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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-9, 12-13, 16, 18, and 20-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/10/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/24, 6/3/25, and 12/9/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner does note that NPL item 2 of the 3/25/24 WARSINGER is marked as not considered. The supplied document that best appears to be the cited document does not seem to match the IDS details. While the author and title are the same, the page number and size of the document do not match what was supplied making it unclear if this is the actual document intended for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bacchus et al. (U.S. Patent 4,440,000).
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).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacchus et al. (U.S. Patent 4,440,000) as applied to claim 2 above, 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 application.
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) as applied to claim 2 above, 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights