),
wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap (see at least paragraph [0053]; compare also Figure 7, the cross-section of the flow area into #5 is much larger than the holes #9), and
wherein the screen mesh is configured to restrict airflow such that air exiting at the cooled air outlet forms a dry air cushion adjacent to the screen mesh (see at least paragraph [0053]: #5 meets the structure(s) claimed, and thus is presumed to meet the claim function).
Regarding claim 58, Kimura et al. does not disclose wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1".
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1" would result in a difference in function of the Kimura et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed gap. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed gap solves any stated problem, indicating that “The gap may separate the permeable screen and the thermally conductive plate by a distance. The distance may be selected such that the permeable member is disposed as close as possible to the first heat exchanger, but not so close that condensate that forms on the front side of the heat exchanger that faces the permeable member wets the permeable member. The distance may be from greater than 0 to about 1". The distance may measure from about 1/8" to about 1", or from greater than 0 to about 1/8". The distance may measure from about 3/16" to about 5/8". In an example, the distance may measure from about 1/8" to about 3/16". More specifically, in an example, the distance may measure about 1/8"” (see paragraph [0067]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the type of gap as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Kimura et al. with wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1" as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 59, Kimura et al. is silent regarding wherein the planar front cooled surface comprises a treated surface having high emissivity relative to non-treated surface portions of the device.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the planar front cooled surface comprises a treated surface having high emissivity relative to non-treated surface portions of the device would result in a difference in function of the Kimura et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed high emissivity. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed emissivity solves any stated problem, indicating that “In other embodiments, a surface of the heat exchanger may not be treated and may have inherently desirable properties such as high emissivity and/or hydrophobicity." (see paragraph [0056]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the high emissivity treatment as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Kimura et al. with wherein the planar front cooled surface comprises a treated surface having high emissivity relative to non-treated surface portions of the device as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 66, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the permeable member is at least partially transparent to thermal radiation transmitted between the planar front cooled surface and the surroundings external to the housing (see at least paragraph [0055]).
Claim(s) 45-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2,811,842: previously cited).
Regarding claim 45, Kimura et al. does not disclose further comprising: a vapor compression refrigerant circuit disposed at least partially within the housing, and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger; a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger; at least one second heat exchanger for releasing heat from the refrigerant; at least one heat rejection outlet; and at least one refrigerant compressor.
However, provision of a vapor compression refrigerant circuit is disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Taylor, which teaches a cooling device comprising a vapor compression refrigerant circuit disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger (see at least column 3, lines 31-48; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13; see also at least Figure 3, evaporator #40) and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger (see at least #MC; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13; see at least radiator: column 4, lines 51-59: both the compressor and radiator are connected to the evaporator via a refrigerant conduit).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cooling device of Kimura et al. with a vapor compression refrigerant circuit is disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger, since, as evidenced by Taylor, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of employing the well-known vapor-compression cycle to ensure consistent cooling, and since the simple substitution of one heat exchanger type (heat storage heat exchanger, as disclosed by Kimura et al.) for another (vapor compression heat exchanger, as taught by Taylor) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, since, as noted above the substitution of the exchanger type taught in Taylor would have yielded predictable results, namely, employing the well-known vapor-compression cycle to ensure consistent cooling (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Kimura et al. as modified by Taylor further discloses at least one second heat exchanger for releasing heat from the refrigerant (see at least Taylor radiator: column 4, lines 51-59);
at least one heat rejection outlet (see at least Taylor #77/#78); and
at least one refrigerant compressor (see at least Taylor #MC; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13).
Regarding claim 46, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the heat exchanger comprises a plate-type heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0054]), and wherein the back cooled surface comprises a planar back cooled surface and the front cooled surface comprises a planar front cooled surface (see at least Figures 3 and 7, the fin edges form planar front/back surfaces).
Regarding claim 47, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the screen mesh comprises a plurality of holes defining the cooled air outlet (see at least holes #9),
wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap (see at least paragraph [0053]; compare also Figure 7, the cross-section of the flow area into #5 is much larger than the holes #9), and
wherein the screen mesh is configured to restrict airflow such that air exiting at the cooled air outlet forms a dry air cushion adjacent to the screen mesh (see at least paragraph [0053]: #5 meets the structure(s) claimed, and thus is presumed to meet the claim function).
Regarding claim 48, Kimura et al. in view of Taylor further discloses wherein the front cooled surface is configured to cool ambient air entering the at least one ambient air inlet to a temperature below a dew point of the ambient air (see above: inherent to the heat exchanger modified with evaporator #40 of Taylor)
Regarding claim 49, Kimura et al. in view of Taylor further discloses wherein the screen mesh comprises a plurality of holes defining the cooled air outlet (see at least holes #9),
wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap (see at least paragraph [0053]; compare also Figure 7, the cross-section of the flow area into #5 is much larger than the holes #9), and
wherein the screen mesh is configured to restrict airflow such that air exiting at the cooled air outlet forms a dry air cushion adjacent to the screen mesh (see at least paragraph [0053]: #5 meets the structure(s) claimed, and thus is presumed to meet the claim function), and
wherein the front cooled surface is configured to cool ambient air entering the at least one ambient air inlet to a temperature below a dew point of the ambient air (see above: inherent to the heat exchanger modified with evaporator #40 of Taylor).
Regarding claim 50, Kimura et al. does not disclose wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1".
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1" would result in a difference in function of the Kimura et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed gap. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed gap solves any stated problem, indicating that “The gap may separate the permeable screen and the thermally conductive plate by a distance. The distance may be selected such that the permeable member is disposed as close as possible to the first heat exchanger, but not so close that condensate that forms on the front side of the heat exchanger that faces the permeable member wets the permeable member. The distance may be from greater than 0 to about 1". The distance may measure from about 1/8" to about 1", or from greater than 0 to about 1/8". The distance may measure from about 3/16" to about 5/8". In an example, the distance may measure from about 1/8" to about 3/16". More specifically, in an example, the distance may measure about 1/8"” (see paragraph [0067]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the type of gap as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Kimura et al. with wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1" as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 51, Kimura et al. further discloses wherein the screen mesh comprises a plurality of holes defining the cooled air outlet (see at least holes #9),
wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap (see at least paragraph [0053]; compare also Figure 7, the cross-section of the flow area into #5 is much larger than the holes #9), and
wherein the screen mesh is configured to restrict airflow such that air exiting at the cooled air outlet forms a dry air cushion adjacent to the screen mesh (see at least paragraph [0053]: #5 meets the structure(s) claimed, and thus is presumed to meet the claim function).
Kimura et al. does not disclose wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1".
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1" would result in a difference in function of the Kimura et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed gap. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed gap solves any stated problem, indicating that “The gap may separate the permeable screen and the thermally conductive plate by a distance. The distance may be selected such that the permeable member is disposed as close as possible to the first heat exchanger, but not so close that condensate that forms on the front side of the heat exchanger that faces the permeable member wets the permeable member. The distance may be from greater than 0 to about 1". The distance may measure from about 1/8" to about 1", or from greater than 0 to about 1/8". The distance may measure from about 3/16" to about 5/8". In an example, the distance may measure from about 1/8" to about 3/16". More specifically, in an example, the distance may measure about 1/8"” (see paragraph [0067]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the type of gap as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Kimura et al. with wherein the gap comprises a gap distance of from about 1/8" to about 1" as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 60 and 63-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2,811,842: previously cited).
Regarding claim 60, Taylor further discloses wherein the screen mesh comprises a plurality of holes defining the cooled air outlet (see at least holes #9),
wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap (see at least paragraph [0053]; compare also Figure 7, the cross-section of the flow area into #5 is much larger than the holes #9), and
wherein the screen mesh is configured to restrict airflow such that air exiting at the cooled air outlet forms a dry air cushion adjacent to the screen mesh (see at least paragraph [0053]: #5 meets the structure(s) claimed, and thus is presumed to meet the claim function),
Kimura et al. is silent regarding wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool received ambient air entering the air flow path through the at least one ambient air inlet to a temperature lower than a dew point of the ambient air.
However, provision of a vapor compression refrigerant circuit is disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Taylor, which teaches a cooling device comprising a vapor compression refrigerant circuit disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger (see at least column 3, lines 31-48; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13; see also at least Figure 3, evaporator #40) and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger (see at least #MC; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13; see at least radiator: column 4, lines 51-59: both the compressor and radiator are connected to the evaporator via a refrigerant conduit).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cooling device of Kimura et al. with a vapor compression refrigerant circuit is disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger, since, as evidenced by Taylor, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of employing the well-known vapor-compression cycle to ensure consistent cooling, and since the simple substitution of one heat exchanger type (heat storage heat exchanger, as disclosed by Kimura et al.) for another (vapor compression heat exchanger, as taught by Taylor) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, since, as noted above the substitution of the exchanger type taught in Taylor would have yielded predictable results, namely, employing the well-known vapor-compression cycle to ensure consistent cooling (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Kimura et al. as modified by Taylor further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool received ambient air entering the air flow path through the at least one ambient air inlet to a temperature lower than a dew point of the ambient air (see above: inherent to the heat exchanger modified with evaporator #40 of Taylor).
Regarding claim 63, Kimura et al. is silent regarding wherein the at least one ambient air inlet is configured to return and recycle, to the back cooled surface, a portion of the cooled and dehumidified air discharged from the first air flow path, though it is likely that Kimura et al. receives at least a portion of air recycled from the surroundings.
Taylor teaches another cooling device wherein the at least one ambient air inlet is configured to return and recycle, to the back cooled surface, a portion of the cooled and dehumidified air discharged from the first air flow path, though it is likely that Kimura et al. receives at least a portion of air recycled from the surroundings (see at least Figure 3, inlet at #11 situated in proximity to the outlet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Kimura et al with wherein the at least one ambient air inlet is configured to return and recycle, to the back cooled surface, a portion of the cooled and dehumidified air discharged from the first air flow path, though it is likely that Kimura et al. receives at least a portion of air recycled from the surroundings, as taught by Taylor, to improve the device of Kimura by improving the efficiency of device through reuse of partially cooled air.
Regarding claim 64, Taylor further discloses wherein the screen mesh comprises a plurality of holes defining the cooled air outlet (see at least holes #9),
wherein the holes are sized such that an aggregate open area thereof is smaller than a cross-sectional area of an air passage into the gap (see at least paragraph [0053]; compare also Figure 7, the cross-section of the flow area into #5 is much larger than the holes #9), and
wherein the screen mesh is configured to restrict airflow such that air exiting at the cooled air outlet forms a dry air cushion adjacent to the screen mesh (see at least paragraph [0053]: #5 meets the structure(s) claimed, and thus is presumed to meet the claim function),
Kimura et al. is silent regarding wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool received ambient air entering the air flow path through the at least one ambient air inlet to a temperature lower than a dew point of the ambient air.
However, provision of a vapor compression refrigerant circuit is disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Taylor, which teaches a cooling device comprising a vapor compression refrigerant circuit disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger (see at least column 3, lines 31-48; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13; see also at least Figure 3, evaporator #40) and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger (see at least #MC; column 3, line 70 through column 4, line 13; see at least radiator: column 4, lines 51-59: both the compressor and radiator are connected to the evaporator via a refrigerant conduit).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cooling device of Kimura et al. with a vapor compression refrigerant circuit is disposed at least partially within the housing and wherein the vapor compression refrigerant circuit comprises the heat exchanger and a refrigerant conduit for transporting a refrigerant and that connects to the heat exchanger, since, as evidenced by Taylor, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of employing the well-known vapor-compression cycle to ensure consistent cooling, and since the simple substitution of one heat exchanger type (heat storage heat exchanger, as disclosed by Kimura et al.) for another (vapor compression heat exchanger, as taught by Taylor) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, since, as noted above the substitution of the exchanger type taught in Taylor would have yielded predictable results, namely, employing the well-known vapor-compression cycle to ensure consistent cooling (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Kimura et al. as modified by Taylor further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool received ambient air entering the air flow path through the at least one ambient air inlet to a temperature lower than a dew point of the ambient air (see above: inherent to the heat exchanger modified with evaporator #40 of Taylor).
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Fiebig et al. (DE 3739619: previously cited with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 61, Kimura et al. is silent regarding wherein the back cooled surface comprises heat transfer enhancement features configured to induce turbulent flow in the received ambient air.
Fiebig et al. teaches inclusion of vortex generators on heat transfer surfaces (which would include the back) of heat exchangers (see at least Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger of Kimura et al. with wherein the back cooled surface comprises heat transfer enhancement features configured to induce turbulent flow in the received ambient air, as taught by Fiebig et al., to improve the heat exchanger of Kimura et al. by “produc[ing] a substantial rise in the heat transfer in conjunction with a relatively slight rise in the pressure losses and/or flow losses” (see Fiebig et al. Abstract).
The combination of Kimura et al. and Fiebig et al. meets configured to induce turbulent flow in the received ambient air, both since the combination with Fiebig et al. explicitly teaches the structure(s) responsible for the turbulent flow, and since Applicant is reminded, that “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”: In this case all the claimed structural limitations are met and thus Kimura et al. in view of Fiebig et al. is capable of transporting the air via turbulent flow (even if Kimura et al. is discharging the air via laminar flow).
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2018/0274798).
Regarding claim 67, Kimura et al. does not disclose further comprising at least one intake restrictor disposed at an end portion of the gap, and secured by an inner wall portion of the housing, wherein the intake restrictor is disposed between the heat exchanger and the permeable member.
Jung et al. teaches another cooling device comprising at least one intake restrictor disposed at an end portion of a gap between the heat exchanger and permeable discharge member, and secured by an inner wall portion of the housing, wherein the intake restrictor is disposed between the heat exchanger and the permeable discharge member (see at least #41/#42 at a first end of a gap between the heat exchanger and the discharge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cooling device of Kimura et al. with further comprising at least one intake restrictor disposed at an end portion of the gap, and secured by an inner wall portion of the housing, wherein the intake restrictor is disposed between the heat exchanger and the permeable member, as taught by Jung et al., to improve the cooling device of Kimura et al. by ensuring that conditioned air is directed toward the outlet (see at least Jung et al. paragraph [0054]).
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 TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763