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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Applicant has appeared to add element numbers that do NOT direct to the claimed elements: element 25a for the water distribution system appears to be directed to the top of a blank wall (it is noted that fig. 3 appears to be the assembly with the panels on one side removed), 19 for the return pipes also appears to be directed to an outside wall panel (it is noted that fig. 3 appears to be the assembly with the panels on one side removed). Similarly old element 7a which is supposed to be directed to an indirect heat exchange section appears to be directed to an outside wall panel (it is noted that fig. 3 appears to be the assembly with the panels on one side removed). Similarly old element 9a which is supposed to be directed to a direct heat exchange section appears to be directed to an outside wall panel (it is noted that fig. 3 appears to be the assembly with the panels on one side removed).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein a sum of linear lengths of the inlet headers measured along a lateral axis across a respective one of the two concurrent-flow indirect heat exchange sections is greater than a length of each of the plurality of straight tube segments measured along the longitudinal axis thereof” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawing do not clearly show or mark these measurements, in fact it appears that the claimed measurements are opposite to that shown (see the 112b) below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “water basin comprising a central section” of claim 4 (note the flanking sections are shown and identified) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “two recirculation pumps and two pipes” of claim 6 (note a single one of each is shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“water distribution system” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “water distribution”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification found a water distribution system to be "perforated water troughs, an array of perforated water tubes, an array of water tubes fitted with nozzles" and equivalents per paragraph 0013.
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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a sum of linear lengths of the inlet headers measured along a lateral axis across a respective one of the two concurrent-flow indirect heat exchange sections is greater than a length of each of the plurality of straight tube segments measured along the longitudinal axis thereof” This an indefinite statement as one skilled in the art is not fully apprised of what is measured or how for this limitation. It is specifically noted that this limitation appears to reverse the indicated lengths of on the figures. It appears to measure the header length on Fig. 3 (unmarked) instead of fig. 2 (marked), and the tube segment measured along the longitudinal axis would be on fig. 2 (no marked distance on figure 2) instead of the measurement on lateral axis (marked on fig. 3). The claim will be examined as properly reading “wherein a sum of linear lengths of the inlet headers measured along a longitudinal axis across a respective one of the two concurrent-flow indirect heat exchange sections is greater than a length of each of the plurality of straight tube segments measured along the lateral axis thereof”
Claim 1 recites the amended limitation of "the first air flow as the two top first flow enters” in section l. First there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (specially “the first air flow” and “the two top first flow”). Further the combination of terms would be unclear to one skilled in the art what structures or flows are being claimed as it references unclaimed prior structures (as worded). The claim will be examined as best understood to be ” I. wherein each of the tube bundles are oriented in the cooling tower so that said longitudinal axes of the plurality of straight tube segments are perpendicular to the first air flow entering the two top air inlets; and”.
Claim 1 is further indefinite for the limitation of “a length of each of the plurality of straight tube segments measured along the longitudinal axis thereof” when compared to the “a sum of linear lengths of the inlet headers”. As written it is not clear to one skilled in the art if the limitation of “a length of each of the plurality of straight tube segments measured along the longitudinal axis thereof” is sum of all straight tube segments of all the tube bundles, a sum of all straight tube segments of a single tube of a the tube bundle, or if it is only a single (individual) segment of a single tube of the tube bundle. Note that the specification states “the combined length of the inlet headers of a particular indirect heat exchange section across the end face of a unit exceeds the circuit length (parallel to the side face) of the unit” and “the cumulative length of each set of inlet headers 15 and outlet headers 17 is longer the lengths of each tube in the tube coils”, thus the claim is being examined as comparing the header length in the longitudinal length and each individual tube in the lateral axis individually.
Claim 11 is indefinite for the limitation of “a combined length of said inlet headers across a respective one of said first and second indirect heat exchange sections is greater than lengths of said plurality of straight tube segments” as it is unclear if this is required is a specific direction of length or all possible directions.
Further the claim is indefinite as it is unclear for the “lengths of said plurality of straight tube segments” and as written it is not clear to one skilled in the art if the limitation of “a length of each of the plurality of straight tube segments measured along the longitudinal axis thereof” is sum of all straight tube segments of all the tube bundles, a sum of all straight tube segments of a single tube of a the tube bundle, or if it is only a single (individual) segment of a single tube of the tube bundle. Note that the specification states “the combined length of the inlet headers of a particular indirect heat exchange section across the end face of a unit exceeds the circuit length (parallel to the side face) of the unit” and “the cumulative length of each set of inlet headers 15 and outlet headers 17 is longer the lengths of each tube in the tube coils”
Based upon the specification and figures the claim will be read as “a combined length of said inlet headers across a longitudinal length of a respective one of said first and second indirect heat exchange sections is greater than a total length of any of the serpentine tubes individually combined straight tube segments in a longitudinal axis.”
Note that claims 2-10 and 12-15 are rejected for dependence form the rejected claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/4/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the amendments, thus the several of the prior objections and rejections have been withdrawn. Note that some drawing objections have not been addressed, and several new ones have been created. Examiner also notes that while prior 112 rejections have bene overcome by amendment new have resulted from the amendment.
Examiner also notes that no prior art was found to read on the interpreted claims, final allowance will be based on review and consideration of final claim language that overcomes the above 112 rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel Attey whose telephone number is (571) 272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights