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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “the splitting structure is arranged to be capable of splitting a gas entering from the air inlet into a first airflow and a second airflow…” is indefinite because it is not clear whether and how the splitting structure is interrelated with the specific configurations of the arc-shaped structures, whether the control of the airflow splitting occurs automatically or via specific mechanical means, or which other means are envisaged to ensure the rotational rise of the airflows. Clarification and correction of the structures and structural configurations are required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the inventive apparatus in terms of structure and/or structural configuration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105544166 A to Li et al. (“Li”).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses a condenser (1) for a drying device, the condenser comprising a body in which a hollow chamber is formed (see Figs. 1-3), the condenser further comprising:
a water blocking structure (3) arranged on a sidewall of the hollow chamber to break up a cooling water flow flowing into the hollow chamber;
an air inlet (11) formed on a rear sidewall of the hollow chamber;
a left sidewall of the hollow chamber, and two ends of the left sidewall are smoothly connected with the rear sidewall; and a right sidewall of the hollow chamber, and two ends of the right sidewall are smoothly connected with the rear sidewall (note the hollow chamber is formed from sidewalls on the left, right, rear, and front).
Li discloses the claimed invention including a condenser configuration for managing airflow and improving condensing efficiency, but Li does not expressly disclose a first arc-shaped structure, a second arc-shaped structure, and a splitting structure located between the first arc-shaped structure and the second arc-shaped structure also arranged on a front sidewall of the hollow chamber; and the splitting structure is arranged to be capable of splitting a gas entering from the air inlet into a first airflow and a second airflow, and enable the first airflow and the second airflow to respectively enter the first arc-shaped structure and the second arc-shaped structure substantially in a tangential direction of the first arc-shaped structure and a tangential direction of the second arc-shaped structure respectively, thus enabling the first airflow to rotationally rise along the first arc- shaped structure, the left sidewall, and a left part of the rear sidewall, and enabling the second airflow to rotationally rise along the second arc-shaped structure, the right sidewall, and a right part of the rear sidewall.
However, absent an adequate showing of secondary considerations, such changes amount to a change in design shape in order to optimize air flow in the condenser and the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the condenser shape in such manner in order to achieve the desired air flow to improve heat exchange efficiency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Shape.
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses structure readable on a water blocking structure but Li does not expressly disclose wherein the water blocking structure is arranged close to the splitting structure. However, such configuration amounts to a simple rearrangement or relocation of the elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to rearrange the parts as desired in order to achieve the desired condensing effect, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 13, Li further discloses wherein a water guide channel (passage 2) is arranged on the front sidewall, and a bottom end of the water guide channel is connected with the water blocking structure (3).
Regarding claim 14, the position is taken that it would have been prima facie obvious to rearrange and reshape the water blocking structure as desired to achieve the desired effect.
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses wherein the water blocking structure (3) is a water blocking protrusion formed on the front sidewall.
Regarding claims 16-18, see Obviousness and Changes in Shape and Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts above.
Regarding claim 19, Li further discloses a baffle (5) to control air flow through the condenser but does not expressly disclose the baffle by the air inlet. However, it would have been obvious to rearrange such baffle as desired to achieve the desired air flow results. See Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts above. It is noted that the prior art is replete with baffle use in controlling air flow.
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses the condenser for use in a drying device (see Description under Technology Field and Background Technology disclosing the condenser for use in a drying device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Michael E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711