DETAILED ACTION
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 1-10 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
The recitation “defining a longitudinal plane and a sagittal plane normal to said longitudinal plane, intersecting at a main axis,” does not clearly define what structure or feature is “intersecting at a main axis.” The claim appears to intend that the longitudinal plane and sagittal plane intersect along the main axis, such that the main axis is the line of intersection between the two planes. However, this relationship is not clearly recited.
The phrase “extending corrugated on said longitudinal plane” is unclear because a corrugated panel is a 3-dimensional structure and does not appear to extend on a plane. It is unclear whether the longitudinal plane is intended to define a general extension plane, a reference plane, a central plane or another geometrical feature.
Claim 1 recites “making repeated fins running along said main axis,” but also recites that the fins extend along “corresponding secondary axes transversal to said main axis.” It is unclear whether the fins repeat along the main axis or extend along secondary axes traverse to the main axes. The orientation of the fins relative to the main axis and secondary axes is unclear.
The phrase “in respect of said sagittal plane” in “arranged in two symmetrical rows in respect of sagittal plane” is unclear. It is unclear whether the two rows are arranged on opposite sides of the sagittal plane, intersected by the sagittal plane, or otherwise related to the sagittal plane.
The recitation of the fins that extend along “corresponding secondary axes transversal to said main axis and mutually parallel” is indefinite. It is unclear whether all secondary axes of all fins in both rows are mutually parallel, or whether the secondary axes are mutually parallel only within each row. This is especially unclear in light of the recitation that the fins are arranged in two symmetrical rows with respect to the sagittal plane.
The recitation “each row comprising at least a top crest more spaced from said longitudinal plane than the rest of said fin.” It is unclear if the top crest is a feature of each fin or each row. The claim first attributes the crest to row, but then compares the crest to ‘rest of said fin,’ implying the singular fin.
The phrase “more spaced from” ins unclear because it does not clearly define the reference direction, distance, or proportions of the fin, or part of the fin, being compared.
The phrase “rest of said fin” lacks antecedent basis with “said fin.” It is unclear if the ‘rest of’ is in reference to other fins or a part of the same fin.
The recitation “parallel to said secondary axis” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis with “secondary axes.” It is unclear which secondary axis of the plurality of secondary axes are being referenced. The claim should clarify whether each blade extends parallel to a corresponding secondary axis of the respective fin.
The phrase “configured to increase the surface thermal exchange of said panel” is unclear because the claim does not define what constitutes the “surface thermal exchange,” what baseline is used to determine an increase, or whether any measurable increase is required.
Claim 2
The phrase “opposite to said crest” is unclear which direction the walls are meant to be placed.
The phrase “intersecting at their inflection points, or mutually π/2 out of phase” is unclear whether these are alternative measurements or both are required.
Claim 3
The phrase “slanting in respect of the main axis” is unclear. It appears to mean inclined relative to the main axis.
The term “approximately” does not define a specific tolerance level in the specification. The term will be treated with a 10% deviation as is common in the art.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites first end edges and second central edges arranged in “respect of said sagittal plane.” This phrase is unclear because the claim does not clearly define the relationship of the edges to the sagittal plane.
The recitation of “opposite planes of said panel” is unclear what planes the claim is referencing.
Claim 5
The phrase “at least on a corresponding end” is unclear whether the corresponding end is an end of the fin, crest, panel, or another structure.
Claim 6
The recitation “each boss” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 depends on claim 4 which does not recite a boss. However, a plurality of bosses is recited in claim 5, thus claim 6 should depend on claim 5.
Claim 7
The recitation “said bosses” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 depends on claim 1 which does not recite a boss. However, a plurality of bosses is recited in claim 5, thus claim 7 should depend on claim 5 or 6.
Claim 8
The recitations of “said constraint means,” “the first edge,” “the second edge,” “said first end,” and “said second end” lack antecedent basis. Furthermore, the arrangement of the pins, holes, and constraint directions is unclear.
Claim 9
The recitation “one boss” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 depends on claim 4 which does not recite a boss.
Claim 10
The recitation “”each said longitudinal plane is spaced from said longitudinal plane adjacent to said fins” is unclear. The claim does not clearly identify whether the adjacent longitudinal plane belongs to another panel, or how the longitudinal planes are spaced relative to the fins.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulick et al. US 11,293,705.
Regarding claim 1, Kulick teaches a reticular panel (1) for a cooling tower comprising:
a) a longitudinal plane corresponding to the general plane of the mesh members (the plane of LxH in Figure 1) and a sagittal plane (vertical midplane) normal to the longitudinal plane, intersecting at a main axis (inflection line 18 or Y);
b) A plurality of corrugations extending on the longitudinal plane (Figure 2), making repeated fins (corrugations 10) repeated along said main axis 18, arranged in two symmetrical rows/halves (chevrons forming in Figure 3) with respect to the sagittal plane,
c) The corrugations extend along secondary axes traverse to the main axis (diagonal lines formed at 12 and 14, see Figure 1 where the arrows of 12 and 14 point to the secondary axes) transversal to the main axis 18 and mutually parallel; wherein
d) Each row comprises a top crest, or raised portion of each corrugation including bevel 30, wherein the top crest of each corrugated fin 10 is spaced upward from the longitudinal plane more than the rest of said corrugated fin 10 (forming a hill); and wherein
d) Each of said corrugated 10 comprises at least a blade (support frames 12, 14) extending parallel to said secondary axis and configured to increase the surface of thermal exchange of said panel.
Regarding claim 2, each fin 10 defines at least two reticular walls (plane of 31a and 31b and plane of 16, Figure 3) on sides opposite to said crest (part of bevel 30), each wall being defined by pairs of sinusoidal segments (31a/31b and 16) intersecting at their inflexion points (the part of 26b and/or 26a), and said blade (12, 14) extends on at least a reticular wall of said fin 10 along each of said intersection points of said sinusoidal segments.
Regarding claim 3, the angle of a secondary axis with respect to the axis X is Δ1 (Figure 2). Axis X is perpendicular to the main axis. The angle Δ1 may be from 0-45⁰ (column 4 line 23). The analogous claimed angle of the secondary axis to the main axis is the difference of 90⁰ and Δ1 which is in the range of 45⁰ to 90⁰, thus within the claimed range of π/3 radians (or 60⁰).
Regarding claim 4, Kulick teaches orthogonal side walls of the reticular plane corresponding to the first end edges. The central line at the main axis 18 forms the second central edge. The corrugation fins 10 comprise a raised crest portion a 30 that is spaced farther from the general plane of the panel than the remaining portions of the corrugations (Figure 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kulick teaches bevels 30 and posts 26a extending distally from one of the upper support frames and includes first and second legs and a distal end (column 5 lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 6, Figure 3 teaches the bevels include a hex nut fitting analogous to a ‘flat bearing step protruding from the crest’ and longitudinal plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
184
111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kulick teaches constraint means as connection members 26 comprising mating voids 26b that allow a mutual connection to post 26a of another mesh member wherein the posts 26a and void holes 26b are arranged on row parallel to X, arranged on the rows parallel to Y, and arranged diagonally (Figure 2, column 5 lines 5-25).
Regarding claim 8, the constraint means 26 define at least three directions for each row: parallel to the main axis Y, arranged on the first edges and second edge internally, wherein the constraint means comprise a plurality of holes within void member 26b, and a plurality of pin posts at 26a. Each of the holes 26b and posts 26a are aligned in the constraint direction on the first edge and first end of the mesh and internally at the second edge (the middle of the mesh along Y) and on the second ends (ends of Y)(Figure 2, and column 5 lines 5-25).
Regarding claim 9, each fin 10 comprises a boss at the top of the fin and constraint means at the side of the fin that engage with its fitting member at the top of the fin (column 5 line 10).
Regarding claim 10, the mesh planes can be connected and mutually stacked providing a space between each respective longitudinal plane of each mesh (column 5 lines 60-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights