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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 18, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching and examining the inventions separately would not result in a serious search or examination burden on the examiner. This argument is respectfully not found persuasive.
A careful study of the claimed invention clearly indicates that the claimed inventions are directed to divergent subject matter that require separate searches in different classes and subclasses and different search terms and must be considered a serious burden on the examiner if restriction were not required. See MPEP § 808.02. For example, the distinctness between the claimed inventions was justified in that products can have a materially different design and the species were shown to include mutually exclusive features as noted in the requirement for restriction mailed February 12, 2026.
Further the search for the apparatus claims of Group II would involve a search in classes/subclasses where the other claimed embodiments can be found, for example in: F24F2003/1452, 3/147, 3/153 resulting in a search through another 11,000 documents.
It is additionally pointed out that, the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. This examination burden is applicable in the instant application. For example, the prior art references applied in the below rejections to the elected invention would not apply as appropriate grounds of rejection for independent claim 7 of Group II since none of the prior art shows a heat exchanger downstream of the desorber in the regeneration airstream. There is no mention in claim 8 of any desiccant system such that searches that included those elements and systems that didn’t require them would be required if both inventions were examined concurrently. Additional prior art would need to be found for each respective set of claims and embodiments resulting in multiple rejections for a single claim in order to encompass the subject matter of each invention.
In view of the two disclosed distinct inventions and four distinct embodiments presented, there is an examination and search burden for the non-elected patentably distinct invention s and embodiments. In this case, the restriction requirement is proper and prudent in order to conduct a more efficient and quality examination of the elected invention. Under the circumstances, a serious search burden does exist. In view of the claims presented, the restriction requirement between the related products of claims 1-7 and claims 8-20 under MPEP § 806.05(e) is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4-7 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 4 recites the limitation "the return air" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “…configured between the supply air stream and a return air stream, and/or between the supply airstream and regeneration airstream.”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the predefined values" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the return airstream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“…to supply the airstream having a return airstream from the AOI.”
Claims 5 and 7 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107763762 to Zhang et al., hereinafter referred to as Zhang, (see English language translation provided herewith), in view of US2014/0202190 to Matsui et al., hereinafter referred to as Matsui.
In reference to claim 1, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Zhang discloses a rooftop air conditioning unit (see figure 1) comprising:
an absorber (7, considered an absorber since the solution absorbs water in the air to dehumidify it) configured in a supply airstream (in duct 1);
a desorber (10, considered a desorber since water is desorbed from the solution into the airflow) configured in a regeneration airstream (duct 2), wherein the desorber (10) is fluidically connected to the absorber (7) via a liquid desiccant system (solution system via 11);
a first heat exchanger (2) configured upstream of the absorber (7) in the supply airstream (duct 1);
a second heat exchanger (5) configured upstream of the desorber (10) in the regeneration airstream (duct 2).
Zhang fails to disclose a third heat exchanger configured downstream of the absorber in the supply airstream, wherein the first heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger are fluidically connected to the second heat exchanger via a vapor compression system.
Matsui teaches that in the related art of dehumidification systems, that it is a known method to provide a vapor compression system (70, see figure 3) including a first heat exchanger (61) upstream of an absorber/dehumidifier (24) and the third heat exchanger (64) downstream of the absorber/dehumidifier (24) are fluidically connected to a second heat exchanger (65) upstream of desorber/humidifier (22) via a vapor compression system (70). Matsui teaches that this allows a condenser of a refrigeration circuit to act as a reheat heat exchanger to reheat the air supplied to the space (S). This is strong evidence that modifying Zhang as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., allow reheating of the dehumidified air by a condenser of the same refrigeration system). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Zhang by Matsui such that a third heat exchanger was configured downstream of the absorber in the supply airstream, wherein the first heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger are fluidically connected to the second heat exchanger via a vapor compression system, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of reheating of the dehumidified air by a condenser of the same refrigeration system.
In reference to claim 2, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Matsui teaches the unit is configured to operate the third heat exchanger (64) with the a condenser to adjust temperature and humidity of the supply airstream (40-43), downstream of the absorber (24), at predefined values. Accordingly, when modifying Zhang by Matsui as applied in claim 1 supra, the limitations of claim 2 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 3, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Zhang discloses the supply airstream (in duct 1) is to be cooled (at evaporator 2) to provide the airstream of the predefined values downstream of the absorber (7), the first heat exchanger (2) is operated as the evaporator, and the second heat exchanger (5) is operated as the condenser to reject heat of the supply airstream into the regeneration airstream.
In reference to claim 4, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Zhang fails to disclose the RTU comprises one or more passive heat transfer systems fluidically configured between the supply air stream and the return air stream, and/or between the supply airstream and the regeneration airstream.
Matsui teaches that in the art of dehumidification systems, that it is a known method to include one or more passive heat transfer systems (32) fluidically configured between a supply air stream (40-43) and a regeneration airstream (50-54). Matsui teaches that this passive heat transfer system provides additional dehumidification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Zhang by Matsui such that, the RTU comprises one or more passive heat transfer systems fluidically configured between the supply air stream and the return air stream, and/or between the supply airstream and the regeneration airstream, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of increased dehumidification.
In reference to claim 5, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Matsui discloses the one or more passive heat transfer systems (32) comprises enthalpy wheels (as illustrated in figure 1-2). Accordingly, when modifying Zhang by Matsui as applied in claim 4 supra, the limitations of claim 5 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 6, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Zhang teaches the RTU is adapted to be configured at an area of interest (building) to supply the airstream having the predefined values of the temperature and humidity at the AOI, but fails to disclose further receiving a return airstream from the AOI.
Matsui teaches that in the art of dehumidification systems, that it is a known method to provide a return airstream (58) from an AOI (S). Matsui teaches that this return air passage can utilize the heat from the space (S) to introduce into the preheat heat exchanger (64) [0040]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Zhang by Matsui such that the system included a return airstream from the AOI, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of utilize the waste heat from space (S).
In reference to claim 7, Zhang as modified by Matsui discloses the claimed invention.
Zhang is silent regarding a controller that is configured to: receive a set of instructions pertaining to the predefined values of the airstream to be supplied at the AOI; and control operation of one or more of the heat exchangers associated with the system to supply the airstream having the predefined values of the temperature and humidity to the AOI.
Matsui teaches that in the art of dehumidification systems that it is a known method to provide the system with a controller which is configured to: receive a set of instructions pertaining to the predefined values of the airstream to be supplied at the AOI (via sensors [0106-0107]); and control operation of one or more of the heat exchangers associated with the system to supply the airstream having the predefined values of the temperature and humidity to the AOI [0136]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Zhang by Matsui such that, a controller that is configured to: receive a set of instructions pertaining to the predefined values of the airstream to be supplied at the AOI; and control operation of one or more of the heat exchangers associated with the system to supply the airstream having the predefined values of the temperature and humidity to the AOI, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing the temperature and humidity of the conditioned space to be controlled to a desirable temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights