DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8-14 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 8, line 15, recites “an inlet port”. It is unclear if this is the same “inlet port” from claim 8, line 12. For purposes of examination “an inlet port” from claim 8, line 15 will be considered - - the inlet port - - .
Claims 9-14 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2020/0348082) in view of Campo (US 3,675,776).
Per claim 1, Ly teaches an automatic misting system for cooling a condensing unit (110) of an air conditioner (100), the automatic misting system comprising:
a cooling system including a sprayer and a controller (130);
wherein said sprayer comprises an inlet tubing comprising an inlet port (opening for water in the inlet tubing) (to clarify, a port is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “an opening (as in a valve seat or valve face) for intake or exhaust of a fluid”) and a filter assembly comprising, and
an outlet tubing (see annotated figure below) terminating in a misting nozzle (160)
wherein said sprayer configured to spray water on condensing coils of an air conditioner (“The misting units 160 are configured to spray mist on the condenser coils of the HVAC system 10”, para. 0019);
wherein said controller having an electronic circuitry (inherent) and a temperature sensor (“temperature detection unit”, para. 0021); wherein said controller configured for actuating said sprayer based on an ambient temperature sensed by said temperature sensor (“It automatically detects outdoor temperatures and activates the misting unit when a preset temperature is exceeded”, para. 0017); and further wherein said actuating initiated when said ambient temperature is above a predetermined temperature setting (“It automatically detects outdoor temperatures and activates the misting unit when a preset temperature is exceeded”, para. 0017) but fails to explicitly teach the filter assembly comprising a replaceable filter and a filter adapter and the temperature sensor being a digital temperature sensor.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the temperature sensor being digital, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that digital temperature sensors are old and well known for providing accurate readings of temperature. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a digital temperature sensor to provide an accurate reading of the temperature.
Regarding the filter assembly, Campo teaches a filter assembly comprising a replaceable filter (28) and a filter adapter (12) for improved filtration of water (col. 1, lines 68-8-69). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a filter assembly comprising a replaceable filter and a filter adapter, as taught by Campo in the invention of Ly, in order to advantageously provide improved filtration of water (col. 1, lines 68-8-69).
Per claim 2, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ly teaches wherein said ambient temperature is an outdoor temperature (“It automatically detects outdoor temperatures and activates the misting unit when a preset temperature is exceeded”, para. 0017)
Per claim 3, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Ly teaches wherein said controller having electric power including a 12V DC wire connected to a transformer (“The cooling unit comprises a 240V electrical transformer, a 12V control module, a 12V water solenoid valve, and a series of misting units”, para. 0018; see figure 3).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2020/0348082) in view of Campo (US 3,675,776) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Weiser (US 4,461,949).
Per claim 4, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Ly, as modified, teaches wherein said transformer (120) is used for stepping down a voltage from 240V AC to 12V DC for operation of said automatic misting system but fails to explicitly teach using an AC contactor.
However, AC contactor are old and well known for electrical connections between voltages. For example, Weiser teaches a temperature regulation system that uses an AC contactor (34) to step down voltage (“At the terminal block, 34, the alternating current voltage of line 18 is applied to the primary winding 36 of step down transformer 38 to produce a signal voltage, preferably of 24 volt alternating current”, col. 3, lines 58-61) for safely controlling the power regulation to the system (col. 1, lines 61-62). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an AC contactor, as taught by Weiser in the invention of Ly, as modified, in order to advantageously safely control power regulation of a temperature control system (col. 1, lines 61-62).
Per claim 5, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Ly, as modified, teaches wherein said controller (130) having a water solenoid (140) electrically coupled to said controller (130) with a 12V DC wire (“a 12V water solenoid valve controlling water flow from a water source”, para. 0020) for regulating a supply of water sprayed on the condensing coils (“the cooling system 100 may include the cooling unit 110 including the electrical transformer 120, the control module 130, and the water valve 140 which are in communication and configured to activate the cooling system and deliver mist via the series of misting units 160”, para. 0021).
Per claim 6, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Ly, as modified, teaches wherein said water solenoid (140) having an electromechanical valve (“water solenoid valve”, para. 0020) for opening a water flow when the electric power is applied to said water solenoid (“a 12V water solenoid valve controlling water flow”, para. 0020).
Per claim 7, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Ly, as modified, teaches wherein said water solenoid in a default state seals an inlet port to said water solenoid (when the inlet port is sealed the state is considered a default state).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2020/0348082) in view of Hoglund et al. (US 2008/0133060) and Campo (US 3,675,776).
Per claim 8, Ly teaches an automatic misting system for cooling a condensing unit (110) of an air conditioner (100), the automatic misting system comprising:
a cooling system including a sprayer (figure 1) and a controller (130);
wherein said sprayer configured to spray water on condensing coils of an air conditioner (“The misting units 160 are configured to spray mist on the condenser coils of the HVAC system 10”, para. 0019);
wherein said controller comprises an electronic circuitry (inherent) and a temperature sensor (“temperature detection unit”, para. 0021);
wherein said controller configured for actuating said sprayer based on an ambient temperature sensed by said temperature sensor (“It automatically detects outdoor temperatures and activates the misting unit when a preset temperature is exceeded”, para. 0017);
wherein said actuating of said sprayer initiated when said ambient temperature is above a predetermined temperature setting (“It automatically detects outdoor temperatures and activates the misting unit when a preset temperature is exceeded”, para. 0017);
wherein a water solenoid (140) connecting an inlet port ( opening for water in the inlet tubing) (to clarify, a port is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “an opening (as in a valve seat or valve face) for intake or exhaust of a fluid”) and an inlet tubing (see annotated figure below of figure 2 of Ly) to an outlet port exhaust for water in the outlet tubing) and an outlet tubing (see first annotated figure below of figure 2 of Ly) for carrying water from a water source (see first annotated figure below of figure 2 of Ly) to a misting nozzle (there are inherently misting nozzles on the misting unit);
wherein said inlet tubing comprises the inlet port (opening for water in the inlet tubing) and a filter assembly (168); and further
wherein said outlet tubing having a misting nozzle at a terminal end for spraying the water source onto the condensing coils (see second annotated figure below of figure 1 of Ly) but fails to explicitly teach wherein said controller comprises a status light indicator and wherein the filter assembly comprises a replaceable filter and a filter adapter.
PNG
media_image2.png
672
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
416
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the status light indicator, it is old and well known to provide status light indicators in cooling systems. For example, Hoglund teaches a cooling system that uses a status light indicator for indicating an operating mode of the system (para. 0031). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a status light indicator, as taught by Hoglund in the invention of Ly, in order to advantageously indicate an operating mode of the system to a user (para. 0031).
Regarding the filter assembly, Campo teaches a filter assembly comprising a replaceable filter (28) and a filter adapter (12) for improved filtration of water (col. 1, lines 68-8-69). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a filter assembly comprising a replaceable filter and a filter adapter, as taught by Campo in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously provide improved filtration of water (col. 1, lines 68-8-69).
Per claim 9, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 10, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 3 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2020/0348082) in view of Hoglund et al. (US 2008/0133060) and Campo (US 3,675,776) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Weiser (US 4,461,949).
Per claim 11, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 12, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 13, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2020/0348082) in view of Hoglund et al. (US 2008/0133060) and Hanks (US 2022/0034525).
Per claim 15, Ly teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and claim 8 contains similar limitations as claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8. Claim 8 does not disclose a digital temperature sensor and establishing a wireless connection with the controller to operate the automatic misting.
Regarding the temperature sensor being digital, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that digital temperature sensors are old and well known for providing accurate readings of temperature. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a digital temperature sensor to provide an accurate reading of the temperature.
Regarding the communication being wireless, Hanks teaches a misting system including establishing wireless communication with a controller to operate the automatic misting system (“The solenoid valve 34 shown in FIG. 4 is connected to the electrical system of the house; however, it should be understood that the solenoid valve 34 may be battery operated and/or may be controlled by wireless technology such as Z-wave technology (see Z-wave controller 58, FIG. 6)”, para. 0041) for optimum efficiency of water use (para. 0058). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to establish wireless communication with a controller to operate an automatic misting system, as taught by Hanks in the invention of Ly, as modified, in order to advantageously provide optimum efficiency of water use (para. 0058).
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 16, Ly, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 15. Further, claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 9 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 17, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 16. Further, claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 10 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2020/0348082) in view of Hoglund et al. (US 2008/0133060) and Hanks (US 2022/0034525) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Weiser (US 4,461,949).
Per claim 18, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 17. Further, claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 11 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 19, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 18. Further, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 12 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 20, Ly meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 19. Further, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claims 13-14 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763