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 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.
(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(s) 1-3, 6, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 20130276476).
Per claim 1, Wong teaches a water re-distribution system configured for mounting in an adiabatic pre-cooled cooler between an upper adiabatic pad (2451A) and a lower adiabatic pad (2651A), the water distribution system comprising: a water re-distribution frame (246A, 221A, 231A); a plurality of water deflection baffles (229A, 230A) alternatively arranged in the water distribution frame (246A, 221A, 231A), the plurality of water deflection baffles positioned at an angle with respect to a vertical surface of the frame (see 16).
Per claim 2, Wong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Wong teaches an upper drain pan (211A) located above the plurality of water deflection baffles (229A, 230A) and configured to drop water onto a first baffle (229A) of the plurality of water deflection baffles (229A, 230A).
Per claim 3, Wong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Wong teaches a distribution trough (22B) located below the plurality of water deflection baffles (229A, 230A).
Per claim 6, Wong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Wong teaches wherein the water re-distribution system comprises no sealants (no sealants are disclosed by Wong, thus the system comprises not sealants).
Per claim 8, Wong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Wong teaches wherein water is not able to fall from a height that exceeds 5 inches in the water re-distribution system (when the water is flowing down the baffle water is not falling, thus the water is not falling from a height that exceeds 5 inches).
Per claim 20, Wong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Wong teaches wherein the plurality of water deflection baffles (229A, 230A) include downwardly turned flanges (left flanges of 229A and 230A shown in figure 18A) attached to ends of the plurality of water deflection baffles, the downwardly turned flanges configured to inhibit splashing of water deflected via the plurality of water deflection baffles (the flanges allow water to flow downward thus inhibiting water from splashing upwards).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 20130276476).
Per claim 7, Wong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Wong teaches wherein a first water deflection baffle (229A) of water deflection baffles is arranged at a first angel from the vertical surface of the frame (see figure 18A) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the angle is 35° to 75° degrees.
However, one skilled in the art would know that as the angle is adjusted the flow rate of the water will be adjusted. Therefore the angle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the angle is adjusted the flow rate of water is adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the angle of the first water deflection baffle was disclosed in the prior art by Wong, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the angle by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the angle disclosed by Wong being 35° to 75°.
Per claim 17, Wong teaches a water re-distribution system for an adiabatic cooler, the water re-distribution system comprising: a frame (structure supporting elements shown in figures 15-18) having a left vertical component (left frame of 15A) extending is a vertical direction and a right vertical component (right frame of 15A) extending in the vertical direction (see figure 15A); an upper drain pan (211A) connected to the frame; a first angled baffle (229A) connected to the frame and angled with respect to the vertical direction (see figure 18A), the first angled baffle having a first downward turned flange (left flange of 229A as shown in figure 18A); a second angled baffle 230A) connected to the frame and angled with respect to the vertical direction, the second angled baffle having a second downwardly turned flange (left flange of 230A as shown in figure 18A); and a lower drain pan (drain pan shown at bottom of see figure 16) connected to the frame (all elements of an assembly are considered to “connected” to one another either directly or indirectly); wherein fluid is configured to flow from the upper drain pan (211A), to the first angled baffle (229A), to the second angle baffle (230A), and to the lower drain pan (see figure 16) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second angled baffles are angled at 35° to 75° degrees.
However, one skilled in the art would know that as the angle is adjusted the flow rate of the water will be adjusted. Therefore the angle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the angle is adjusted the flow rate of water is adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the angle of the first and second angled baffles were disclosed in the prior art by Wong, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the angle by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the angles disclosed by Wong being 35° to 75°.
Per claim 18, Wong, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 17. Further, Wong, as modified, teaches the first and second angled baffles being angled at 35° to 75° but fails to explicitly teach a third angled baffle connected to the frame and angled between 30° to 75° with respect to the vertical direction.
However, per MPEP 2144, section VI, paragraph B, a “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a third angled baffle connected to the frame and angled between 30° to 75° with respect to the vertical direction in order to advantageously increasing the capacity of the cooling system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are allowed.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights