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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/311,007 application filed on May 2, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-10 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to an apparatus.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-10 and timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 17, 2025.
However, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As implied in Applicant’s remarks, upon potential claim allowance, Examiner will of course consider the possibility of rejoinder of the unelected claims in consultation with Applicant. To facilitate the rejoinder process, if necessary, Applicant should amend the unelected claims to correspond in scope with the examined claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2023 and 5/20/2025. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The examined claims are apparatus/system claims requiring only the positively recited structural components, although structured with physical features that can perform the stated functions or accomplish the intended uses. Functional limitations state either an intended use or operation, a manner of operating a device, apparatus or system, or what the apparatus/system does. Apparatus 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). Also, 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).
Of course, in the patentability analysis of these apparatus/system claims, functional features are considered/not ignored and Applicant can and should employ such language where appropriate and helpful. However, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, or if such apparatus can operate in the manner described, then it meets the claim limitation (MPEP §§ 2114, 2173.05(g)).
The recited body of water and water, for example, are considered materials potentially contained within, transient or passing through, generated or produced, or otherwise worked upon by the apparatus/system rather than structural components of the apparatus.
According to the MPEP §2115 [R-2], a material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims: Expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
In summary, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. However, specific limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §§2111, 2173.01 I. Unless otherwise specified, any citation to Applicant’s specification will generally refer to the original and any substitute or amended specification rather than a published application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-10 are objected to because of the following informality: The term ‘coupable’ appears to be a typo, or a misspelling of the term ‘couplable.’
Claim 2-10 depend on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rede et al. (US 20190107332; Rede; EFD 10-11-2017, with application priority based on PRO 62/584733).
Note that these are apparatus claims. In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure.
Regarding claim 1, Rede discloses an evaporative cooling system (Abstract), comprising:
an evaporation panel fluidly coup[l]able to a body of water (Abstract, [0001], [0005], Figs. 1-10), wherein the evaporation panel includes:
a plurality of evaporation shelves that are laterally elongated, vertically stacked, spaced apart from one another, and horizontally oriented ([0027], Figs. 1-5),
a plurality of vertical support columns positioned laterally along the plurality of evaporation shelves to provide support and separation to the plurality of evaporation shelves ([0027], Figs. 1-5), and
a plurality of open spaces which are individually bordered by two evaporation shelves and two support columns ([0045], Figs. 2, 3);
a fluid directing assembly to recirculate water from the body of water to an upper portion of the evaporation panel ([0026], [0048], where water is redistributed back by a pump, which one can interpret as one portion of a fluid directing assembly),
wherein as water cascades down the evaporation panel and evaporates, evaporative cooling occurs; and
a fan 14 directed at the evaporation panel ([0005], [0023]) to push airflow through the plurality of open spaces generating humidified cooled airflow therefrom.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtis et al. (US20150330710; Curtis).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 10, Curtis discloses an evaporative cooling system (Abstract, Figs. 1-29), comprising:
an evaporation panel fluidly coup[l]able to a body of water (Figs. 1-29), wherein the evaporation panel includes:
a plurality of evaporation shelves that are laterally elongated, vertically stacked, spaced apart from one another, and horizontally oriented ([0011], [0012], [0073]-[0075], [0096], Figs. 7, 9, 11, 17),
a plurality of vertical support columns positioned laterally along the plurality of evaporation shelves to provide support and separation to the plurality of evaporation shelves ([0074], Figs. 3, 4, 7, where support plates and legs are support columns), and
a plurality of open spaces which are individually bordered by two evaporation shelves and two support columns ([0080], [0083]);
a fluid directing assembly to recirculate water from the body of water to an upper portion of the evaporation panel ([0070], [0073], [0112]),
wherein as water cascades down the evaporation panel and evaporates, evaporative cooling occurs ([0012]); and
a fan 32, 130 directed at the evaporation panel ([0069], [0073], [0089], [0090], [0100], to push airflow through the plurality of open spaces generating humidified cooled airflow therefrom.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 5: The evaporation panel is a first evaporation that is part of an evaporation panel assembly, wherein the evaporation panel assembly also includes a second evaporation panel that is oriented in parallel with the evaporation panel (Figs. 7, 9, 11, 17); Claim 6: The first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel are positioned such that the airflow passes first through the plurality of open spaces of the first evaporation panel followed by through the open spaces of the second evaporation panel (Figs. 7, 9, 11, 17); Claim 7: The evaporation panel assembly includes panel space between the first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel (Figs. 6-11 & 17); Claim 9: The first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel are connected (Figs. 6-11 & 17); and Claim 10: The evaporation panel assembly further includes from 3 to 42 additional evaporation panels also oriented in parallel with the first evaporation panel (Figs. 6-11 & 17).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rede et al. (US20190107332), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5-10, Rede discloses the evaporative cooling system of claim 1, except wherein the evaporation panel is a first evaporation that is part of an evaporation panel assembly, wherein the evaporation panel assembly also includes a second evaporation panel that is oriented in parallel with the evaporation panel.
However, a second evaporation panel is merely a duplication of an existing part and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second, third and additional evaporation panel as desired, with or without spaces, to increase the evaporation effect where desired, particularly since duplication of parts has no patentable significance without a new and unexpected result, and one would expect additional panels to improve the evaporative effect.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 6: The first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel are positioned such that the airflow passes first through the plurality of open spaces of the first evaporation panel followed by through the open spaces of the second evaporation panel (claim 5 analysis); Claim 7: The evaporative cooling system of claim 6, wherein the evaporation panel assembly includes panel space between the first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel (claim 5 analysis); Claim 8: The evaporative cooling system of claim 6, wherein the evaporation panel assembly includes no panel space between the first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel (claim 5 analysis); Claim 9: The evaporative cooling system of claim 6, wherein the first evaporation panel and the second evaporation panel are connected (claim 5 analysis); and Claim 10: The evaporative cooling system of claim 5, wherein the evaporation panel assembly further includes from 3 to 42 additional evaporation panels also oriented in parallel with the first evaporation panel (claim 5 analysis).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rede et al. (US20190107332) or Curtis et al. (US20150330710), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Faqih (US20020046569).
Regarding claims 2-4, Rede or Curtis discloses the evaporative cooling system of claim 1, except wherein the plurality of vertical support columns includes an evaporation fin oriented in parallel with the plurality of evaporation shelves.
Faqih discloses a water system for first condensing water vapor from the atmosphere, subsequently collecting the condensate to supply freshwater, treating the freshwater and dispensing potable water in areas suffering from shortages of freshwater wherein the climate is characterized by extended periods of extremely high temperature and very high humidity ([0002]). One may achieve the water vapor condensation in the invention by a specially designed unit using a refrigerant and comprises a set of coils 124 with cooling fins that condenses water vapor from the incoming air, where the heat transferred from the air causes the refrigerant to evaporate and flow to the refrigerant condenser 125 and then to the refrigerant compressor 126 where it is driven back to the refrigerant evaporator coils 124 to collect more moisture from the hot humid air ([0180]). As the air flows through the coils and passes by the surface of the fins, of the refrigerant evaporator 124, the heat from the air is transferred to the coils and freshwater droplets form on the colder surfaces (Id.). The evaporation means can comprise a dense multitude of fins forming the largest possible condensation surface that can occupy a limited space (claim 21 & 22).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ suitable shaped fins, inclusive of an airfoil design, and to routinely experiment with appropriate spacing between the fins, since evaporative fins are known to be an effective, efficient shape for promoting heat transfer and liquid evaporation.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 3: The evaporative cooling system of claim 2, comprising multiple evaporation fins between adjacent evaporation shelves, wherein the multiple evaporation fins are spaced apart at from 0.2 cm to 1 cm so that when water is loaded at the support column, the evaporation fins receive the water and form a vertical water column along the evaporation fins forms (claim 2 analysis); and Claim 4: The evaporation fins have a shape of a perpendicular cross-section of an airfoil taken from a leading edge to a trailing edge thereof (claim 2 analysis).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 19, 32, 36, 42 and 51 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,472,717 and over claims 27 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,639,296. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and applications recite the same or similar limitations relating to an evaporation panel system with water recirculation with a fluid directing assembly and a directed fan for additional airflow.
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779