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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the claim objection are moot in view of the cancellation of the objected claim (claim 21).
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that since Dinnage teaches control of the supply valve based on the measured flow of the overflow or bleed stream that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to move the flow meter and location of the measured flow and that such would change the principle of operation of Dinnage. Regarding the motivation to place the flow meter at the outlet of the injector/eductor/venturi, Examiner notes that Examiner has provided a motivation that would be readily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, namely direct measurement of the water supplied to the evaporative pads. Regarding changing the principle of operation of Dinnage, Examiner notes that the broader operation principle of Dinnage is directed to adjusting the supply valve based on measured flow, and thus the combination with Leonard would not change the principle of operation of Dinnage. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s request for telephonic interview, Applicant's request for interview is acknowledged, but consistent with the practice recommended in the MPEP, the request is denied. It is not believed that an interview at this time would aid in advancing prosecution in view of the new/modified grounds of rejection. Should Applicant desire an interview after review of the current Office Action, Applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner using the information below to schedule such an interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-15, 31, and 32 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on a measured flow rate of fluid discharged”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the earlier “flow rate of fluid discharged”. It is believed to be the same. Examiner also notes that Applicant may wish to consider Applicant’s use of fluid versus liquid throughout the claims, as it appears that the two should be linked to improve clarity. Claims 2-6, 11-15, 31, and 32 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 2-3 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the venturi configured to receive a flow of liquid through the first inlet”. Is this the same or different from the supply liquid of claim 1? It is believed to be same. Claim 3 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 2 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 11 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 11 recites the limitation “the flow rate of the supply of liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Did Applicant mean to refer to “flow rate” in the limitation of claim 1 “to control a flow of the supply of liquid”?
Claim 12 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 12 recites the limitation “adjusting a flow rate of the supply of liquid”. Is this the same or different from “a flow of the supply of liquid” of claim 1?
Claim 31 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 31 recites the limitation “a flow of the supply of liquid”. Is this the same or different from “a flow of the supply of liquid” of claim 1?
Claim 32 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 32 recites the limitation “the flow rate of the supply of liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Did Applicant mean to refer to “flow rate” in the limitation of claim 1 “to control a flow of the supply of liquid”?
Claims 22-30 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the supply of liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Applicant should review the claim(s) for consistency between use of “fluid” versus “liquid”. Claims 23-30 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 22 and therefore include the same error(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage (US 2017/0108251: previously cited) in view of Bittner (US 2021/0364198: cited by Applicant) and Leonard (US 2012/0181235: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Dinnage discloses a cooling system, comprising:
one or more evaporative pads (see at least evaporative pad(s) #218);
one or more nozzle assemblies external to the one or more evaporative pads (see at least spray head(s) #216), the one or more nozzle assemblies being coupled to a supply of liquid and configured to provide the liquid to at least one of the one or more evaporative pads (see at least source #228; paragraph [0026]);
a basin configured to collect a portion of the liquid from the one or more evaporative pads (see at least return reservoir #210);
an injector disposed between the supply of liquid and the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least venturi pump #230), the injector comprising a first inlet coupled to the supply of liquid (see at least #230-1), a second inlet coupled to the basin (see at least #230-3), and an outlet coupled to the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least #230-2);
a flow control valve coupled between the supply of liquid and the first inlet of the injector (see at least valve #240; controller #242; paragraph [0030]).
Dinnage does not disclose one or more heat exchanger coils; nor that one or more evaporative pads are external to the one or more heat exchanger coils.
Bittner teaches another cooling system comprising one or more heat exchanger coils (see at least #205), one or more evaporative pads (see at least #210/#215), the one or more evaporative pads external to the one or more heat exchanger coils (see at least paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Dinnage with one or more heat exchanger coils; the one or more evaporative pads external to the one or more heat exchanger coils, as taught by Bittner, to improve the system of DInnage by allowing for more efficient cooling through use of both conventional cooling and evaporative cooling (see at least Bittner paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
While Dinnage further discloses further comprising a flow meter communicably coupled to the controller and configured to measure a flow rate of the liquid downstream of the injector (see at least flow sensor #238; paragraph [0030]), Dinnage does not disclose a flow meter coupled between the outlet of the injector and the one or more nozzle assemblies, the flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of fluid discharged from the outlet.
Leonard, however, teaches that a flow meter can be positioned prior to or subsequent to any component in a fluid handling system, including inlets/outlets/venturis (see at least paragraph [0063]).
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 system of Dinnage with a flow meter coupled between the outlet of the injector and the one or more nozzle assemblies: that is using the known technique of providing a flow meter positioned prior to or subsequent to any component in a fluid handling system, taught by Leonard, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Dinnage with a flow meter coupled between the outlet of the injector and the one or more nozzle assemblies (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for flow to the evaporative pads to be directly measured.
The combination of Dinnage and Leonard will meet the flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of fluid discharged from the outlet, since Dinnage teaches measurement of flow through a flow meter and Leonard suggests the location of measuring flow through an outlet downstream of a venturi; and will meet and a controller communicably coupled to the flow control valve and the flow meter, the controller configured to operate the flow control valve to control a flow of the supply of liquid to the injector based on a measured flow rate of fluid discharged from the outlet of the injector (see at least Dinnage valve #240; controller #242; paragraph [0030]: Dinnage teaches control of a valve based on a measured flow rate, and Leonard teaches the specific location of the measurement).
Regarding claim 2, Dinnage further discloses wherein the injector comprises a venturi coupled to the first and second inlets and the outlet (see at least venturi pump #230), the venturi configured to receive a flow of liquid through the first inlet (see at least #230-1; paragraph [0028]); draw in a fluid through the second inlet (see at least #230-3; paragraph [0028]); form a mixture of the liquid from the first inlet and the fluid from the second inlet (see at least #230-2; paragraph [0028]); and discharge the mixture through the outlet of the injector (see at least paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Dinnage in view of Bittner is silent regarding wherein the injector is configured to draw air from the basin, though Examiner notes that depending on the water level in the basin of Dinnage, the venturi may well draw at least some air.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that drawing air would result in a difference in function of the Dinnage device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the injector of Dinnage, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed fluid. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed fluid solves any stated problem, indicating that the fluid is liquid or gas (see at least paragraphs [0092]-[0093], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the fluid as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinnage in view of Bittner to have wherein the injector is configured to draw air from the basin as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art, and since it has been held “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.); See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.)”: in this case, the use of air versus water would allow for use when the basin contains lower levels of fluid.
Regarding claim 4, Dinnage does not disclose wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles.
Bittner further teaches the liquid injection assembly having one or more nozzle assemblies, wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles (see at least paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the one or more nozzle assemblies of Dinnage with wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles, as taught by Bittner, to improve the assembly of Dinnage by allowing for improved moisture pad coverage and water retention on the moisture pads (see at least Bittner paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Dinnage as modified by Bittner further discloses wherein the one or more electrostatic spray nozzles is configured to distribute the liquid with an electrostatic charge to the one or more evaporative pads (see at least Bittner paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Dinnage further discloses wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more drip nozzles, misting nozzles, drip emitters, or drip headers (see at least spray head(s) #216; no additional structure is disclosed by Applicant’s list, thus #216 is considered to meet the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Dinnage further discloses wherein in response to the measured flow rate being greater than a specified flow rate, the controller is configured to perform operations comprising operating the flow control valve to decrease the flow rate of the supply of liquid to be less than the specified flow rate (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Dinnage further discloses wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising adjusting a flow rate of the supply of liquid based at least in part on an expected rate of evaporation of the liquid from the one or more evaporative pads (see at least paragraphs [0030]; [0035]).
Regarding claim 31, Dinnage is silent regarding wherein the injector is configured such that a flow of the supply of liquid into the first inlet is an order of magnitude larger than a flow of fluid from the basin into the second inlet.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that wherein the injector is configured such that a flow of the supply of liquid into the first inlet is an order of magnitude larger than a flow of fluid from the basin into the second inlet would result in a difference in function of the Dinnage device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the injector of Dinnage, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed flow dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed flow dimensions solve any stated problem, indicating that the flow “can be” as claimed and offering other options (see at least paragraph [0095]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the flow dimensions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard to have wherein the injector is configured such that a flow of the supply of liquid into the first inlet is an order of magnitude larger than a flow of fluid from the basin into the second inlet as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art, and since it has been held that changes in size are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see at least In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Regarding claim 32, Dinnage further discloses wherein in response to the measured flow rate being less than a specified flow rate, the controller is configured to perform operations comprising operating the flow control valve to increase the flow rate of the supply of liquid (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (US 2010/0162737: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 13, Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard is silent regarding further comprising a check valve coupled between the basin and the second inlet and configured to prevent the supply of liquid from flowing into the basin through the second inlet.
Hall et al. teaches another cooling system comprising a check valve coupled between a basin and an inlet supplying water to the evaporative media and configured to prevent the supply of liquid from flowing into the basin through the inlet (see at least back pressure flow prevention device #147).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard with further comprising a check valve coupled between the basin and the second inlet and configured to prevent the supply of liquid from flowing into the basin through the second inlet, as taught by Hall et al., to improve the system of Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leondard by preventing backflow into the basin from causing contamination and overflow.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glenn et al. (US 6,053,482: previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard is silent regarding further comprising a filter coupled between the basin and the second inlet of the injector.
Glenn et al. teaches a filter between a basin and an inlet to evaporative media (see at least filter #22 between tank #20 and the inlet to conduit #100 of evaporative wick #26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard with further comprising a filter coupled between the basin and the second inlet of the injector, as taught by Glenn et al., to improve the system of Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard by preventing contaminants from reaching the evaporative pad media, thus extending the life of the media.
Regarding claim 15, Dinnage in view of Bittner, Leonard, and Glenn et al. further discloses wherein the filter comprises a calcium filter (see at least Glenn et al. column 6, lines 14-20).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage (US 2017/0108251: previously cited) in view of Bittner (US 2021/0364198: cited by Applicant) and Leonard (US 2012/0181235: previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Dinnage discloses a method of operating a cooling system, comprising:
one or more evaporative pads (see at least evaporative pad(s) #218); one or more nozzle assemblies external to the one or more evaporative pads (see at least spray head(s) #216), a basin positioned adjacent the one or more evaporative pads (see at least return reservoir #210), and an injector disposed between a supply of a first fluid and the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least venturi pump #230), the injector comprising a first inlet coupled to the supply of the first fluid (see at least #230-1), a second inlet coupled to the basin (see at least #230-3), and an outlet coupled to the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least #230-2), a flow meter (see at least flow meter #238), and a flow control valve communicably coupled to a controller and fluidly coupled between the supply of the first fluid and the first inlet (see at least valve #240; controller #242; paragraph [0030]);
providing a liquid from the one or more nozzle assemblies to at least one of the one or more evaporative pads (see at least paragraph [0026]);
collecting at least a portion of the liquid from at least one of the one or more evaporative pads in the basin (see at least paragraph [0026]);
providing a flow of the first fluid into the first inlet of the injector (see at least #230-1; paragraph [0028]);
drawing a second fluid from the basin into the second inlet (see at least #230-3; paragraph [0028]);
discharging a mixture of the first fluid and the second fluid as the liquid through an outlet of the injector to the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least #230-3; paragraph [0028]).
Dinnage does not disclose one or more heat exchanger coils; nor that one or more evaporative pads are external to the one or more heat exchanger coils.
Bittner teaches another cooling system comprising one or more heat exchanger coils (see at least #205), one or more evaporative pads (see at least #210/#215), the one or more evaporative pads external to the one or more heat exchanger coils (see at least paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system acted on by the method of Dinnage with one or more heat exchanger coils; the one or more evaporative pads external to the one or more heat exchanger coils, as taught by Bittner, to improve the system acted on by the method of DInnage by allowing for more efficient cooling through use of both conventional cooling and evaporative cooling (see at least Bittner paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
Dinnage further discloses measuring a flow rate of the mixture using the flow meter (see at least flow sensor #238; paragraph [0030]); and
controlling a flow rate of the first fluid from the supply of the first fluid by operating the flow control valve, by the controller, based on the measured flow rate (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Dinnage does not disclose the flow meter fluidly coupled between the outlet and the one or more nozzle assemblies.
Leonard, however, teaches that a flow meter can be positioned prior to or subsequent to any component in a fluid handling system, including inlets/outlets/venturis (see at least paragraph [0063]).
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 system acted on by the method of Dinnage with the flow meter fluidly coupled between the outlet and the one or more nozzle assemblies: that is using the known technique of providing a flow meter positioned prior to or subsequent to any component in a fluid handling system, taught by Leonard, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Dinnage with the flow meter fluidly coupled between the outlet and the one or more nozzle assemblies (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for flow to the evaporative pads to be directly measured.
Regarding claim 17, Dinnage further discloses the second fluid comprises water (see at least paragraph [0028]).
Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard is silent regarding wherein the first fluid comprises air, though Examiner notes that depending on the water level in the basin of Dinnage, the venturi may well draw at least some air.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that drawing air would result in a difference in function of the Dinnage device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the injector of Dinnage, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed fluid. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed fluid solves any stated problem, indicating that the fluid is liquid or gas (see at least paragraphs [0092]-[0093], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the fluid as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinnage in view of Bittner and Leonard to have wherein the first fluid comprises air as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art, and since it has been held “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.); See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.)”: in this case, the use of air versus water would allow for use when the basin contains lower levels of fluid.
Regarding claim 18, Dinnage further discloses wherein the first fluid comprises water (see at least paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Dinnage further discloses wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprise drip nozzles (see at least spray head(s) #216; no additional structure is disclosed by Applicant’s list, thus #216 is considered to meet the claim), and the method further comprises distributing the liquid to the one or more evaporative pads through the drip nozzles of the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, Dinnage does not disclose wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprise electrostatic spray nozzles, and the method further comprises distributing the liquid with an electrostatic charge to the one or more evaporative pads.
Bittner further teaches the liquid injection assembly having one or more nozzle assemblies, wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles (see at least paragraph [0018]); and the method further comprises distributing the liquid with an electrostatic charge to the one or more evaporative pads (see at least paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the one or more nozzle assemblies and the method of Dinnage with wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprise electrostatic spray nozzles, and the method further comprises distributing the liquid with an electrostatic charge to the one or more evaporative pads, as taught by Bittner, to improve the assembly and method of Dinnage by allowing for improved moisture pad coverage and water retention on the moisture pads (see at least Bittner paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 22-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage (US 2017/0108251: previously cited) in view of Leonard (US 2012/0181235: previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, Dinnage discloses a liquid injection assembly for an adiabatic gas cooling system comprising:
one or more nozzle assemblies external to one or more evaporative pads (see at least spray head(s) #216 external to evaporative pad(s) #218), the one or more nozzle assemblies configured to provide a liquid to at least one of the one or more evaporative pads (see at least paragraph [0026]);
a basin configured to collect a portion of liquid from the one or more evaporative pads (see at least return reservoir #210);
an eductor disposed between a supply of a first fluid and the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least venturi pump #230), the eductor comprising a first inlet coupled to the supply of the first fluid (see at least #230-1), a second inlet coupled to the basin (see at least #230-3), and an outlet coupled to the one or more nozzle assemblies (see at least #230-2);
a flow control valve coupled between the supply of liquid and the first inlet of the injector (see at least valve #240; controller #242; paragraph [0030]).
While Dinnage further discloses further comprising a flow meter communicably coupled to the controller and configured to measure a flow rate of the liquid downstream of the injector (see at least flow sensor #238; paragraph [0030]), Dinnage does not disclose a flow meter coupled between the outlet of the injector and the one or more nozzle assemblies, the flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of fluid discharged from the outlet.
Leonard, however, teaches that a flow meter can be positioned prior to or subsequent to any component in a fluid handling system, including inlets/outlets/venturis (see at least paragraph [0063]).
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 assembly of Dinnage with a flow meter coupled between the outlet of the injector and the one or more nozzle assemblies: that is using the known technique of providing a flow meter positioned prior to or subsequent to any component in a fluid handling system, taught by Leonard, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the assembly of Dinnage with a flow meter coupled between the outlet of the injector and the one or more nozzle assemblies (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for flow to the evaporative pads to be directly measured.
The combination of Dinnage and Leonard will meet the flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of fluid discharged from the outlet, since Dinnage teaches measurement of flow through a flow meter and Leonard suggests the location of measuring flow through an outlet downstream of a venturi, and will meet and a controller communicably coupled to the flow control valve and the flow meter, the controller configured to operate the flow control valve to control a flow of the supply of liquid to the eductor based on a measured flow rate of fluid discharged from the outlet of the eductor (see at least Dinnage valve #240; controller #242; paragraph [0030]: Dinnage teaches control of a valve based on a measured flow rate, and Leonard teaches the specific location of the measurement).
Regarding claim 23, Dinnage further discloses wherein the eductor comprises a venturi coupled to the first and second inlets and the outlet (see at least venturi pump #230), the venturi configured to receive a flow of the first fluid through the first inlet (see at least #230-1; paragraph [0028]); draw in a second fluid through the second inlet (see at least #230-3; paragraph [0028]); form a mixture of the first fluid and the second fluid; and discharge the mixture through the outlet of the eductor (see at least #230-2; paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 24, Dinnage is silent regarding wherein the injector is configured to draw air from the basin, though Examiner notes that depending on the water level in the basin of Dinnage, the venturi may well draw at least some air.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that drawing air would result in a difference in function of the Dinnage device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the injector of Dinnage, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed fluid. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed fluid solves any stated problem, indicating that the fluid is liquid or gas (see at least paragraphs [0092]-[0093], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the fluid as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinnage to have wherein the injector is configured to draw air from the basin as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art, and since it has been held “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.); See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.)”: in this case, the use of air versus water would allow for use when the basin contains lower levels of fluid.
Regarding claim 27, Dinnage further discloses wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more drip nozzles (see at least spray head(s) #216; no additional structure is disclosed by Applicant’s list, thus #216 is considered to meet the claim).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage in view of Leonard as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Bittner (US 2021/0364198: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 25, Dinnage does not disclose wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles.
Bittner teaches another liquid injection assembly having one or more nozzle assemblies, wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles (see at least paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the one or more nozzle assemblies of Dinnage with wherein the one or more nozzle assemblies comprises one or more electrostatic spray nozzles, as taught by Bittner, to improve the assembly of Dinnage by allowing for improved moisture pad coverage and water retention on the moisture pads (see at least Bittner paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 26, Dinnage as modified by Bittner further discloses wherein the one or more electrostatic spray nozzles is configured to distribute the liquid with an electrostatic charge to the one or more evaporative pads (see at least Bittner paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage in view of Leonard as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (US 2010/0162737: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 28, Dinnage is silent regarding further comprising a check valve coupled between the basin and the second inlet and configured to prevent the supply of liquid from flowing into the basin through the second inlet.
Hall et al. teaches another cooling system comprising a check valve coupled between a basin and an inlet supplying water to the evaporative media and configured to prevent the supply of liquid from flowing into the basin through the inlet (see at least back pressure flow prevention device #147).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Dinnage with further comprising a check valve coupled between the basin and the second inlet and configured to prevent the supply of liquid from flowing into the basin through the second inlet, as taught by Hall et al., to improve the system of Dinnage by preventing backflow into the basin from causing contamination and overflow.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage in view of Leonard and Hall et al. as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Glenn et al. (US 6,053,482: previously cited).
Regarding claim 29, Dinnage in view of Leonard and Hall et al. is silent regarding further comprising a filter coupled between the basin and the second inlet of the injector.
Glenn et al. teaches a filter between a basin and an inlet to evaporative media (see at least filter #22 between tank #20 and the inlet to conduit #100 of evaporative wick #26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Dinnage in view of Leonard and Hall et al. with further comprising a filter coupled between the basin and the second inlet of the injector, as taught by Glenn et al., to improve the system of Dinnage in view of Leonard and Hall et al. by preventing contaminants from reaching the evaporative pad media, thus extending the life of the media.
Regarding claim 30, Dinnage in view of Leonard, Hall et al. and Glenn et al. further discloses wherein the filter comprises a calcium filter (see at least Glenn et al. column 6, lines 14-20).
Conclusion
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