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 of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 08/19/2025. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The claim rejections pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 35 112(a) and 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 2-4, 9 and 10 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1, 5-8 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Angle adjustment assembly in Claim 1;
Coupling assemblies in Claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
the angle adjustment assembly 102 includes a drive motor 102a, a drive rod 102b, connecting rods 102c, and a connecting block 102d, see at least 0047 of Applicant Specification;
each coupling assembly 103 includes a coupling rod 103a and coupling clips 103b, see at least 0047 of Applicant Specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. See Claim 1, page 3, as amended.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 and 5-8 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “wherein when the cooling tower louver is in a raining situation” includes a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “situation” 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.
Thus, as used to qualify the rain, the term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
For the purposes of examination, the recitation has been interpreted as - - wherein when it is raining where the cooling tower is situated - - for clarity.
Further Regarding Claim 1, the recitation “the adaptive box 101b-3 starts collecting the rain fall, wherein…” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “starts collecting the rain fall”.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus claim (a cooling tower lover) and the limitation of “the adaptive box 101b-3 starts collecting the rain fall” is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the adaptive box to collect rain fall or whether infringement occurs when the adaptive box actually starts to collect the rain fall, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). As such, claim 1 is indefinite as failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read - - the adaptive box is capable of collecting the rainfall, such that… - - for clarity.
Further Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “maximum extension” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “maximum” 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.
Thus, as used to qualify the position of the second slats, the term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
For the purposes of examination, the recitation “achieving a maximum extension for inhibiting any additional rainwater entering” has been interpreted as - - achieving an extended position for inhibiting additional rainwater entering - - for clarity.
Claims 5-8 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter.
Claims 1 and 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Badin et al. (US8707699B2) in view of Swanson (US1934337A), Hintennach et al. (US20030085007A1), Graham (US2809826A), Massar (US20210278104A1), Zhang (CN216665461U), Kong et al. (CN216553668U) and Chen (CN106223816A).
Badin teaches a cooling tower louver [louvers 55 of cooling structure 56, Figure 7; 0048] and a fixing module [base stratum 54, Figure 8];
Hintennach teaches louver blind type curtains [0001] comprising a first slat [upper louver part 8 and cap 25, Figure 2] and a second slat [lower louver part 7, Figure 2], where the second slat is located in the first slat [where the upper louver part 8 telescopically receives the lower louver part 7; 0039]; and
Graham teaches a rain actuated louver closure device [col. 1, lines 15-25] where each of the length adjustment assemblies [trough 35, links 42 and operating bar 34 and couplings 28, Figure 1] comprises an adjustment shaft [coupling 28a, Figure 1], wherein the adaptive component [trough 35, Figure 1] is positioned on the adjustment shaft [via clip 32, Figure 1]; and the adjustment plate [u-shaped clip 32, Figure 7] is positioned on a side of the adjustment shaft [via non-cylindrical stud 31, Figure 7]; and where the adjustment plate comprises a first pressing surface, a second pressing surface, a third pressing surface [annotated Figure 7], and a limit bar [wall where non-cylindrical stud 31 attaches to adjustment plate, Figure 7],
in contrast to the claimed features where the adjustment plates, which are affixed to the adjustment platforms, press against the second slats until the third pressing surfaces come into contact with the bottoms of the second slats, resulting in the second slats achieving an extended position for inhibiting additional rainwater entering.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
PNG
media_image1.png
571
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks filed 08/19/2025 in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Chi in view of Swanson, Graham and Massar that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Chi to incorporate Swanson’s electromechanical system to achieve the present invention. Applicant further preemptively argues none of the references alone or in combination have disclosed, taught or suggested the claimed invention as amended. Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of amendments. Refer to allowable subject matter above.
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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763