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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose, as recited in MPEP §609: “In nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56."
The duty to disclose includes, but is not limited to, relevant non-patent publications by the inventors and/or assignee, patent filings by the inventors and/or assignee, and search results from patent filings by the inventors and/or assignee.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7 Aug. 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
(A) The breadth of the claims: claims 28 and 29 each claim where each alignment slot extends through each of the plurality of blades;
(B) The nature of the invention: the invention describes the alignment slots as being on each blade, where each blade has its own alignment slots and the alignment slots of one blade are different than the alignment slots of other blades (see ¶21, ¶26, ¶62);
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make each alignment slot extend through each of the plurality of blades because the specification describes each alignment slot extending through a blade;
(E) The level of predictability in the art: the art would not know how to arrange the slots to both conform to the specification and the claimed inventions;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: the inventor describes the alignment slots as being on each blade, where each blade has its own alignment slots (see ¶21, ¶26, ¶62); the inventor does not provide direction as to how each alignment slot can extend through each blade;
(G) The existence of working examples: the inventor describes working examples of where the alignment slots are on each blade, where each blade has its own alignment slots (see ¶21, ¶26, ¶62); the inventor does not provide working examples of each alignment slot extend through each blade;
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: the content of the disclosure would render undue experimentation necessary to determine how each alignment slot could extend through each blade without altering the principle of operation.
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 21-22 (listed as new and depending upon claim 20) and 27 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 21 (listed as new and depending upon claim 20) recites the limitation "the bolt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are multiple claimed bolts.
Claim 21 (listed as new and depending upon claim 20) recites the limitation "the first and second legs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are multiple claimed first and second legs.
Claim 22 (listed as new and depending upon claim 20) recites the limitation "the first and second legs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are multiple claimed first and second legs.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the bolt". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are multiple claimed bolts.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the bolt aperture". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are multiple claimed bolt apertures.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the support strip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are multiple claimed support strips.
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.
Claims 21-22 are 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.
Each of claims 21 and 22 are listed twice in the claimset. Claim 21 is listed as both withdrawn and new. Claim 22 is listed as both cancelled and new. In the next claimset, both claims 21 and 22 must be listed as cancelled to rectify the issue.
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
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.
Claims 20-22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake US 2,793,017 (hereafter Lake) and further in view of Lefevre US 4,052,491 (hereafter Lefevre).
Regarding claim 20, Lake teaches an apparatus (Figs 1-5) comprising:
a blade array (Fig 5) comprising a plurality of blades (16) that are vertically aligned (as shown in Figs 1-6), each of the plurality of blades having an undulating cross-sectional shape (as shown in Fig 4 with undulations 12 and 14) and being spaced apart from an adjacent blade by a plurality of spacers (18), each of the plurality of blades having a plurality of alignment slots (13), each of the plurality of spacers having first and second legs (labeled below) connected by a support strip (labeled below) and a plurality of alignment tabs (labeled below) located on each of the first and second legs, each of the plurality of spacers being located in one of a plurality of spacer arrays (array which comprise each spacer vertically aligned, where each spacer in an array is separated from one another by two blades), each of plurality of spacers in any one of the plurality of spacer arrays being aligned (as shown in Figs 1-2 where the spacers on opposite sides of the blades are aligned);
wherein each of the plurality of alignment tabs is inserted at least partially through one of the plurality of alignment slots, thereby preventing rotation or movement of each of the plurality of spacers relative to at least one of the plurality of blades (as shown in Fig 5 where the tabs are seated in the slots and the geometry would prevent rotation); and
wherein each of the plurality of spacers defines a blade spacing (spacing shown in Figs 1-5, where the spacing is equal to the width of the spacer 18 at a given plane) between two of the plurality of blades and each of the blades has a maximum rise, the maximum rise (distance between the lowest point of 13 in Fig 5 and the highest point of 14) being at least twice the blade spacing.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support strip)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Legs)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Alignment tabs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Alignment slots)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lake does not teach:
c
wherein the maximum rise is at least twice the blade spacing.
Lake further teaches where that maximum rise is larger than the blade spacing (col 2 line 62 – col 3 line 17).
MPEP §2144.04 IV A states that limitations relating to the size were not sufficient to patentably distinguish. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the maximum rise and/or the blade spacing, such as to wherein the maximum rise is at least twice the blade spacing, as a matter of obvious change of size.
MPEP §2144.04 IV A states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relative dimension of the maximum rise to the blade spacing, such as to wherein the maximum rise is at least twice the blade spacing, as a matter of obvious change of proportion.
MPEP §2144.04 IV B states that a mere change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the blades and/or spacers, such as to wherein the maximum rise is at least twice the blade spacing, as a matter of obvious change in shape.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the blades and/or spacers, such as to wherein the maximum rise is at least twice the blade spacing, in order to provide proper liquid film distribution, gas flow, and surface area (col 1 lines 24-52, see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Lefevre teaches an apparatus (Fig 4) comprising a support strip (76, 78) where the support strip having a bolt aperture (hole in center of spacers; col 4 lines 5-24) formed therein; wherein each of the plurality of spacer arrays (arrays of spacers connected by a single bolt 68) further includes a bolt (68) that extends through all of the plurality of spacers in that one of the plurality of spacer arrays (as shown in Figs 3-4), the bolt having first and second ends and a fastener (70, 74) secured to each of the first and second ends. Lefevre teaches where the arrangement attains rigidity (col 2 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indentation (23) of Lake by incorporating the bolt aperture (holes in center of spacers) and bolt (68) of Lefevre in order to attain rigidity (col 2 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 26, Lake in view of Lefevre teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Lake does not teach where each of the plurality of spacer arrays has no more than one bolt.
Lake teaches where each spacer is secured with no more than one indentation (center indentation in Figs 1-5).
Lefevre teaches where each of the plurality of spacer arrays has no more than one bolt (as shown in Fig 3 where the one bolt passes through the center of an array of spacers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indentation (23) of Lake by incorporating the bolt aperture (holes in center of spacers) and bolt (68) of Lefevre in order to attain rigidity (col 2 lines 1-5) and where each of the plurality of spacer arrays has no more than one bolt because both Lake and Lefevre teach each pacer being secured with one fastener.
Regarding claim 21, Lake in view of Lefevre teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Lake does not teach wherein the bolt passes between each of the plurality of spacer arrays has no more than one bolt.
Lake teaches where each spacer is secured with no more than one indentation (center indentation in Figs 1-5).
Lefevre teaches where each of the plurality of spacer arrays has no more than one bolt (as shown in Fig 3 where the one bolt passes through the center of an array of spacers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indentation (23) of Lake by incorporating the bolt aperture (holes in center of spacers) and bolt (68) of Lefevre in order to attain rigidity (col 2 lines 1-5) and where each of the plurality of spacer arrays has no more than one bolt because both Lake and Lefevre teach each pacer being secured with one fastener.
Regarding claim 22, Lake in view of Lefevre teaches all the limitations of claim 20. Lake further teaches where the first and second legs are identical in shape (as shown in Figs 1-5, col 2 line 62 – col 3 line 17).
Regarding claim 27, Lake in view of Lefevre teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Lake does not teach wherein the bolt passes through the bolt aperture formed in the support strip.
Lake teaches where each spacer is secured with a fastener indentation (indentation 23 in Figs 1-5).
Lefevre teaches where each of the plurality of spacer arrays each has a bolt (68) which passes through the bolt aperture (aperture in the center of 78) formed in the support strip (78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indentation (23) of Lake by incorporating the bolt aperture (holes in center of spacers) and bolt (68) of Lefevre in order to attain rigidity (col 2 lines 1-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776