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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: The word "that" is unnecessary and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 2, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2024/0417666 A1) in view of Kawahara (US 4,667,522).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a climate chamber (Sato 1) comprising:
An outer casing (Sato 12);
An inner casing (Sato 11) disposed within the outer casing (see Sato figure 1);
A vapor inlet (Sato 18b) penetrating a rear wall of the outer casing (see Sato figure 1); and
An inner casing rear wall formed by duct (Sato 22) disposed in front of the outer casing rear wall (see Sato figure 1).
Sato is silent regarding a flow barrier disposed in front of the vapor inlet.
However, Kawahara teaches a climate chamber (Kawahara 2) comprising a vapor inlet (Kawahara 10) positioned in a rear wall of the climate chamber (see Kawahara figure 1) with a flow barrier (Kawahara 50) positioned in front of the vapor inlet to prevent entrained water entering (Sato col 2 ln 40-46). Examiner notes that Kawahara uses the term steam instead of vapor however, steam is water vapor and therefore Kawahara’s steam inlet is a vapor inlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sato’s climate chamber to incorporate Kawahara’s teachings of a flow barrier positioned directly in front of the vapor inlet (Examiner notes the flow barrier will be positioned in the region between the outer casing and inner casing rear wall when combined) to produce a predictable result of preventing water entrained in the vapor from entering the climate chamber and causing formation of undesired condensation within the chamber.
Regarding claim 2, the flow barrier (Kawahara 50) is a plate with a thickness (see Kawahara figure 1) and is therefore cuboidal.
Regarding claim 4, Sato and Kawahara as applied to claim 1 teach the climate chamber further comprises at least one ventilator (Sato 23) for drawing in air from an interior volume (Sato 20) of the climate chamber (See Sato figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sato and Kawahara as applied to claim 1 further teach the flow barrier (Kawahara 50) will deflect the flow of vapor upwards and sideways towards heaters (Kawahara 28 and 30) further vaporizing any remaining droplets in the vapor flow (Kawahara col 2 ln 52-62) and therefore will function as a vaporizer plate. Examiner notes that Sato also teaches a plurality of heaters (Sato 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34) arranged along the walls of the chamber (see Sato figure 1).
Sato and Kawahara are silent regarding a vaporizer plate disposed in a region between a rear wall of the inner casing and a rear wall of the outer casing as a separate component from the flow barrier.
However, a court has held that making components separable is considered obvious if there is any reason to separate the components. See MPEP §2144.04 V C
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the portion of the plate that functions as a flow barrier at the vapor inlet will receive a direct flow of vapor with entrained water causing increased wear when compared to the other portions of the plate that functions as a vaporizer plate to direct the flow of vapor towards heater to ensure complete vaporization of any entrained water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the plate that functions as both a flow barrier and a vaporizer plate to be two separable plates to allow the two plates subjected to different levels of wear to be removed for replacement/maintenance separately to reduce maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 6, Sato and Kawahara as applied to claim 5 teach the climate chamber comprises at least one ventilator (Sato 23) positioned to draw in air at the top of the climate chamber (see Sato figure 1), wherein the vaporizer plate (Kawahara 50, portion above vapor inlet Kawahara 10), is disposed underneath the at least one ventilator (Kawahara teaches a flowpath above the plate and therefore when applied to Sato’s chamber will be beneath the ventilator located at a flowpath at the top of the chamber) in a region between the rear wall of the inner casing (Sato 22) and a rear wall of the outer casing (Kawahara teaches the plate immediately adjacent the vapor inlet and therefore when applied to Sato’s chamber it will be behind the rear wall of the inner casing), wherein the air drawn in the by the at least one ventilator is guided between the rear wall of the inner casing and the vaporizer plate as well as between the vaporizer plate and the rear wall of the outer casing (due to the vaporizer plate’s positioning between the rear wall of the inner casing and the rear wall of the outer casing the claimed airflow path’s around the vaporizer plate will occur).
Regarding claim 7, Sato and Kawahara as applied to claim 5 teach the vaporizer plate (portions of Kawahara 50 not adjacent to the vapor inlet) and the flow barrier (portions of Kawahara 50 directly in front of the vapor inlet) are parts of a single plate made separable (see rejection of claim 5) and therefore will be directly adjoined to one another.
Regarding claim 8, Sato and Kawahara as applied to claim 5 teach the vaporizer plate (portions of Kawahara 50 not adjacent to the vapor inlet) and the flow barrier (portions of Kawahara 50 directly in front of the vapor inlet) are parts of a single plate made separable (see rejection of claim 5) and therefore will be aligned with each other.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2024/0417666 A1) in view of Pieczarek et al. (DE 10 2013 013 665 B4).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a climate chamber (Sato 1) comprising:
An outer casing (Sato 12);
An inner casing (Sato 11) disposed within the outer casing (see Sato figure 1);
A vapor inlet (Sato 18b) penetrating a rear wall of the outer casing (see Sato figure 1); and
An inner casing rear wall formed by duct (Sato 22) disposed in front of the outer casing rear wall (see Sato figure 1).
Sato is silent regarding a flow barrier disposed in front of the vapor inlet.
However, Pieczarek teaches a climate chamber (Pieczarek 1) comprising an outer casing (Pieczarek 11), an inner casing (Pieczarek 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34) wherein water vapor is supplied by water reservoir (Pieczarek 5) with a heater (Pieczarek 51) to evaporate water into an airflow, and a plurality of flow barriers in the form of filters (Pieczarek 60, 61, and 62) positioned at various points along the flow path of the airflow between the inner casing and outer casing (see Pieczarek figure 2). Examiner notes that Merriam Webster dictionary defines a barrier as “something material that blocks or is intended to block passage” and a filter as “a porous article or mass (as of paper or sand) through which a gas or liquid is passed to separate out matter in suspension”. Therefore, Examiner is interpreting a filter as a barrier since it will block passage of undesired contaminants in the airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sato’s climate chamber to incorporate Pieczarek’s teachings of a flow barrier between the inner casing and outer casing in the form of a filter. Examiner notes the claim recites the flow barrier being in front of the inlet but does not require the barrier be directly adjacent the vapor inlet.
Regarding claim 3, Sato and Pieczarek as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the flow barrier being positioned at the bottom of the outer casing with a height corresponding to the distance between a bottom of the outer casing and bottom of the inner casing.
However, Pieczarek teaches a plurality of positions (Pieczarek 60, 61, and 62) for filters positioned between the inner and outer walls of the casing, including a filter (Pieczarek 62) whose height corresponds to the distance between the inner and outer walls (see Pieczarek figure 2).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood a filter within the flow path can provide filtration to remove contaminants, and that there is only a limited number of possible locations to locate a filter within the flow path and would have a reasonable expectation of success at adding a filter located at the bottom of the outer casing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try modify Sato’s climate chamber by positioning a filter in between the bottom of the outer casing and the bottom of the inner casing near the outlet of Sato’s flow path to filter the airflow given the understood advantages of filtering the airflow to remove contaminants and the limited number of possible filter locations within the flow path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights