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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/14/2025. The drawing objection is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-17 and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-3, 9, 11-12 and 18 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage (US 20170074553 A1) in view of Taylor et al (US 20120304862 A1) and Boehringer et al (US 20150053080 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dinnage teaches a method of replacing evaporative media (modularized sections in simple frames will allow for complete media support and provide for easy interchangeability, paragraph 0060) for gas (precooling the air using auxiliary evaporative media 340, paragraph 0030) and liquid contact (bled water is fed from bleed line 321 to auxiliary evaporative media or pad 340 via distributor 342, paragraph 0030) in an evaporative cooling apparatus (evaporative cooling system 300), the evaporative cooling apparatus (evaporative cooling system 300) including a media housing (within frames 341, paragraph 0060 and figure 2) having predetermined dimensions (as shown on figure 2).
Dinnage teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach the evaporative media being positioned in the media housing and having a pressure drop factor representing a pressure drop of the gas flowing through the evaporative media from an inlet side to an outlet side, the method comprising: removing first evaporative media from the media housing, the first evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing, the first evaporative media having a first pressure drop factor; and installing second evaporative media in the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media,
However, Taylor teaches the evaporative media (contactors 100 are preferably self-contained membrane contactors, paragraph 0106) being positioned in the media housing (housing 102) and having a pressure drop factor (density of the fiber spacing (from about 10 fpi (fibers per inch) to 58 fpi) can be used to alter air pressure drop, paragraph 0069) representing a pressure drop (paragraph 0069) of the gas flowing through the evaporative media (gas flow through the shell side, paragraph 0058) from an inlet side to an outlet side (via lumen side ports 120/122 and shell side ports 140/142, as described in paragraph 0087), the method comprising: removing first evaporative media (contactors 100 are preferably replaced, paragraph 0106) from the media housing (housing 102), the first evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing (as shown on figure 3), the first evaporative media having a first pressure drop factor (density of the fiber spacing (from about 10 fpi (fibers per inch) to 58 fpi) can be used to alter air pressure drop, paragraph 0069); and installing second evaporative media (contactors 100 are preferably self-contained membrane contactors and replaced, paragraph 0106, interpreted as the second evaporative media) in the media housing (housing 102), the second evaporative media (contactors 100 are preferably self-contained membrane contactors and replaced, paragraph 0106, interpreted as the second evaporative media) in the media housing (housing 102) having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing (as shown on figure 3) and equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media (paragraphs 0101 and 0106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the teachings of Dinnage to include the evaporative media being positioned in the media housing and having a pressure drop factor representing a pressure drop of the gas flowing through the evaporative media from an inlet side to an outlet side, the method comprising: removing first evaporative media from the media housing, the first evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing, the first evaporative media having a first pressure drop factor; and installing second evaporative media in the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media in view of the teachings of Taylor in order to yield the predictable results of presenting new or improved hollow fiber membrane contactors that are effective for some applications, are especially adapted for certain conditions, fit in standard HVAC duct work.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor.
However, Boehringer teaches the second evaporative media (second filter element F2) having a second pressure drop factor (different pressure drops, paragraph 0036) that differs from the first pressure drop factor (wherein the first filter element F1 and the second filter element F2 have mutually different pressure drops, paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the combined teachings to include the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor in view of the teachings of Boehringer in order to yield the predictable results of removing of gases or substances that are toxic, harmful and/or environmentally damaging.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the second evaporative media (second filter element F2 of Boehringer) having the second pressure drop factor has a lower pressure drop of the gas (wherein the first filter element F1 and the second filter element F2 have mutually different pressure drops, paragraph 0036 of Boehringer) flowing through the evaporative media from the inlet side to the outlet side (flow direction R, as shown on figure 1 of Boehringer) than that of the first evaporative media (first filter element F1, as further described in paragraph 0036 of Boehringer) under the same conditions (purifying gases and/or gas mixtures, preferably air, abstract of Boehringer).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 1. See rejections of claim 1.
Claims 3, 6-7, 12, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage as modified by Taylor and Boehringer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 5143658 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the second evaporative media is formed of a first set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a first amplitude from trough to crest and a second set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a second amplitude from trough to crest, with the corrugated sheets of the first set being disposed alternately with the corrugated sheets of the second set, the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets inclining upwardly at a first inclination angle with respect to a direction of gas flow and the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets inclining downwardly at a second inclination angle with respect to the direction of gas flow, and absolute values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle being unequal.
However, Thomas teaches wherein the second evaporative media (contact bodies 10) is formed of a first set of corrugated sheets (corrugates sheet 31) having flutes of a first amplitude from trough to crest (amplitude A, as shown on figure 3) and a second set of corrugated sheets (corrugates sheet 29) having flutes of a second amplitude from trough to crest (amplitude A, as shown on figure 2), with the corrugated sheets of the first set being disposed alternately with the corrugated sheets of the second set (disposed alternately, as shown on figure 6), the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets inclining upwardly at a first inclination angle with respect to a direction of gas flow (corrugations of the first set of sheets cross the corrugations of the second set of sheets at an acute angle in the range of 15.degree. to 80. Degree, abstract) and the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets inclining downwardly at a second inclination angle with respect to the direction of gas flow (angle for the corrugations 28 in the second set of sheets is about 15. Degree, col 4 lines 26-27), and absolute values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle being unequal (15-80 degrees inclination of the first sheet is unequal to the 15 degrees inclination of the second sheet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the combined teachings to include wherein the second evaporative media is formed of a first set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a first amplitude from trough to crest and a second set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a second amplitude from trough to crest, with the corrugated sheets of the first set being disposed alternately with the corrugated sheets of the second set, the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets inclining upwardly at a first inclination angle with respect to a direction of gas flow and the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets inclining downwardly at a second inclination angle with respect to the direction of gas flow, and absolute values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle being unequal in view of the teachings of Thomas in order to yield the predictable results of improving efficiency is also achieved with little or no increase in pressure drop as compared to contact bodies having both corrugated sheets of the larger amplitude.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the first inclination angle (abstract of Thomas) of the flutes of the first set of sheets (corrugates sheet 31) is 45° from the horizontal (corrugations of the first set of sheets cross the corrugations of the second set of sheets at an acute angle in the range of 15. degree. to 80. Degree, abstract Thomas).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the second inclination angle (col 4 lines 26-27 of Thomas) of the flutes of the second set of sheets (corrugates sheet 29) is 15° from the horizontal (angle for the corrugations 28 in the second set of sheets is about 15. Degree, col 4 lines 26-27 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach all the limitations of claim 1. See rejections of claims 15-16.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage as modified by Taylor, Boehringer and Thomas as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Graef et al (US 20090032981 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the first amplitude of the flutes of the first set of sheets is 8 mm.
However, Graef teaches wherein the first amplitude of the flutes of the first set of sheets (amplitude of sheet 33, paragraph 0021 and 0023) is 8 mm (5 to 40 millimeters, paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the combined teachings to include wherein the first amplitude of the flutes of the first set of sheets is 8 mm in view of the teachings of Graef in order to yield the predictable results of permitting the gravity flow of liquid therethrough.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the second amplitude of the flutes of the second set of sheets (amplitude of sheet 34, paragraph 0021 and 0023 of Graef) is 10 mm (5 to 40 millimeters, paragraph 0023 Graef).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinnage as modified by Taylor and Boehringer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lawson et al (US 20140202186 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the first evaporative media has a first cooling efficiency factor and the second evaporative media has a second cooling efficiency factor that differs from the first cooling efficiency factor.
However, Lawson teaches wherein the first evaporative media (first cooling media type 30A) has a first cooling efficiency factor (paragraph 0022 and as shown on figure 8) and the second evaporative media (second cooling media type 30B) has a second cooling efficiency factor that differs (as described in paragraph 0022) from the first cooling efficiency factor (with the first cooling media type having a thickness less than the second cooling media type, as described in paragraph 0022, it is interpreted that the efficiency from the second cooling media type will differ than the first cooling media type, as shown on figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the combined teachings to include wherein the first evaporative media has a first cooling efficiency factor and the second evaporative media has a second cooling efficiency factor that differs from the first cooling efficiency factor in view of the teachings of Fries in order to yield the predictable results of resulting in the heat exchange device increasing efficiency and at a specified cooling efficiency.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the second evaporative media having the second cooling efficiency factor is less efficient in cooling the gas flowing through the evaporative media from the inlet side to the outlet side than that of the first evaporative media under the same conditions.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having “the second evaporative media having the second cooling efficiency factor is less efficient in cooling the gas flowing through the evaporative media from the inlet side to the outlet side than that of the first evaporative media under the same conditions” does anything more than produce the predictable result of creating different cooling efficiencies. Since it has been held that changes in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, [In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)], see MPEP 2144.04 IV B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify media types A to 12 inches and B to 6 inches of Lawson and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of creating different cooling efficiencies.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 5143658 A) in view of Graef et al (US 20090032981 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Thomas teaches evaporative media (contact bodies 10) for gas and liquid contact (abstract), in which the gas and the liquid flow in a cross-flow relationship to one another (abstract), the evaporative media comprising: a first set of corrugated sheets (corrugates sheet 31) having flutes of a first height (as shown on figure 3); a second set of corrugated sheets (corrugates sheet 29) having flutes of a second height (as shown on figure 2), wherein the corrugated sheets of the first set are disposed alternatively with the corrugated sheets of the second set (disposed alternately, as shown on figure 6), with the flutes of the first set crossing the flutes of the second set so as to define passageways from one surface to another surface of the evaporative media (cross corrugations define passageways penetrating from edge to edge of the contact body. The corrugations of the corrugated sheets bear against one another so that the sheets touch where the crests of their respective corrugations cross, col 2 lines 39-43), the flutes of the corrugated sheets of the first set contact the flutes of the corrugated sheets of the second set at crests of the flutes (as shown on figure 6), the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets incline upwardly at a first inclination angle with respect to a direction of gas flow (corrugations of the first set of sheets cross the corrugations of the second set of sheets at an acute angle in the range of 15.degree. to 80. Degree, abstract), while the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets incline downwardly at a second inclination angle with respect to the direction of gas flow (angle for the corrugations 28 in the second set of sheets is about 15. Degree, col 4 lines 26-27), absolute values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle are not equal (15-80 degrees inclination of the first sheet is unequal to the 15 degrees inclination of the second sheet), an amplitude (amplitude A, as shown on figure 3) of the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets (corrugates sheet 31) from trough to crest is less (as shown on figure 3) than an amplitude (amplitude A, as shown on figure 2) of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets (corrugates sheet 29) from trough to crest (as shown on figures 2-3 and 6).
Thomas teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach and the amplitude of the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets is 8 mm and the amplitude of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets is 10 mm.
However, Graef teaches wherein the first amplitude of the flutes of the first set of sheets (amplitude of sheet 33, paragraph 0021 and 0023) is 8 mm (5 to 40 millimeters, paragraph 0023) and the second amplitude of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets (amplitude of sheet 34, paragraph 0021 and 0023) is 10 mm (5 to 40 millimeters, paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method in the teachings of Thomas to include and the amplitude of the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets is 8 mm and the amplitude of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets is 10 mm in view of the teachings of Graef in order to yield the predictable results of permitting the gravity flow of liquid therethrough.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Dinnage fails to disclose or suggest at least installing second evaporative media in the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media, the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor, as is recited in independent Claim 1”, the Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. For clarity, Dinnage has been established as the primary reference to teach “A method of replacing evaporative media for gas and liquid contact in an evaporative cooling apparatus, the evaporative cooling apparatus including a media housing having predetermined dimensions”. In other words, the teachings Taylor have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the method and system of Dinnage. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned." Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Dinnage has been relied upon is established as a primary reference used to teach “A method of replacing evaporative media for gas and liquid contact in an evaporative cooling apparatus, the evaporative cooling apparatus including a media housing having predetermined dimensions”, not “installing second evaporative media in the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media, the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor” as taught by Taylor. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at the time of the invention would recognize installing second evaporative media in the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media disclosed by Taylor could be provided with Dinnage. Combining the method of Taylor with the media housing would yield the predictable result of presenting new or improved hollow fiber membrane contactors that are effective for some applications, are especially adapted for certain conditions, fit in standard HVAC duct work. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Nor does Dinnage disclose or suggest a system having at least first evaporative media insertable in and removable from a media housing, the first evaporative media having dimensions complementary to predetermined dimensions of the media housing, the first evaporative media having a first pressure drop factor, and second evaporative media insertable in and removable from the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media, the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor, as is recited in independent Claim 10”, the Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. For clarity, Dinnage has been established as the primary reference to teach “A method of replacing evaporative media for gas and liquid contact in an evaporative cooling apparatus, the evaporative cooling apparatus including a media housing having predetermined dimensions”. In other words, the teachings Taylor have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the method and system of Dinnage. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned." Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Dinnage has been relied upon is established as a primary reference used to teach “A system employing replaceable evaporative media for gas and liquid contact, the system comprising: an evaporative cooling apparatus, the evaporative cooling apparatus including a media housing having predetermined dimensions”, not “a system having at least first evaporative media insertable in and removable from a media housing, the first evaporative media having dimensions complementary to predetermined dimensions of the media housing, the first evaporative media having a first pressure drop factor, and second evaporative media insertable in and removable from the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media, the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor” as taught by Taylor and Boehringer. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at the time of the invention would recognize a system having at least first evaporative media insertable in and removable from a media housing, the first evaporative media having dimensions complementary to predetermined dimensions of the media housing, the first evaporative media having a first pressure drop factor, and second evaporative media insertable in and removable from the media housing, the second evaporative media having dimensions complementary to the predetermined dimensions of the media housing and substantially equal to the dimensions of the first evaporative media, the second evaporative media having a second pressure drop factor that differs from the first pressure drop factor disclosed by Taylor and Boehringer could be provided with Dinnage. Combining the system of Taylor and Boehringer with the media housing would yield the predictable result of presenting new or improved hollow fiber membrane contactors that are effective for some applications, are especially adapted for certain conditions, fit in standard HVAC duct work. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Thomas fails to disclose or suggest at least that the amplitude of flutes of a first set of corrugated sheets is substantially 8 mm and the amplitude of flutes of a second set of corrugated sheets is substantially 10 mm, as is recited in independent Claim 19”, the Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. For clarity, Thomas has been established as the primary reference to teach “Evaporative media for gas and liquid contact, in which the gas and the liquid flow in a cross-flow relationship to one another, the evaporative media comprising: a first set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a first height; a second set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a second height, wherein the corrugated sheets of the first set are disposed alternatively with the corrugated sheets of the second set, with the flutes of the first set crossing the flutes of the second set so as to define passageways from one surface to another surface of the evaporative media, the flutes of the corrugated sheets of the first set contact the flutes of the corrugated sheets of the second set at crests of the flutes, the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets incline upwardly at a first inclination angle with respect to a direction of gas flow, while the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets incline downwardly at a second inclination angle with respect to the direction of gas flow, absolute values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle are not equal, an amplitude of the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets from trough to crest is less than an amplitude of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets from trough to crest”. In other words, the teachings Graef have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the amplitude of the first and second corrugated sheets. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned." Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Thomas has been relied upon is established as a primary reference used to teach “Evaporative media for gas and liquid contact, in which the gas and the liquid flow in a cross-flow relationship to one another, the evaporative media comprising: a first set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a first height; a second set of corrugated sheets having flutes of a second height, wherein the corrugated sheets of the first set are disposed alternatively with the corrugated sheets of the second set, with the flutes of the first set crossing the flutes of the second set so as to define passageways from one surface to another surface of the evaporative media, the flutes of the corrugated sheets of the first set contact the flutes of the corrugated sheets of the second set at crests of the flutes, the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets incline upwardly at a first inclination angle with respect to a direction of gas flow, while the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets incline downwardly at a second inclination angle with respect to the direction of gas flow, absolute values of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle are not equal, an amplitude of the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets from trough to crest is less than an amplitude of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets from trough to crest”, not “the amplitude of the flutes of the first set of corrugated sheets is 8 mm and the amplitude of the flutes of the second set of corrugated sheets is 10 mm” as taught by Graef. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at the time of the invention would recognize the amplitude of the first and second corrugated sheets disclosed by Graef could be provided with the corrugated sheets of Thomas. Combining the amplitude corrugated sheets of Graef with the corrugated sheets of Thomas would yield the predictable results of permitting the gravity flow of liquid therethrough. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763