DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7 Jul. 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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 "said second edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “said second central edge”.
Claims 2-8 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said blade". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "their". There is unclear what the antecedent for this limitation is.
Claim 4 recites “said blade extends on at least a reticular wall of said fin” where it is unclear if the at least a reticular wall is the same or different than the previously recited “at least a reticular wall”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said first angle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said adjacent panels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said constraint means". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second central edge”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said edges". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said holes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said pins". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “one of said bosses at each constraint means” where it is unclear if the each constraint means is the same or different than the claim 6 recited “constraint means”.
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)(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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulick et al. WO 2020/106919 (hereafter Kulick).
Regarding claim 1, Kulick teaches a reticular panel (10) for a cooling tower (¶2-4), defining:
a longitudinal plane (plane of paper in Fig 1) and a sagittal plane (plane alone 18 extending out of the paper in Fig 1) normal to said longitudinal plane, intersecting at a main axis (18);
first end edges (20, 22) extending parallel to said main axis on opposite sides of said panel in respect of said sagittal plane;
second central edges (edges along 18) extending parallel to said main axis, adjacent to said sagittal plane at the opposite sides of said panel in respect of said sagittal plane;
said panel extending corrugated on said longitudinal plane (as shown in Fig 3), making repeated fins (12) along said main axis, arranged in two symmetrical rows in respect of said sagittal plane, and extending along corresponding secondary axes, transversal to said main axis and mutually parallel, each comprising at least a top crest (upper portion of 12) more spaced from said longitudinal plane than the rest of said fin, and each defining a first end (end near 30 in Fig 3) at said first edge and a second end (end opposite first end not shown in Fig 3) at said second edge;
wherein each of said fins comprises a plurality of bosses (30, 30a, 26a), each boss protruding transversally to said longitudinal plane starting from said crest and/or said longitudinal plane at least on a corresponding end.
Regarding claim 2, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kulick further teaches wherein each of said bosses is defined by a flat bearing step (30) protruding from said crest and/or from said longitudinal plane.
Regarding claim 3, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kulick further teaches wherein each of said fins comprises at least a blade (as labeled below) extending parallel to said secondary axis and configured to increase the surface of thermal exchange of said panel.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blade)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kulick further teaches wherein each fin defines at least to reticular walls (as shown in Fig 2 where the fins have tow rectangular walls which meet at the crest) on sides opposite to said crest, each wall being defined by pairs of sinusoidal segments intersecting at their inflection points, or mutually π/2 out-of-phase, and said blade extends on at least a reticular wall of said fin along each of said intersection points of said sinusoidal segments.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kulick further teaches constraint means (means comprising 26a) configures to allow a mutual connection of said adjacent panels, and comprising a plurality of holes (26b) arranged between said fins at the longitudinal plane on each row and a plurality of pins (26a) arranged at said bosses on each row.
Regarding claim 7, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Kulick further teaches wherein said constraint means define for each row at least three constraint directions (where the pin/hole constraint would constrain at all directions parallel to the longitudinal plane) parallel to the main axis, placed at the first edge, at the second edge and between edges, respectively, and each row comprises a plurality of said holes (26b) aligned along said constraint directions at side longitudinal plane, a plurality of pins (26a) aligned along said constraint directions at said first edge on said first end and between said edges, and a plurality of said holes or of said pins along said constraint direction at said second edge on said second end (as shown in Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Kulick further teaches wherein each of said fins comprises one of said bosses at each constraint means.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulick.
Regarding claim 5, Kulick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kulick further teaches wherein said first angle (α) is approximately π/6 to π/3 (¶24).
MPEP 2144.05 II A states that where the prior art and claimed ranges overlap, a prima facie case exists to choose the overlapping portion of the ranges.
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 first angle of Kulick (¶24) to be is approximately π/3 as a matter of obvious choosing overlapping portions of the ranges.
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
Prosecution Insights