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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/26 9 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacchus et al. (U.S. Patent 4,440,000) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent 9,541,302).
Regarding claim 2, Bacchus teaches a unit (fig. 4) for use in evaporative cooling (per abstract), comprising a first capped frame (element 1); a second open frame (element 26, opening shown for connecting to element 43) opposite the first frame (per fig. 4); a plurality of mechanical supports (element 38) between and coupled to the first frame and the second frame (per fig. 4); and a porous hollow fiber membrane (element 8 & 9) extending around the mechanical supports between the first frame and the second frame to form an interior volume (per fig. 8-9), and coupled to the first frame and the second frame (per fig. 9), wherein the first and second frames are configured for flow of a liquid between the first and second frames via the membrane, and the membrane is configured to transport the liquid between the first and second frames and to provide for air flow through the membrane for evaporative cooling (per col. 5, ln 50-col. 6, ln 9) wherein the plurality of mechanical supports comprise posts (per fig. 4, these may be reasonably considered posts).
Baccchus does not teach the porous hollow fiber membrane comprises fibers for transport of a liquid and pores for evaporative cooling using the liquid. Taylor teaches porous hollow fiber membrane (col. 2, ln 54-63) comprises fibers for transport of a liquid (col. 2, ln 1-24) and pores for evaporative cooling using the liquid (Col. 6, ln 41-42). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Bacchus to use the fibers of Taylor, the motivation would be accommodating high air flow rates, have low shell-side pressure drop (col. 6, ln 43-53).
Regarding claim 4, Bacchus teaches the plurality of posts form a polygonal shape (per fig. 4 the posts form a variety of shapes that would be considered polygonal, note as written the claim does not designate the structures shape thus the shape formed by the crossing elements reads on this).
Regarding claim 6, Bacchus teaches the posts are composed of a plastic material (per claim 7, the posts are the “cover support members”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacchus et al. (U.S. Patent 4,440,000) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent 9,541,302), and further in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent 6,895,772).
Regarding claim 3, Bacchus does not teach the plurality of posts form a square shape with rounded corners. Johnson teaches the evaporative cooler is square with rounded corners (per fig. 2, col. 1, ln 21-29, col. 3, ln 9-24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Bacchus to use the shape taught by Johnson, the motivations would be to use a standard configuration or shape to fit various applications.
Examiner further notes that It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, MPEP 2144.04 (b). Thus, the modifying Bacchus to the claimed shape would be obvious.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacchus et al. (U.S. Patent 4,440,000) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent 9,541,302), and further in view of Reece (U.S. Patent 8,459,054).
Regarding claim 5, Bacchus does not teach one or more of the posts are perforated. Reece teaches one or more of the posts (elements 6) are perforated (“drip nozzles” of fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Bacchus to have one or more of the posts perforated similar to Reece, the motivation would be to reduce parts by combining elements.
Regarding claim 7, Bacchus does not teach one of the posts comprises a pipe for transporting the liquid. Reece teaches one of the posts (elements 6) comprises a pipe for transporting the liquid (per fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Bacchus to have one or more of the posts transports water as claimed similar to Reece, the motivation would be to reduce parts by combining elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument due to the amendment.
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
