DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/629,475. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7, 26, and 27 are pending.
Claims 8-25 are cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 26, and 27 are examined.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the drawing objections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the drawing objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 defines “a second airflow module layer, a second media fill module layer, a second distribution module layer, and/or a second eliminator module layer” within the claim without any further method step or location description and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether such second layers are part of the second framework module, as are the first layers as taught in claim 1, or if such layers are a separate element to be later added to the tower assembly at a later time. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such second layers are considered formed by the second framework module and only one or all of such layers are needed in order to meet such limitations.
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) 1-3, 6, 7, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. (U.S. Patent 8,578,680) in view of Simmons et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0208666).
Regarding claim 1, Abeln et al. disclose a method of assembling and installing a crossflow cooling tower cell, comprising:
removing a selected crossflow cooling tower cell, including removing vertical columns which form an original structure of said selected crossflow cooling tower cell (col. 6, ll. 16-27 disclose an original, existing cooling tower is dismantled and removed from a location so a new tower can be positioned in its place, where dismantling includes the entire structure to be removed, including any vertical supports);
providing a lifting device (#24/26) capable of supporting, balancing and lifting objects below the lifting device by lift members (see figures 1 and 6 at #50 and #40),
providing a first framework module (#20) of said crossflow modular cooling tower cell, said first framework module comprising: a plurality of framework structures (the elements #34 form the framework structures used to form the entire structure #30) and vertical members (#32) each having a top end (the top end as depicted in figure 5) a bottom end (the bottom end of figure 5), and an axis in the vertical direction (the vertical, y-axis direction of figure 5);
forming a first airflow module layer, a first media fill module layer, a first distribution module layer, and/or a first drift eliminator module layer (the first framework module #20 can be considered to comprise of a first airflow module layer formed by the openings between adjacent columns #32 and beams #34 that form vertical rectangular inlets on the lower level and all four sides of the structure #20 to allow air flow therethrough and thus meets the “or” part of the clause of an airflow module layer as defined);
lifting, using the lifting device, the first framework module (see figures 5 and 6 and col. 6, ll. 16-27);
while lifted, moving the first framework module to a position above a selected installation location (see figure 5 and col. 6, ll. 16-27, where the framework is lifted and positioned above the second location where it is to be installed);
lowering said first framework module onto the selected installation location (the framework #30 is to be lowered to the second location for installation); and
detaching said lift members from said first framework module (the lifting members are removed from the first framework in order to allow for subsequent use on other elements to be lifted within the system).
However, Abeln et al. do not disclose the first framework module comprises of first lifting members at the top end of the vertical members or first receiving members on a bottom end of the vertical members such that adjacent framework structures can engage one another with the lifting and receiving elements of respective structures or explicitly that the first framework is secured at the selected installation location. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Simmons et al., that frames of a structure that are to be lifted to a location and built vertically can comprise of a lifting projection #22 at a top end of the vertical members #28 of the framework and a receiving socket #26 at the bottom end of the vertical members #28, where the sockets and projections of adjacent frame structures #54/56 can engage one another to support such frame structures on top of one another. See figure 10. Furthermore, figure 6 of Simmons et al. depicts use of a lifting element #24 which is configured to engage the lifting element of the framework structure so as to lift the framework structure and lower the structure into place. Figure 9 of Simmons et al. also depicts the first framework structure can be supported on a ground support #38 and secured thereto with a similar projection #22 socket connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the framework structures of Abeln et al. so as to comprise of a lifting element at the top ends of the vertical members and receiving members at the bottom end of the vertical members, as taught in Simmons et al., in order to provide for easier lifting, aligning, and attachment of vertically adjacent framework structures. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have secured the first framework of Abeln et al. to the ground at the selected installation location, such as by using a ground support as taught in Simmons et al., in order to properly secure and prevent movement of the structure during use and provide an appropriate support.
Regarding claim 2, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render obvious providing said second framework module (Abeln et al.; #22) of the crossflow cooling tower, said second framework module having a plurality of framework structures (one set of vertical members #32 can be considered the first plurality of framework structures of Abeln et al.) each a top end (the top end of figure 2 of Abeln et al.), a bottom end (the bottom end of figure 2 of Abeln et al.), and second framework vertical members (a second set of vertical members #32 of Abeln et al. can be considered the vertical members as defined) each having a top end (the top end of figure 2 of Abeln et al.), a bottom end (the bottom end of figure 2 of Abeln et al.), and an axis in the vertical direction (the vertical axis direction of figure 2 of Abeln et al.), second lifting elements on said second framework structure vertical member top end and second receiving elements on said bottom end of said second framework structure vertical member (as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, such lifting elements and receiving elements as taught in Simmons et al. would be provided on the top and bottom ends of the vertical members of the second framework structure of Abeln et al. to allow for proper lifting and engagement with the first framework structure);
a second airflow module layer, a second media fill module layer, a second distribution module layer, and/or a second drift eliminator module layer (the bottom horizontal layer of the second module #22 of Abeln et al. can be considered an airflow module layer or distribution module layer or a second drift eliminator module layer since it comprises of components #38 that include heat transfer media, drift eliminators or decking and thus meets at least one of the elements of the “or” clause);
constructing said second framework module to direct dry air within said second module in a direction approximately perpendicular to said vertical members (as depicted in figures 2, 4, and 7 of Abeln et al., the second structure #31 comprises of air inlets that are rectangularly shaped between column elements #32 on all four vertical sides of the structure, which openings allow for air to travel horizontally through the structure);
constructing said second framework module to receive and distribute said dry air (the polygonal prism shape of the framework structure #30 of Abeln et al. along with the rectangular openings formed between adjacent beams #34 in each row form a plenum that allow air to transfer horizontally from the inlets to vertically through the structure);
inserting said lifting elements within said lift members, thereby securing said second framework module to said lift members (as explained above, figure 7 of Simmons et al. depicts the lift members secured to the lifting elements of the second framework to lift the second structure into place as depicted in figure 2 of Abeln et al.);
lifting, using the lifting device, the second framework module (see figure 2 of Abeln et al.);
while lifted, moving the second framework module to a position above said first framework module (see figures 2 and 7 of Abeln et al.);
lowering said second framework module onto said first framework module, and subsequently aligning said first lifting elements of said first framework module with said second receiving elements of said second framework module, forming a pair of laterally adjacent interlocking and dynamic modules (see figure 7 of Abeln et al., where the second framework structure is lowered onto the first framework structure, where the lifting and receiving elements of each structure would align with one another as depicted in figures 7 and 8 of Simmons et al. so as to be aligned and thus laterally adjacent to form the tower);
inserting said first lifting elements of said first framework module within said second receiving elements of said second framework module, thereby securing said second framework module to said first framework module (figure 8 of Simmons et al. depicts the lifting elements and receiving elements of such framework structures would be engaged with one another to secure the framework structures to one another, where such features would be provided within Abeln et al. as explained above); and
detaching said lifting members from said second lifting elements (such a crane lifting device with lifting members would be removed from the second lifting elements when it is no longer needed or in order to allow the crane to lift other objects at the job site).
Regarding claim 3, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render obvious the method is performed while a second crossflow cooling tower cell remains operational in a crossflow cooing tower field including the selected installation location (Abeln et al. disclose in col. 1, ll. 33-50 that such framework structures are used to replace similar existing structures located within a power plant, where it is critical to minimize downtime during replacement construction of such structures in order to prevent the entire power plant from shutting down during construction. Thus, Abeln et al. is considered to suggest that when multiple towers are present, such towers are repaired piecemeal in order to prevent significant downtime of such facilities and thus allow using of one cooling tower while another is being repaired. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Abeln et al. as comprising of a field of cooling towers, where one remains operational while the other is repaired, it would have been obvious to have applied such a replacement method of Abeln et al. to a power plant which comprising of more than one cooling tower, where only one tower is needed to be repaired while the other tower(s) remain operational in order to reduce downtime of using the powerplant while still allowing the powerplant to operate in a safe condition and to also save on costs by only repairing that which is damaged, as taught in Abeln et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render obvious said crossflow cooling tower includes mechanicals of said selected crossflow cooling tower (Abeln et al. disclose providing components #38 to the framework as needed, where it would have been inherent, or in the alternative obvious, that the cooling tower that is being replaced would also have components and other mechanicals that would need to be removed and replaced with the newer components for proper updating and upkeeping the system).
Regarding claim 7, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render obvious said first framework structure includes angled longitudinal members forming an angled first framework structure (figure 3 of Abeln et al. depicts use of angled members #36 within the framework structures).
Regarding claim 26, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render obvious expanding or contracting said first framework module to a size necessary to meet predetermined design requirements by varying patterns or dimensions including length, width, and height of said first framework module (See figure 5 of Abeln et al., where col. 6, ll. 43-64 disclose that the elements #30 are raised to position and connected together such that the framework module goes from the pile of elements #30 and expands to the framework as depicted in figure 5 before it is lifted so as to be made to the size as required by the end user. Col. 6, l. 65 to col. 7, l. 11 of Abeln et al. also disclose that internal components #38 can be added to such modules so as to expand the module to the needs of the tower and the needs of the end user.).
Regarding claim 27, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render obvious expanding or contracting said second framework module to a size necessary to meet predetermined design requirements by varying patterns or dimensions including length, width, and height of said first framework module (See figure 5 of Abeln et al., where col. 6, ll. 43-64 disclose that the elements #30 of the second framework are raised to position and connected together such that the framework module goes from the pile of elements #30 and expands to the framework as depicted in figure 5 before it is lifted so as to be made to the size as required by the end user. Col. 6, l. 65 to col. 7, l. 11 of Abeln et al. also disclose that internal components #38 can be added to such modules so as to expand the module to the needs of the tower and the needs of the end user.).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. and Bardo et al. (U.S. Patent 5,902,522).
Regarding claim 4, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. render the claimed invention obvious except specifically for providing a water distribution system for pumping process water to a hot liquid basin at an approximately top of said first or second framework structure. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bardo et al., that such cooling towers are to comprise of a water distribution system #49 in level #52 which receives hot water from a supply pipe #58, where the water is sent through pipes #60 (which form a hot water basin) and spray nozzles #63 that spray the water into a fill material #54 for heat exchange purposes where the water can then drip into collecting basin #46 below, where such a water distribution layer is provided above a lower air intake level #44 formed of vertical and horizontal support members of a framework structure. See figure 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Abeln et al. to comprise of a water distribution system for providing a water distribution system for pumping process water to a hot liquid basin on top of the first framework structure, as taught in Bardo et al., in order to construct the new cooling tower erected in Abeln et al. to properly function using a water cooling system.
Regarding claim 5, Abeln et al. in view of Simmons et al. and Bardo et al. render obvious said hot liquid basin includes holes or openings in a bottom surface for distributing said process water under gravity through said dry air (Bardo et al. disclose spray nozzles #63 at the bottom of the hot water basin formed by piping #60, where such hot water can drip from the nozzles #63 to the fill material #54 and drip from the fill material #54 through the dry air of the intake level #44 to cool the water, where such features would be provided within Abeln et al. as explained above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “in Abeln, Fig. 5, each bent is individually lifted into place to begin to form the framework of the structure” and thus “does not represent modular construction” as defined, the presently claimed invention does not provide the limitations of prefabricating such modules at a factory and transporting such elements to a job site as Applicant argues. Instead, all that is required is that a first framework module is provided and is lifted and lowered into place. Though Abeln et al. disclose the elements #30 of the module are assembled at one location of the jobsite, such a module is still provided as an assembled module in one location, lifted from such a first position as a module to a second position and lowered and secured into place so as to meet such method steps as broadly defined. The Examiner’s rejections are further supported by Applicant’s addition of claims 26 and 27 which teach that the modules are not the final product and can be expanded or contracting, as in adding or removing framework elements and thus allow for assembly as needed. Abeln et al. teach such an expansion of the modules by using bents #30 to construct the modules to sizes as needed by the end user and thus forming a module of a size as needed. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Abel’s ‘bents’ are not modules and therefore not constructed to accommodate internal components,” such bents of Abeln et al. instead form the framework structures and vertical members of such modules, as defined, where figure 7 of Abeln et al. depicts such modules are configured to support and accommodate internal components #38 as needed by the tower end product. Applicant does not provide any special definition for the term “module” and the addition of the limitations in claim 1 defining “a first airflow module layer, a first media fill layer, a first distribution module layer, and/or a first drift eliminator module layer” formed by the first framework module further supports Abeln et al.’s interpretation of comprising a module with multiple layers for supporting internal components #38 of the cooling tower at different levels of each module. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights