DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The location of the drain directly below an ascending gas outlet flow path, as required by claims 6 and 11, does not appear to be taught or fairly suggested, in combination with all other limitations of the preceding claims. While the base reference, Tomioka, does teach such an ascending path, the drain outlet is located to the side and has splash/entrainment mitigation features associated with this placement. It does not appear obvious to modify this location via rearrangement of parts not does the prior art appear to sufficiently motivate such a relocation.
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.”
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, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (US 2017/0167797) in view of Lorang (US 2019/0226775).
Regarding claim 1, Tomioka teaches a gas cooler comprising: a casing (10) with a gas inlet (28 and outlet (32); a cooling unit (35) provided inside the casing, the cooling unit configured to divide the inside of the casing into an upstream space (213) into which the gas inlet opens (Fig. 6a) and a downstream space (214) to which the gas outlet opens (via 31; see Fig. 6a), the cooling unit configured to cool gas introduced into the inside of the casing (Para. [0061]); a drain recovery portion (43) being a recess locally provided in a bottom wall (25) defining the downstream space of the casing (see Fig. 6a), the drain recovery portion configured to accumulate drain separated from the gas by cooling int eh cooling unit (Para. [0061]); and a drain discharge port (47) being an opening provided to penetrate a wall portion of the casing (see Fig. 6a) and guide drain accumulated int eh drain recovery portion to an outside of the casing (via 45, 46).
Tomioka does not teach that the upper surface of the lowermost wall of the drain recovery portion slopes downward away from the gas outlet.
Lorang teaches that it is old and well-known to form condensate drain portions wherein the uppermost surface of the lowest wall (e.g. 206-1 through 206-3) slope downwardly toward the drain outlet (212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Tomioka with the slope of Lorang to ensure proper collection of the condensate at the drain location via gravity.
Tomioka further teaches that: a peripheral wall (43) of the drain recovery portion is case to be a wall different from a peripheral wall defining the downstream space of the casing (24; see Fig. 6a), per claim 2; a height position of an upper end of the drain discharge port (47) is lower than a height position of an upper end of the drain recovery portion (where it joins 24; Fig. 6a), per claims 5 and 10; the drain recovery portion locally protrudes from the casing (see Fig. 6a), per claims 7 and 12.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka in view of Lorang and Fagerstrom (US 2022/0025811).
Tomioka does not specify that the width of the drain recovery portion is smaller than the width of the overall downstream space.
Fagerstrom teaches that it is old and well-known to form the width of a drain recovery portion (90) as smaller than the width of an overall downstream space (50; see, e.g., Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to only form the drain recovery portion of Tomioka as wide as necessary to collect liquid in order to reduce material usage in construction.
It is further noted that no criticality or rationale at all is given by the disclosure to the specific dimensions of 20%-50% width as recited.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka in view of Lorang and JP 05079791 (‘791).
Tomioka does not teach the relevant inclinations.
‘791 teaches that it is old and well-known to provide a first inclination to the bottom surface of the casing containing a cooling heat exchanger which creates condensate (see Fig. 2; delta h) and to provide a bottom wall of the drain recovery portion with a second inclination (see portion of 23b immediately downstream of 36 in Fig. 2) downward toward the drain discharge port (31/32) and the second inclination is larger than the first (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to provide the device of Tomioka with the relative inclinations of ‘791 in order to prevent pooling of condensate.
Response to Arguments
The remarks regarding claim 1 are addressed above in the new grounds of 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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763