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 .
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 8, 10, 12-14, and 20 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.
Based upon the amendments made to independent claim 1 by applicant in the amendment filed on April 13, 2026, claim 8 appears to be redundant, since claim 1 already requires the fan to be in the upper module and thus above the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger, and that the heat exchanger is attached at its lower surface to the lower housing.
Similarly, claim 10 appears to be redundant based upon the April 13, 2026 amendment, since claim 1, upon which claim 10 directly depends, already requires the upper module, that contains the fan and spray system to be attached to the top surface of the heat exchanger, thus being stacked thereon in a vertical direction.
It is noted that the amendments to independent claim 1 require the upper module to be attached to the top surface of the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger and the lower module to be attached to the lower surface of the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger, thus being clearly directed to the stacked embodiment of Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application, while no longer reading on the horizontally oriented embodiment of the invention as shown be Figures 4 and 5 of the application. As such, claims 12-14 cannot be considered to correctly define a disclosed embodiment of the invention, since they each include aspects that read on the horizontally oriented embodiment of Figures 4 and 5, while being dependent upon claim 1, which reads only on the vertically stacked embodiment of Figures 1 and 2 of the application. Further, the first four lines of instant claim 13 recite only elements of the invention, which have been added to independent claim 1 by the amendment filed on April 13, 2026, thus rendering the first four lines of claim 13 redundant with respect to independent claim 1, from which claim 13 indirectly depends.
The first two lines of claim 20 recite only language that has been added to claim 16 by the amendment filed on April 13, 2026, and thus that portion of claim 20 is redundant with respect to independent claim 16, from which claim 20 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 10019478 A taken together with WO 03/029743 A1.
JP 10019478 A (Fig. 1; English Abstract) teaches a wet surface air cooler (WSAC) comprising an evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger including at least one spiral sheet wound to form a first spiral channel (claims 15 and 21) that is closed at the top and bottom (claim 3) to receive a process medium for flow from an inlet at the radial outer side to the outlet at the radial center of the heat exchanger (claims 4 and 19). The windings of the closed first channel forms a set of second channels therebetween that are open at the top and bottom thereof (claim 3), the second channels extending axially through the spiral plate heat exchanger for receiving air and cooling medium in counterflow therethrough (claims 2, 17, and 19). The device includes a rotating spray pipe (8) arranged above the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger for spraying cooling medium downwardly through the second channels and a fan (4) arranged above the spray pipe for drawing air up through the second channels of the spiral plate heat exchanger, the air and cooling medium contacting to at least partially evaporate some of the cooling medium within the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger to cause the temperature of the process medium to decrease during passage through the first channel of the spiral plate heat exchanger (claims 1 and 16). The air and cooling medium flow vertically through the heat exchanger and the process medium flows horizontally, or perpendicular to the air and cooling medium (claim 5). The bottom portion of the apparatus (lower housing) forms a basin to collect the sprayed cooling medium and a plurality of air inlet passages (5) into the device (claims 1 and 16, as imported from previous claim 6, now cancelled) to allow air to flow from the outside to the inside of the WSAC (claim 7). The evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger is provided on the lower housing, with the fan above the heat exchanger (claim 8), the fan, spray system and evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger being stacked vertically (claim 10).
JP 10019478 A (Fig. 1; English Abstract) as discussed above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 1, 11-14, 16, 18, and 20, except for modular construction, as now recited by independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claim 20; the concentric spray system of claim 11; the fan being horizontally spaced from the heat exchanger, as set forth by instant claim 12; and the process medium flowing from the inside to the outside of the heat exchanger, as required by instant claim 18. It is noted that the structures as set forth by instant claims 13 and 14 are specifically taught by the reference, and would have been included in the discussion above as being anticipated, if not for their dependencies on instant claim 12.
JP 10019478 A (Fig. 1; English Abstract) does disclose a rotating spray pipe with a plurality of spray openings along its length, which when rotating, provides a concentrically arranged spray pattern. Since the rotating spray pipe (8) of JP ‘478 provides applicant’s desired concentric spray pattern to efficiently wet the open second channels of the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger, with regard to instant claim 11, it would have been obvious for an artisan, at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the rotating pipe of JP ‘478, to be in the form of plural, stationary, concentric spray pipes, since such would provide the same functionality without the extra maintenance costs associated with the rotating pipe structure.
With regard to the requirement by instant claim 12, that the fan be horizontally offset from the heat exchanger, such a modification in design would have been an obvious design expedient dictated by the space available within the facility that was intended to house the claimed WSAC. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it to have been entirely obvious at the time of the filing of the application, to rearrange the known elements of the known device, as taught by JP 10019478 A, since such would allow for convenient placement of the device within the available building space. As stated above, the structures as set forth by instant claims 13 and 14 are clearly taught by JP ‘478, and therefore, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the structures of instant claims 13 and 14 within an apparatus in which the fan was horizontally spaced from the heat exchanger, as required by claim 12, from which claims 13 and 14 depend.
With regard to instant claim 18, wherein applicant apparently equates the operation of the device where the process medium flows from the outside to the center, with the operation of the device where the process medium flows from the center to the outside, by presentation of claims to both operational manners, without apparent preference or advantage of one operation over the other, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to reverse the flow of the process fluid through the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger of JP ‘478 from the disclosed outside to center to the center to outside, as set forth by instant claim 18, if such were desired.
With regard to the modular construction of the device, as now recited by independent claims 1 and 16, as well as dependent claim 20, WO 03/029743 A1 (Abstract; Fig. 1) disclose a wet surface air cooler similar to that of the Japanese reference, wherein the structure of the device is assembled in a modular type construction having lower module means providing inlet airflow passages (17) and a basin configured to receive the cooling medium sprayed by the spray system (25), the fan (37) and spray system (25) being provided in upper module means, wherein the lower module means is removably attached to the lower surface of the evaporative heat exchanger (19) and the upper module means is removably attached to the upper surface of the evaporative heat exchanger (19). Wherein it is common within the art of direct contact heat exchange to use modular construction, as evidenced WO 03/029743 A1, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to construct the lower and upper housing elements, that are arranged below and above the evaporative spiral plate heat exchanger of JP ‘478, in a modular manner, such that interchangeable modules could be assembled in conjunction with the spiral heat exchanger, such that the operational parameters could be easily changed, or the outward form of the device could be easily modified to fit a chosen location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regard to the modular construction of the device not being adequately taught by the Aaron et al ‘619 reference, which was applied as a secondary reference in the previous Office action. However, upon further consideration and search being directed to the modular construction feature, in particular, several additional references are cited herein by the undersigned to emphasize the well known nature of modular evaporative cooling tower construction. In particular, as set forth in the rejection statement above, WO 03/029743 A1 has been applied to demonstrate the obvious nature of modular construction within the evaporative cooling art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/6-16-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights