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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 is directed to the same subject matter as claim 1, from which claim 24 depends.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 15-16, 18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 102506475) in view of Ishida (US 20070193287).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Figs. 1-2, Dai teaches an air-handling system (see par. 2) comprising: a heat pump configured to move heat energy between a plurality of passive heat transfer devices (e.g. heat exchangers 3, 4; see par. 2); the plurality of passive heat transfer devices, defining a first surface (e.g. an inside) of at least one of the plurality of passive heat transfer devices that is thermally in contact with the heat pump and a second surface (e.g. an outside) of at least one of the plurality of passive heat transfer devices that is exposed to allow the transfer of heat to or from the heat pump (see par. 30); a desiccant in thermal contact with the exposed surface of at least one passive heat transfer device and configured to exchange moisture with air (see pars. 25, 30, 37, 47); a plurality of air directing valves 8, 12 configured to direct process and regeneration air to and from the plurality of passive heat transfer devices with desiccant (see pars. 39, 40, 42-43); a heat pump reversing device 2 configured to change the direction of heat flow in the heat pump between two modes of operation (e.g. as represented by Figs. 1-2).
Dai does not teach a control system with communication lines to control the air directing valves, the reversing device, and the heat pump operation; and a control operation process operating a control mode in which, during operation of the system, a desiccant regeneration time is modulated in response to a temperature and/or humidity of air drawn from an indoor and/or outdoor space.
Referring to at least Fig. 5, Ishida, directed to a desiccant-type heat pump unit (see par. 98), teaches a control system (e.g. controller 2) with communication lines to control air directing dampers 49, 49, 41, etc., a reversing device 9, and the a pump operation (see, e.g. pars. 137-138, 141-142); and a control operation process operating a control mode in which, during operation of the system, a desiccant regeneration time is modulated (see abstract, pars. 22-23, 135) in response to a temperature and/or humidity of air drawn from an indoor and/or outdoor space (e.g. as measured by supply air humidity sensor 14 and/or indoor return air humidity sensor 15; see pars 135-137).
Ishida teaches that said regeneration time modulation enables:
appropriate control of the capability of the heat pump and/or a sensible/latent heat throughput ratio (see par. 21); or
a more user-suitable heat pump environment (see par. 26).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai by Ishida with the motivation of enabling:
appropriate control of the capability of the heat pump and/or a sensible/latent heat throughput ratio (see Ishida par. 21); or
a more user-suitable heat pump environment (see Ishida par. 26).
Regarding claims 15-16,
Dai does not teach wherein the passive heat transfer devices comprise tube and fin heat exchangers or microchannel heat exchangers, wherein the desiccant forms a coating on the exposed surface of the heat exchanger fins.
Ishida teaches wherein a passive heat transfer device comprise tube and fin heat exchangers (see par. 102) or microchannel heat exchangers, wherein a desiccant forms a coating on the exposed surface of the heat exchanger fins (see par. 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai by Ishida with the motivation of obtaining the known advantages of tube and fin heat exchangers (e.g. increased heat transfer efficiency by increasing an effective heat transfer area between the tubes and a surrounding fluid, compact design, cost-effectiveness, space efficiency, etc.…).
Regarding claim 18,
Dai does not teach a passive heat transfer device without desiccant configured for exchanging sensible heat with ambient air.
Referring to Fig. 14, Ishida teaches passive heat transfer device 211 without desiccant (see par. 207) configured for exchanging sensible heat with ambient air (see par. 207).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai by Ishida with the motivation of transferring the heat from the air outside of the building to inside or vice versa.
Regarding claim 20,
Dai does not teach wherein the desiccant comprises at least one of silica gel, alumina, zeolite or a metal-organic framework (MOF) material.
Ishida teaches wherein the desiccant comprises at least one of silica gel, alumina, zeolite or a metal-organic framework (MOF) material (see pars. 98, 102).
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai by Ishida and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide materials with suitable adsorption performance.
Regarding claim 21,
Dai does not teach wherein the desiccant comprises a metal-organic framework (MOF).
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide materials with advantagous adsorption performance (e.g. advantages of structural dependence with performance, superior water uptake capacity, ease of regeneration, or recyclability).
Regarding claim 22,
The subject matter of claim 22 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, 18 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1, 18.
Regarding claim 23,
Dai as modified above teaches wherein the desiccant regeneration time is modulated by controlling a speed of a compressor of the heat pump and/or a speed of a regeneration fan configured to direct air (see Ishida par. 134).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 102506475) in view of Ishida (US 20070193287) and Rhodes (US 4700550).
Regarding claim 17,
Dai as modified above does not teach wherein the desiccant forms a partial coating with an uncoated section first exposed to airflow followed by a desiccant coated second section exposed to airflow.
Referring to at least Fig. 11, Rhodes, directed to a heat pump desiccant air conditioning system, teaches wherein a desiccant forms a partial coating with an uncoated section (e.g. sections 130, 134) first exposed to airflow followed by a desiccant coated second section (e.g. section 132) exposed to airflow (see col 19, lines 47-60, col 20, lines 15-47). Said arrangement, for example, provides the advantage of preheating the air before it passes through the desiccant coated section, wherein preheating lowers the relative humidity of a recharging air for evaporation of moisture from a desiccant coated section (see col 20, lines 54-61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai as modified above by Rhodes with the motivation of preheating an air before it passes through a desiccant coated section, wherein preheating lowers the relative humidity of a recharging air for evaporation of moisture from a desiccant coated section.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 102506475) in view of Ishida (US 20070193287) and Ikegami (US 7905108).
Regarding claim 19,
Dai does not teach a passive heat transfer device without desiccant configured for exchanging sensible heat with indoor air.
Referring to at least Fig. 5, Ikegami, directed to a desiccant type air conditioning system, teaches a passive heat transfer device 12 without desiccant configured for exchanging sensible heat with indoor air RA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Dai by Ikegami with the motivation of continuously performing room heat processing (e.g. regardless of the desiccant regeneration status, see Ikegami col 2, lines 40-42).
Response to Arguments
Previously entered claim objections are withdrawn. Previously entered claim interpretations under 35 USC 112 are maintained as applicable
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Dai in view of Ishida does not teach a desiccant regeneration time is modulated in response to a temperature and/or humidity of air drawn from an indoor and/or outdoor space. However, referring to at least Fig. 5 of Ishida, Ishida teaches a desiccant regeneration time is modulated in response to a temperature and/or humidity of air drawn from an indoor and/or outdoor space (e.g. as measured by humidity sensors 14, 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maeda teaches a desiccant-type heat pump system with air control valves (see Fig. 10). Choi teaches a desiccant-type heat pump system.
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 STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763