DETAILED ACTION
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 and 9-12 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 appears to only further limit claim 1 by specifying that the water liquid outlet section is located lower than the boundary line “slightly”. This term of degree does not appear to be given sufficient guidance or definition in the specification to allow for a precise determination of its metes and bounds and as such is indefinite.
Claims 9-12 depend from claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 2023/0171923) in view of Smullin (US 2005/0016937).
Regarding claims 1-2, Lau teaches a water-liquid separation module (565; see Fig. 10) comprising a separation tank (565) comprising from top to bottom a mixed liquid inlet section (440) a water-liquid outlet section (715), a ling liquid outlet section (574), a boundary line (between 715 and 620), the mixed liquid inlet above the boundary line (fig. 10), the cooling illiquid outlet section being lower than the boundary line (Fig. 10); a valve assembly comprising a drain valve at the water-liquid outlet section (573).
Lau does not teach that the water-liquid outlet is below the boundary line.
Smullin teaches that it is known to located the purge outlet (64) of a liquid separator (10) below the expected level of the accumulated undesired liquid (Para. [0033]) such that both the lighter undesired liquid and a portion of the operating liquid are both drained (Para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to located the water outlet of Lau as taught by Smullin in order to ensure total removal of the contaminating water.
Lau does not teach a first valve at the mixed liquid inlet and second valve at the cooling liquid outlet.
Lin teaches that it is old and well-known to provide coolant (81) and water (832’) separation tanks (21) with valves at their inlet (v2) and outlets (v3, v4, v5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the separation tank of Lau with such valves in order to allow for isolation of the tank from the broader system for replacement, maintenance, liquid level control, etc.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin and Chen (US 2017/0016659).
Regarding claim 3, Lau, as modified, does not specify an inspection window.
Chen teaches that it is known to provide such liquid receivers/accumulators/separators with sight glasses (windows) which span the entire range of levels of interest (42a-c; Para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Lau with such a sight glass (window) spanning the entire height of the device (as taught by Chen), which inherently includes crossing the expected ranges of the boundary line, in order to allow for visual inspection of the status of the equipment under operation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin and Fraser (US 5,015,337).
Regarding claim 4, Lau teaches that the drain valve (573) controls communication with the interior of the separation tank, but does not specify what the liquid is drained into.
Fraser demonstrates that the draining of such water is desirably performed into a container, but does not specify what such a container may be when drained through the installed drain outlet (see: Col. 13:4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Lau with a container attached to the water-liquid outlet section, such as a bucket, as motivated by Fraser, in order to prevent spilling of water all over the equipment.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin and Tu (US 2024/0008223).
Regarding claim 5, Tu teaches a cooling tank (100a) having a cooling zone (submerged in L2) and condensation zone (7) in the interior thereof, the cooling zone accommodates a cooling liquid (L2)and the condensation zone is above the cooling zone (see Fig. 2); a condensation module (2) is disposed in the condensation zone; a liquid collection tank (4) is located above the cooling zone and receives a liquid condensed by the condensation module.
Tu does teach a water-liquid separation module (i.e. the series of baffles and openings “O”) but not in accordance with claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to supply the device of Tu with the separation module of Lau in view of Smullin, as detailed above, in order to prevent overflow of water back into the cooling zone and allow for removal of undesired water without interrupting operations.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin, Tu, and Shelnutt (US 2014/0216688)
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Lau, as modified, does not teach the inclusion of a storage tank.
Shelnutt teaches that, when redirecting condensate from a liquid collection tank (440) from a condensation module (462) located in the condensation zone (422) above a cooling zone (412) of a cooling tank, it is old and well-known to include a storage tank (545) located below the liquid collection tank, to storage and redirect the liquid to its location of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Lau, as modified, with the storage tank of Shelnutt, in order to prevent accidental backflow by increasing the storage space of the device.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Smullin teaches that S-shaped overflow pipes are common in the art (e.g. 52). It would have been obvious to include such an overflow pipe in Lau, as modified, in order to prevent overflow of unwanted substances from the storage tank and only allow the desired coolant to escape.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Lau does not teach the return pipe.
Lin teaches that it is old and well-known to provide separation tanks (21) with return pipes (33) located at their top portion (Fig. 1) to return vapor to the condensation zone of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the separation tank of Lau, as modified, with the return pipe, as taught by Lin, to allow for vapor pressure equalization.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin, Chen, and Tu (US 2024/0008223).
Regarding claim 13, Tu teaches a cooling tank (100a) having a cooling zone (submerged in L2) and condensation zone (7) in the interior thereof, the cooling zone accommodates a cooling liquid (L2)and the condensation zone is above the cooling zone (see Fig. 2); a condensation module (2) is disposed in the condensation zone; a liquid collection tank (4) is located above the cooling zone and receives a liquid condensed by the condensation module.
Tu does teach a water-liquid separation module (i.e. the series of baffles and openings “O”) but not in accordance with claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to supply the device of Tu with the separation module of Lau in view of Smullin, as detailed above, in order to prevent overflow of water back into the cooling zone and allow for removal of undesired water without interrupting operations.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin, Chen, Tu, and Shelnutt (US 2014/0216688)
Regarding claim 14, Lau, as modified, does not teach the inclusion of a storage tank.
Shelnutt teaches that, when redirecting condensate from a liquid collection tank (440) from a condensation module (462) located in the condensation zone (422) above a cooling zone (412) of a cooling tank, it is old and well-known to include a storage tank (545) located below the liquid collection tank, to storage and redirect the liquid to its location of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Lau, as modified, with the storage tank of Shelnutt, in order to prevent accidental backflow by increasing the storage space of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Smullin teaches that S-shaped overflow pipes are common in the art (e.g. 52). It would have been obvious to include such an overflow pipe in Lau, as modified, in order to prevent overflow of unwanted substances from the storage tank and only allow the desired coolant to escape.
Regarding claim 16, Lau does not teach the return pipe.
Lin teaches that it is old and well-known to provide separation tanks (21) with return pipes (33) located at their top portion (Fig. 1) to return vapor to the condensation zone of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the separation tank of Lau, as modified, with the return pipe, as taught by Lin, to allow for vapor pressure equalization.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin, Fraser, and Tu (US 2024/0008223).
Regarding claim 12, Tu teaches a cooling tank (100a) having a cooling zone (submerged in L2) and condensation zone (7) in the interior thereof, the cooling zone accommodates a cooling liquid (L2)and the condensation zone is above the cooling zone (see Fig. 2); a condensation module (2) is disposed in the condensation zone; a liquid collection tank (4) is located above the cooling zone and receives a liquid condensed by the condensation module.
Tu does teach a water-liquid separation module (i.e. the series of baffles and openings “O”) but not in accordance with claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to supply the device of Tu with the separation module of Lau in view of Smullin, as detailed above, in order to prevent overflow of water back into the cooling zone and allow for removal of undesired water without interrupting operations.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Smullin, Fraser, Tu, and Shelnutt (US 2014/0216688)
Regarding claim 18, Lau, as modified, does not teach the inclusion of a storage tank.
Shelnutt teaches that, when redirecting condensate from a liquid collection tank (440) from a condensation module (462) located in the condensation zone (422) above a cooling zone (412) of a cooling tank, it is old and well-known to include a storage tank (545) located below the liquid collection tank, to storage and redirect the liquid to its location of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Lau, as modified, with the storage tank of Shelnutt, in order to prevent accidental backflow by increasing the storage space of the device.
Regarding claim 19, Smullin teaches that S-shaped overflow pipes are common in the art (e.g. 52). It would have been obvious to include such an overflow pipe in Lau, as modified, in order to prevent overflow of unwanted substances from the storage tank and only allow the desired coolant to escape.
Regarding claim 20, Lau does not teach the return pipe.
Lin teaches that it is old and well-known to provide separation tanks (21) with return pipes (33) located at their top portion (Fig. 1) to return vapor to the condensation zone of the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the separation tank of Lau, as modified, with the return pipe, as taught by Lin, to allow for vapor pressure equalization.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights