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 Species 1, Figures 1-5 in the reply filed on 11 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has not fulfilled the burden of proof under MPEP 803. This is not found persuasive because the Application was restricted under Unity of Invention, which does not require serious burden. Applicant’s argument that Figure 6 should be grouped with Figures 1-5 is found persuasive in view that the allowable subject matter is considered generic to both the Species of Figures 1-5 and 6. If Applicant incorporates the allowable subject matter, the election requirement between Figures 1-5 and 6 will be withdrawn. Should Applicant instead choose to present broader claims, the requirement will be maintained until a subsequent finding of generic allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-18 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 May 2026. Examiner notes that method claim 24 was grouped with Species 1, and should it be amended to include the subject matter indicated allowable, below, it could also be found allowable.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
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).
Applicant should differentiate between abbreviations and reference characters.
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 2-11 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein the first air stream OA […] to generate a first mixed stream MA1”. The first air stream has previously been indicated by (MA1, MA, MA2). Is OA the same or different from the previous first air stream? It is believed to be the same. Similarly, MA1 was previously indicated to be the first air stream. Applicant should be consistent. Claims 3-11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 2 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 8 and 11 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.
Claims 8 and 11 recite the limitation “the first and second exchangers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Applicant should decide if evaporators and/or condensers are intended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 20110109209: cited with English Translation) in view of Larsson (US 6,131,653).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a hybrid air conditioning system for cooling a chamber [see at least Figure 1], the hybrid system comprising:
a cooling unit configured to cool, a first air stream (MA1, MA, MA2) [see at least cooling coil #200, cooling a first stream of “Outside Air” downstream of IEC #100];and
an indirect evaporative cooling, IEC, unit configured to cool a second air stream (CA, MA2, OA), which is related to the first air stream (MA1, MA, MA2), through direct heat exchange between wet channels that are placed adjacent to dry channels [see at least IEC #100 cooling “Outside Air”: the second stream becoming the first stream after passing through the IEC #100, heat exchange between wet/dry channels is inherent to IEC],
wherein the MVC unit is fluidly connected to the IEC unit so that a generated supply air stream SA is cooled by decoupling sensible and latent heat removal [see at least coiling coil #200 of the cooling unit and the IEC #100 are fluidly coupled to generate the supply stream supplied by “Supply Fan” to “Space”].
Jeong is silent regarding the cooling unit being a mechanical vapor compression, MVC, unit configured to cool, through evaporation and condensation of a medium.
However, it is noted that there are only a finite number of options available to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing a cooling unit in an air conditioning system. In this regard, it is noted that Larsson teaches another hybrid air conditioning system where the cooling unit comprises a mechanical vapor compression, MVC, unit configured to cool, through evaporation and condensation of a medium [see at least column 3, lines 39-59: the cooling unit includes first/second evaporators #60/#60A and first/second condensers #62/#62A].
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 system of Jeong with the cooling unit being a mechanical vapor compression, MVC, unit configured to cool, through evaporation and condensation of a medium, as taught by Larsson, since such cooling unit type is a suitable and known cooling unit type for use in an air conditioning system [see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)]: such would provide the predictable benefit of making use of a well-understood, predictable cooling unit type.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong further discloses wherein the first air stream OA, which is ambient air, is mixed with a first return air stream RA1 from the chamber, prior to entering the MVC unit, to generate a first mixed air stream MA1 [see at least Figure 1, “return air” supplied to “IEC”].
Regarding claim 3, Jeong as modified by Larsson further discloses wherein the MVC unit includes one evaporator and first and second condensers [see at least Larsson evaporators #60 and/or #60A and condensers #62/#62A].
Regarding claim 4, Jeong as modified by Larsson further discloses wherein the first mixed air stream MA1 enters the evaporator to evaporate a refrigerant of the MVC unit [inherent to cooling coil of Jeong provided as part of a vapor-compression system as taught by Larsson].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US 6,131,653) in view of Jeong (KR 20110109209).
Regarding claim 24, Larsson discloses a method for cooling air with a hybrid air conditioning system the method comprising:
cooling a first air stream (MA1, MA, MA2), with a mechanical vapor compression, MVC, unit, through evaporation and condensation of a medium, to generate a second air stream (CA, MA2, OA) [see at least column 3, lines 39-59: the cooling unit includes first/second evaporators #60/#60A and first/second condensers #62/#62A: stream #1 passing through #60/#60A]; and
passing the second air stream (CA, MA2, OA) through an air to air heat exchange unit [see at least heat exchanger #80],
Larsson does not disclose the air to air heat exchanger is an indirect evaporative cooling, IEC, unit cooling through direct heat exchange between wet channels that are placed adjacent to dry channels.
Jeong teaches another hybrid air conditioning system having an air to air heat exchanger that is an indirect evaporative cooling, IEC, unit cooling through direct heat exchange between wet channels that are placed adjacent to dry channels [see at least IEC #100].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the hybrid air conditioning system in the method of Larsson with the air to air heat exchanger is an indirect evaporative cooling, IEC, unit cooling through direct heat exchange between wet channels that are placed adjacent to dry channels, as taught by Jeong, to improve the method of Larsson by allowing for sensible and latent heat exchange.
Larsson as modified by Jeong further discloses wherein the MVC unit is fluidly connected to the IEC unit so that a generated supply air stream SA is cooled by decoupling sensible and latent heat removal (see at least Larsson cooling coils #60/#60A in fluid communication with exchanger #80, which per Jeong is an IEC).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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: The prior art along or in combination fails to teach and/or disclose or render obvious the limitations of claims 5 and 9, regarding the splitting of the air stream leaving the evaporator and the subsequent direction of the split streams.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure but fails to antedate the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights