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 Objections
Claims 2 and 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “The system” in line 1 which should be recited to --The evaporative cooling system-- for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the system” in line 1 which should be recited to --the evaporative cooling system-- for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the media” in line 2 which should be recited to --the fresh water evaporative media-- for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the cooling module” in line 5 which should be recited to --the evaporative cooling module-- for proper antecedent basis.
Claims 13-20 recites the limitation “The cooling module” in line 1 which should be recited to --The evaporative cooling module-- for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the limitation “a sealing mechanism” in claim 12 has been interpreted as “a sealing material” or “a sealing member” paragraph [0052].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation “water is not recirculated” which is a negative limitation because they tended to define the invention in terms of what it is not, rather than pointing out the invention. A negative limitation that rendered the claim indefinite because it was an attempt to claim the invention by excluding what the inventors did not invent rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what they did invent. In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953) (see MPEP 2173.05(i)).
Claims 2-11 are rejected by their virtual dependencies of claim 1.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN218097303U) in view of Kato et al. (JP2008032302A) and Ueda et al. (JP2010216708A).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses an evaporative cooling system comprising:
an inlet (the inlet which associated with dust-proof net 2) for accepting hot air and an outlet (the outlet pipe 12) for expressing air that has a temperature that is lower than the hot air (the air after evaporation at the outlet is lower than the hot air at the inlet; see figure 2);
a cooling module (3-4 and 8) positioned in the vicinity of the inlet (the inlet which associated with dust-proof net 2) incorporating a fresh water evaporative media (4) having a front hot surface (the hot surface which facing the inlet) and a rear cold surface (the cold surface which facing the finned tube bundle 4), and a spray nozzle (8) positioned at a bottom end of the fresh water evaporative media (4; see figure 2), with an opening of the spray nozzle pointing upwardly (see figure 2); and
a fan (15-17) for moving air through the fresh water evaporative media (4; see figures 2-3);
wherein the spray nozzle (8) is coupled to a fresh water source (5) and sprays water upwardly and air flow from the fan (15-17) causes the water from the spray nozzle (8) to wet the fresh water evaporative media (8; see figures 1-3).
However, Lu fails to disclose a substantially vertical fresh water evaporative media and wherein water is not recirculated.
Kato teaches an air washer comprising a substantially vertical fresh water evaporative media (a washer media 4; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling system of Lu to incorporate the claimed the substantially vertical evaporative media arrangement as taught by Kato in order to maximize the contact surface between the sprayed fluid and the media thus, to increase evaporation capacity.
Ueda teaches a watering device (20) comprising a water header (18) that sprays water on an air heat exchanger (5). The water header (18) receives water from tap water (23) and a water tray (34; see figure 2). Wherein the header only receives tap water from water source (23) and not recirculates water from the water tray (34) when the valve (50) is closed (see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling system of Lu to incorporate a direct tap water supply as taught by Ueda such that the system receives tap water and not recirculate water in order to provide cleaner environment for the evaporative cooling system by supplying tap or fresh water to the media. Upon the modification, the evaporative cooling system is capable of receiving tap water when water is not recirculated from the tank (5; see figure 2, Lu and figure 2 of Ueda).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses the evaporative cooling system further comprising:
a motor (15) for driving the fan (15-17; see figure 3); and
a controller (the control panel 11) for controlling the spray nozzle (8) to permit the spray nozzle to spray water in front of the fresh water evaporative media (4) between the inlet (the inlet which associated with dust-proof net 2) and the front hot surface (the hot surface which facing the inlet) of the fresh water evaporative media (4; see figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Lu fails to discloses the spray nozzle (8) sprays fluid in a fan-shaped pattern.
Kato teaches the evaporative cooling system comprising a spray nozzle (nozzles 5) which spays water in a fan-shaped pattern (paragraph 7 of page 8; see figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling system of Lu to substitute the spray nozzle of Lu with the claimed spray nozzle which sprays fluid in a fan-shaped pattern as taught by Kato in order to obtain a similar or predictable result which to generate evaporation between the water spray and working fluid.
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses the spray nozzle sprays fluid in a substantially fan-shaped pattern (paragraph 7 of page 8, Kato) and water is sprayed onto the fresh water evaporative media (4) constantly during operation (it is understood to one having ordinary skill in the art that water is sprayed constantly during operation in order to provide a uniformity and harmony).
Though Lu fails to explicitly disclose a substantially fan-shaped 120º pattern it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the claimed substantially fan-shaped 120º pattern is just a matter of design choice which can be achieved through obvious changes in shape (see MPEP2144.04 section IV-B).
Regarding claim 5, Lu as modified discloses the evaporative cooling system further comprising a cold, clean water source (tap water source) coupled to the spray nozzle (8) for spraying clean, cold water upwardly adjacent the hot side (the hot surface which facing the inlet) of the fresh water evaporative media (4; see figures 1-3 of Lu and figure 2 of Ueda).
Regarding claim 6, Lu as modified discloses the clean, cold water (tap water) has an untreated water temperature of about 45º to 60º F (Ueda teaches the tap water has a temperature of about 7o C which is about 44.6o F; paragraph 6 of page 5).
Regarding claim 7, Lu as modified discloses the spray nozzle (8) sprays upwardly in a substantially parallel relation to the front hot surface (the hot surface which facing the inlet) of the fresh water evaporative media (4; see figure 2 of Lu).
Regarding claim 8, Lu as modified discloses the spray nozzle (8) is centered at the bottom of the fresh water evaporative media (4; it is understood to one having ordinary skill in the art that the spray nozzle is centered at the bottom of the media in order to spray water more uniformly on the media; see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Lu as modified discloses the spray nozzle (8) is spaced certain distance in front of the fresh water evaporative media (4; see figure 2).
Thought Lu fails to disclose the claimed about 7 inches distance since Lu disclose the nozzle (8) is spaced certain distance in front of the media, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the claimed about 7 inches distance is just a matter of obvious routine optimization. The claimed about 7 inches distance can be achieved through routine experimentation (see MPEP2144.05 section II-A).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Kato and Ueda as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Carter et al. (CA2300234C).
Regarding claim 10, Lu as modified fails to disclose the system cools air to within 2ºF to 5ºF above wet bulb temperature.
Carter teaches an evaporative cooling system that cools air to a temperature which is above wet bulb temperature (the last paragraph of page 23; see figure 2b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention of Lu to in view of evident that the evaporative cooling system that cools air to a temperature which is above wet bulb temperature as taught by Carter that the evaporative cooling system of Lu is capable of cooling air to temperature which is above wet bulb temperature.
Though Lu in in view of the evident of Carter fails to disclose the system that cools air to within 2ºF to 5ºF above wet bulb temperature, since Carter teaches the condition that the evaporative cooling system that cools air to a temperature which is above wet bulb temperature, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the claimed 2ºF to 5ºF above wet bulb temperature is just an obvious matter of routine optimization. The claimed temperature range can be achieved through routine experimentation (see MPEP2144.05 section II-A).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Kato and Ueda as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hooker et al. (CA2548699A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lu discloses the fresh water evaporative media (4) includes the media is a pad-like material (humidifying cloth).
However, Lu fails to disclose the media includes anti-microbial properties.
Hooker teaches an air quality device comprising a humidifying media which includes an anti-microbial agent (the last two lines of paragraph 1 of page 11; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling system of Lu to incorporate claimed anti-microbial agent as taught by Hooker in order to prevent mold and bacteria growth (the last two lines of paragraph 1 of page 11, Hooker).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Goettl (4,080,410).
Regarding claim 12, Lu discloses an evaporative cooling module for use with an evaporative cooling system (see figures 1-3) comprising:
an evaporative media (4) positioned for permitting air to flow through the evaporative media (4; see figure 2);
a frame (1) for holding the evaporative media (4) in the cooling module (see figures 1-2);
and a spray nozzle (8) positioned at the bottom of the evaporative media (4) for spraying water upwardly in front of the evaporative media (4; see figure 2).
However, Lu fails to disclose the evaporative media positioned substantially vertically for permitting air to flow substantially horizontally through the evaporative media; the frame for holding the evaporative media in a vertical position in the cooling module; a sealing mechanism for sealing around a periphery of the evaporative media in the frame so that air is deterred from traveling around the periphery of the evaporative media.
Goettl teaches an evaporative cooler construction comprising evaporative media (94) positioned substantially vertically for permitting air to flow substantially horizontally through the evaporative media (94; see figure 7); a frame for holding the evaporative media in a vertical position in the cooling module (Col. 2, lines 30-36; see figure 7); a sealing mechanism for sealing around a periphery of the evaporative media in the frame so that air is deterred from traveling around the periphery of the evaporative media (94; Col. 2, lines 30-36; see figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling module of Lu to incorporate the claimed the substantially vertically positioned evaporative media arrangement, the claimed sealing features with respect to the evaporative media and the frame as taught by Goettl in order to maximize the contact surface between the spray fluid and the media and prevent entrainment of water droplets in the air passing through the evaporative media thus, to increase evaporation capacity (Col. 2, lines 30-36, Goettl).
Regarding claim 13, Lu discloses the spray nozzle (8) is centered at the bottom of the evaporative media (4; it is understood to one having ordinary skill in the art that the spray nozzle is centered at the bottom of the media in order to spray water more uniformly on the media; see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Lu discloses the spray nozzle (8) is positioned below the evaporative media (4; see figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Goettl as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Johnson et al. (2003/0136143).
Regarding claim 15, Lu fails to disclose the evaporative cooling module further comprising a door positioned on a side surface of the frame for accessing the evaporative media.
Johnson teaches an evaporative cooling device comprising a door (13) positioned on a side surface of a frame for accessing the evaporative media (16; paragraph [0030]; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling module of Lu to incorporate the claimed access door as taught by Johnson in order to provide access to the interior of the evaporative cooling module to provide service such as evaporative pad replacement.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Goettl as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Ueda.
Regarding claim 16, Lu fails to disclose the cooling module further comprising a solenoid that opens and closes when instructed to do so to permit water to flow through the spray nozzle.
Ueda teaches a watering device (20) comprising a water header (18) that sprays water on an air heat exchanger (5). The water header (18) receives water from tap water (23) and the water tray (34; see figure 2). Wherein the header receives tap water from water source (23) and a solenoid that opens and closes when instructed to do so to permit water to flow through the spray nozzle (the header 18; see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling module of Lu to incorporate a direct tap water supply with a valve as taught by Ueda in order to provide cleaner environment for the evaporative cooling system by supplying and regulate tap or fresh water to the evaporative media.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Goettl as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Kirks (2013/0227974).
Regarding claim 17, Lu discloses and the spray nozzle (8) is sized to cover the evaporative media with water (the tap water; see figure 2 of Lu).
However, Lu fails to disclose the spray nozzle (8) is made at least in part of Teflon.
Kirks teaches a spray nozzle (300) is made at least in part of Teflon (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling module of Lu to substitute the material of the spray nozzle with the claimed Teflon material as taught by Kirks in order to obtain a similar or predictable result which to spray water to the evaporative media (see MPEP2143 section B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Goettl as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Kato.
Regarding claim 18, Lu fails to disclose the spray nozzle (8) is shaped to spray in a 120º fan shape.
Kato teaches the evaporative cooling system comprising a spray nozzle (nozzles 5) which spays water in a fan-shaped pattern (paragraph 7 of page 8; see figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the evaporative cooling system of Lu to substitute the spray nozzle of Lu with the claimed spray nozzle which sprays fluid in a fan-shaped pattern as taught by Kato in order to obtain a similar or predictable result which to generate evaporation between the water spray and working fluid.
Though Lu as modified fails to explicitly disclose the claimed 120º fan shape, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the claimed 120º fan shape is just a matter of design choice which can be achieved through obvious changes in shape (see MPEP2144.04 section IV-B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Lu fails to disclose the claimed feature that “evaporative media which is needled, ultra-loft polyester material that is about 1’’ thick” of the evaporative cooling module as required in claims 19-20. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the evaporative cooling module of Lu in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 19-20 are allowable.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763