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
Claims 4-8 and 12-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-8 and 12-16 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-3 and 9-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a water re-distribution system configured for mounting in an adiabatic pre-cooled dry cooler between upper and lower adiabatic pads” (emphasis added) (lines 1-2) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a pre-cooled dry cooler is configured to be a dry cooler when the dry cooler is provided with a water re-distribution system. For examination purposes, and as best understood by applicant’s disclosure, it is assumed that there is “a pre-cooled dry cooler and an adiabatic cooler, where the water re-distribution system is mounted between upper and lower adiabatic pads of the adiabatic cooler”.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “and configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions” (line 4) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what previously recited claim element is “configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions”.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “and configured to drop water onto a first of the plurality of water deflection baffles” (lines 2-3) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what previously recited claim element is “configured to drop water onto a first of the plurality of water deflection baffles”.
Regarding claim 9, the recitations “a dry adiabatic cooler” (claim 9, line 1) and “a water distribution system” (claim 9, line 14) render the claim indefinite. Since it is understood from applicant’s specification that an adiabatic cooler relies on evaporative cooling effect of water it is unclear how an adiabatic cooler is configured to be dry.
Further regarding claim 9, the recitation “and configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions” (lines 20-21) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what previously recited claim element is “configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions”.
Claims 3, 10, and 11 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiaradia et al. (WO 2020/074587 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chiaradia et al. discloses a water re-distribution system (Figure 5: Including at least distributor 4a), comprising:
A pre-cooled dry cooler (1) and an adiabatic cooler (2),
Where the water re-distribution system is mounted between upper (3b) and lower (3a) adiabatic pads of the adiabatic cooler (Figure 5),
Where the water re-distribution system comprising a plurality of water deflection baffles (Figures 3a-4c: See elements defining passages 13) alternatively arranged in a water re-distribution frame (Figures 3a-4c: Defined by at least elements 10c, 12) and configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions (Paragraph 6 of the attached translation: The water re-distribution system deflects falling water in that the water re-distribution system is configured to evenly distribute water to the adiabatic pads).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiaradia et al. (WO 2020/074587 A1), and further in view of Wong (US 2016/0054039).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chiaradia et al. discloses a water re-distribution system as discussed above. However, Chiaradia et al. does not teach or disclose upper or lower water collection trays.
Wong (Figure 24, see also Figure 6) teaches a water re-distribution system (Figure 24: Encompassed by at least 71’), comprising at least: an adiabatic cooler (63, 73), where the water re-distribution system is mounted between upper (i.e. 63) and lower (i.e. 73) adiabatic pads of the adiabatic cooler (Figure 24), where the water re-distribution system comprising a plurality of water deflection baffles (defined by at least 711, 7130, 7140, 7150) alternatively arranged in a water re-distribution frame (defined by at least 714, 715) (Figure 24: The water deflection baffles are alternately arranged along a horizontal axis) and configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions (Figure 24: See flow path lines), where (claim 2) an upper water collection tray is located above the plurality of water deflection baffles (Annotated Figure 24), the upper water collection tray is configured to drop water onto a first of the plurality of water deflection baffles (Annotated Figure 24), and where (claim 3) a bottom water collection tray (12) is located below a lowest water deflection baffle (Annotated Figure 24). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the baffles as disclosed by Chiaradia et al. in the form of baffles in combination with water collection trays as taught by Wong to improve adiabatic cooler heat transfer efficiency and reduce cooling water requirements by more uniformly distributing the cooling water between upper and lower adiabatic pads (Paragraph 2 of Wong).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiaradia et al. (WO 2020/074587 A1) and Benz et al. (US 2011/0100593), and further in view of Wong (US 2016/0054039).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Chiaradia et al. discloses a water re-distribution system as discussed above. However, Chiaradia et al. does not teach or disclose upper or lower water collection trays.
Wong (Figure 24, see also Figure 6) teaches a water re-distribution system (Figure 24: Encompassed by at least 71’), comprising at least: an adiabatic cooler (63, 73), where the water re-distribution system is mounted between upper (i.e. 63) and lower (i.e. 73) adiabatic pads of the adiabatic cooler (Figure 24), where the water re-distribution system comprising a plurality of water deflection baffles (defined by at least 711, 7130, 7140, 7150) alternatively arranged in a water re-distribution frame (defined by at least 714, 715) (Figure 24: The water deflection baffles are alternately arranged along a horizontal axis) and configured to deflect falling water in alternating directions (Figure 24: See flow path lines), where (claim 10) an upper water collection tray located between the upper adiabatic pads and a topmost of the plurality of water deflection baffles (Annotated Figure 24), and where (claim 11) a bottom water collection tray (12) is located below a lowest water deflection baffle (Annotated Figure 24). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the baffles as disclosed by Chiaradia et al. in the form of baffles in combination with water collection trays as taught by Wong to improve adiabatic cooler heat transfer efficiency and reduce cooling water requirements by more uniformly distributing the cooling water between upper and lower adiabatic pads (Paragraph 2 of Wong).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2014/0144171 discloses an adiabatic cooling system with distributor.
US 2013/0276476 discloses a cooling system.
US 2010/0162737 discloses a cooling system.
US 4,312,819 discloses baffles for a cooling system.
US 2012/0211198 discloses a cooling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON N THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 8:30 am -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, 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.
/JASON N THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763