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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I and species A in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's arguments, in pages 1 and 2 of the remarks, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restrictions requirement of Groups I & II and Species A & B has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US11022330B2: cited by Applicant) in view of Griffiths (US3712026A).
Regarding claim 1, Allen teaches a heat exchanger operable to condition air using a liquid desiccant (see Figures 10-14), the heat exchanger comprising: an airflow inlet (side of 516: see Figure 13) and an airflow outlet (the opposite side of 516: see Figure 13); heat exchange structures (400) positioned between the airflow inlet and the airflow outlet (see 400 in Figure 13), each heat exchange structure (400) having a surface for flow of the liquid desiccant (surface of 406: see Figure 7 and Col. 6 Lines [6-13]).
Allen does not teach a mesh screen positioned at the airflow outlet to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for liquid desiccant heat exchangers to have a mesh positioned at the airflow outlet to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air, as evidenced by Griffiths, see Griffiths’s Figure 1 where a mesh (33) that is positioned at an airflow outlet (34) to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air (see Col. 3 Lines [46-56]).
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 heat exchanger of Allen with a mesh screen positioned at the airflow outlet to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air, since as evidenced by Griffiths, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of liquid desiccant in the conditioned air.
Regarding claim 2, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches in Griffiths’s Col. 3 Lines [46-49] that the mesh 33 is made of a plastic mesh material to withstand corrosion and function to eliminate any carry-over of entrained droplets of hygroscopic solution in the air.
Allen as modified by Griffiths does not explicitly teach that the polymer is hydrophobic material.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of the invention to modify the mesh of Allen in view of Griffiths to be made of hydrophobic polymer material since it has been held “[t]he 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. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of improving the corrosion resistivity.
Regarding claim 3, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches wherein the hydrophobic polymer material is compatible with the liquid desiccant (Examiner notes that Griffiths’s mesh is compatible with the liquid desiccant. Therefore, Griffiths’s mesh as modified above would be hydrophobic polymer material that is compatible with the liquid desiccant).
Regarding claim 4, Allen as modified by Griffiths does not explicitly teach that wherein the mesh screen is made from a hydrophobic material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, acrylics, polyesters, nylons, rayon, polyethersulfone, fluorocarbon polymers, vinyl chlorides, and combinations thereof.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of the invention to modify the mesh of Allen in view of Griffiths to be made from a hydrophobic material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, acrylics, polyesters, nylons, rayon, polyethersulfone, fluorocarbon polymers, vinyl chlorides, and combinations thereof since it has been held “[t]he 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. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of improving the corrosion resistivity.
Regarding claim 5, Allen does not teach further comprising a liquid desiccant collection reservoir positioned below the mesh screen.
Griffiths further teaches a liquid desiccant collection reservoir (14) positioned below the mesh screen (33: see Figure 1).
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 heat exchanger of Allen with a liquid desiccant collection reservoir positioned below the mesh screen, as taught Griffiths, such provision would provide the predictable benefit of collecting the liquid desiccant in order to be recycled.
Regarding claim 6, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches in Griffiths’s Col. 3 Lines [46-49] that the mesh 33 is capable of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of hygroscopic solution in the air.
Allen as modified by Griffiths does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen has openings at a size between 1 micrometer to 1 millimeter.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of mesh screen openings of Allen in view of Griffiths to be between 1 micrometer to 1 millimeter since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the heat exchanger of Allen in view of Griffiths would not operate differently with the claimed size and since Griffiths’s mesh 33 is capable of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of hygroscopic solution in the air and the device would function appropriately having the claimed size. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the size “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches in Griffiths’s Col. 3 Lines [46-49] that the mesh 33 is capable of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of hygroscopic solution in the air.
Allen as modified by Griffiths does not explicitly teach that the mesh screen has between 20% to 80% open area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the open area percentage of the mesh screen of Allen in view of Griffiths to be 20% to 80% since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the heat exchanger of Allen in view of Griffiths would not operate differently with the claimed size and since Griffiths’s mesh 33 is capable of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of hygroscopic solution in the air and the device would function appropriately having the claimed percentage. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the open area “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0094]).
Regarding claim 8, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches wherein the surface of each structure for the flow of the liquid desiccant is an exposed outer surface for direct contact between the liquid desiccant and the air (see in Figure 7 where the surface of 406 is an exposed outer surface for direct contact between the liquid desiccant (i.e. 472) and the air (460)).
Regarding claim 9, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches wherein the structures (400) each include a membrane (414: see Figure 7) positioned on the surface (surface of 406), wherein a desiccant channel (472) is defined between the membrane (414) and the surface (surface of 406) for the flow of the liquid desiccant (see Col. 7 Lines [56-67]).
Claims 10, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US11022330B2: cited by Applicant) in view of Griffiths (US3712026A).
Regarding claim 10, Allen teaches a heat exchanger operable to condition air using a liquid desiccant (see Figures 10-14), the heat exchanger comprising: an airflow inlet (side of 516: see Figure 13) and an airflow outlet (the opposite side of 516: see Figure 13); heat exchange structures (400) positioned between the airflow inlet and the airflow outlet (see 400 in Figure 13), each heat exchange structure (400) having a surface for flow of the liquid desiccant (surface of 406: see Figure 7 and Col. 6 Lines [6-13]).
Allen does not teach a mesh screen positioned at the airflow outlet and removably connected to the heat exchange structures.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for liquid desiccant heat exchangers to have a mesh positioned at the airflow outlet and removably connected to the heat exchange structures, as evidenced by Griffiths, see Griffiths’s Figure 1 where a mesh (33) that is positioned at an airflow outlet (34) and removably connected to heat exchange structures (27: Examiner notes that “removably connected “ is broad limitation and Griffiths’s mesh would read on such limitation since Griffiths’s heat exchange structures (27) and mesh (33) are separate structures but thermally and physically connected via the casing (24)).
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 heat exchanger of Allen with a mesh screen positioned at the airflow outlet and removably connected to the heat exchange structures, since as evidenced by Griffiths, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of liquid desiccant in the conditioned air.
Regarding claim 11, Allen further teaches a metal filter (516) positioned at the airflow inlet (see Figure 10) and removably connected to the heat exchange structures (400) using two couplers (518), wherein each coupler is connected to an end of the metal filter (516: see Figure 10) and is inserted into slots defined by the heat exchange structures (Examiner notes that it’s implicit for the heat exchange structures to define slots for the two couplers (518) due to their design).
Allen as modified by Griffiths does not teach wherein the mesh screen is removably connected to the heat exchange structures using two couplers, wherein each coupler is connected to an end of the mesh screen and is inserted into slots defined by the heat exchange structures.
However, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the mesh screen of Allen in view of Griffiths will probably be removably connected to the heat exchange structures (400) using the same two couplers (518) of Allen’s metal filter (516).
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to removably connect mesh screen to the heat exchange structures using the same two couplers, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. simplifying the manufacturing process by using available parts, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 14, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches in Griffiths’s Col. 3 Lines [46-49] that the mesh 33 is made of a plastic mesh material to withstand corrosion and function to eliminate any carry-over of entrained droplets of hygroscopic solution in the air.
Allen as modified by Griffiths does not explicitly teach that the polymer is hydrophobic material.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of the invention to modify the mesh of Allen in view of Griffiths to be made of hydrophobic polymer material since it has been held “[t]he 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. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of improving the corrosion resistivity.
Regarding claim 15, Allen does not teach further comprising a liquid desiccant collection reservoir positioned below the mesh screen.
Griffiths further teaches a liquid desiccant collection reservoir (14) positioned below the mesh screen (33: see Figure 1).
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 heat exchanger of Allen with a liquid desiccant collection reservoir positioned below the mesh screen, as taught Griffiths, such provision would provide the predictable benefit of collecting the liquid desiccant in order to be recycled.
Regarding claim 16, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches wherein the surface of each structure for the flow of the liquid desiccant is an exposed outer surface for direct contact between the liquid desiccant and the air (see in Figure 7 where the surface of 406 is an exposed outer surface for direct contact between the liquid desiccant (i.e. 472) and the air (460)).
Regarding claim 17, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches wherein the structures (400) each include a membrane (414: see Figure 7) positioned on the surface (surface of 406), wherein a desiccant channel (472) is defined between the membrane (414) and the surface (surface of 406) for the flow of the liquid desiccant (see Col. 7 Lines [56-67]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US11022330B2: cited by Applicant) in view of Griffiths (US3712026A).
Regarding claim 18, Allen teaches a method of operating a heat exchanger (see Figures 10-14), the method comprising: channeling air through the heat exchanger (see Figure 13 and Col. 7 Lines [56-67]), wherein the air flows in an airflow direction through an airflow inlet (side of 516: see Figure 13) of the heat exchanger, airflow gaps (460) defined between adjacent heat exchange structures (400) of the heat exchanger (see Figure 7), and an airflow outlet (the opposite side of 516) of the heat exchanger (see Figure 13); channeling a liquid desiccant (via 472) to each of the heat exchange structures (400: see Figure 7 and Col. 7 Lines [56-67]), wherein the liquid desiccant flows across a surface (surface of 406: see Figure 7) of each heat exchange structure (see Col. 6 Lines [6-13]).
Allen does not teach selectively removing entrained liquid desiccant from the air using a mesh screen positioned at the airflow outlet.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for liquid desiccant heat exchangers to have a mesh positioned at the airflow outlet to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air, as evidenced by Griffiths, see Griffiths’s Figure 1 where a mesh (33) that is positioned at an airflow outlet (34) to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air (see Col. 3 Lines [46-56]).
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 heat exchanger of Allen with a mesh screen positioned at the airflow outlet to selectively remove entrained liquid desiccant from the air, since as evidenced by Griffiths, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of eliminating any carry-over of entrained droplets of liquid desiccant in the conditioned air.
Regarding claim 19, Allen does not teach further comprising collecting the removed liquid desiccant in a liquid desiccant reservoir positioned below the mesh screen.
Griffiths further teaches a liquid desiccant collection reservoir (14) positioned below the mesh screen (33: see Figure 1).
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 method of Allen with a collecting the removed liquid desiccant in a liquid desiccant reservoir positioned below the mesh screen, as taught Griffiths, such provision would provide the predictable benefit of collecting the liquid desiccant in order to be recycled.
Regarding claim 20, Allen as modified by Griffiths further teaches further comprising conditioning the air using the liquid desiccant flowing across the surface (surface of 406: see Figure 7) of each heat exchange structure (400), wherein moisture is transferred between the air and the liquid desiccant by one of: i) direct contact between the air and the liquid desiccant; and ii) permeating the moisture through a membrane (414) positioned on the surface of each heat exchange structure (400: see Figure 7 and Col. 7 Lines [17-30 and 56-67]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 12 and 13 are containing allowable subject matter since Allen in view of Griffiths fails to teach wherein each coupler is a flexible clip connected to the respective end of the mesh screen, the clip including a first portion hingedly joined to a second portion, the first portion including fittings that are inserted into holes defined at the end of the mesh screen and the second portion including openings sized to receive the fittings when the clip is in a closed position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights