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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, and new claims 21-33 in the reply filed on April 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 8-20 were cancelled by applicant at the time of filing of the election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology, i.e., “comprises” on lines 2 and 5 of the abstract, should be avoided in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) paragraph [0082], “form” should be replaced by --from—before “overflowing”; and 2) paragraph [0109], line 9, reference numeral “769” should apparently be replaced by --759--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 7, and 27-33 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 is an apparatus claim that only recites process parameters or the inner workings of a computer processor to facilitate control of the device. As such, the claim fails to further limit the apparatus structurally and therefore should be amended to further structurally limit the apparatus. It should be noted that the use of the term “system” in preamble of the claim is not considered to provide such structural definition, since the term is considered to be equivalent to apparatus or device for examination purposes.
Claim 6, similar to claim 4, also only recites process parameters or the inner workings of a computer processor to facilitate control of the device, and therefore should be amended for the same reasons as set forth relative to claim 4 above.
In claim 27, line 12, recites, “a second sensor designed to sense a second fluid quality”, but fails to provide any nexus to the remainder of the claimed apparatus structure. As such, it is unclear as to what fluid, in what portion of the apparatus, applicant is planning to sense the unknown quality. It is noted that the first sensor within the claim also senses an unknown quality, making it difficult for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of patent protection desired by applicant.
Lastly, the final passage of claim 27 speaks of a control system that is designed to adjust one or more unknown operational parameters of the claimed system based upon to unknown fluid qualities, making it virtually impossible for one having ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use an invention of a known scope or purpose.
Claims 29 and 33, similar to claims 4 and 6 above, also only recite process parameters or the inner workings of a computer processor to facilitate control of the device, and therefore should be amended for the same reasons as set forth relative to claim 4 above.
Claim 33 also relies upon the unknown second fluid quality sensed by the second sensor of claim 27, and therefore, claim 33 suffers from the same lack of scope definition as discussed relative to claim 27 above.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al 2010/0162737 A1 (Hall et al ‘737 hereafter), taken together with Derham et al.
Hall et al ‘737 (Abstract; Figs. 1-3; paragraphs [0022]-[0025], [0027], [0032]-[0036], [0042]-[0047], [0050]; claim 9) disclose an adiabatic heat transfer system comprising an adiabatic cooler (100) having at least one media pad (135,140) and a downstream heat exchanger (125,130), a fluid distribution system (148,150) to wet the media pad, a fluid collection system (155,160,165) including a basin (165) for the cooling water from the media pad, a recirculation conduit (146,149) in fluid communication with the basin and the fluid distribution system, and a control system to adjust the monitored level of water within the basin by activating a valve controlling the supply of make-up water from a source to the system. The system includes a first valve (173) to control the flow of make-up water through the make-up water conduit (claims 2 and 3), a second valve (147) to control the flow of cooling water to the fluid distribution system, and a valve (175) that can serve to bleed cooling water from the basin, or drain cooling water completely from the basin (claim 3). With regard to claims 5-7, Hall et al ‘737 disclose means for determining the temperature (environmental condition) of ambient air (see paragraphs [0042]-[0043]) to thus determine and operate the device by the controller thereof in either a wet or dry condition of the adiabatic media pad, the computer of the control system being able to easily determine the rate of evaporation of the water from the media pad, based upon the sensed ambient air conditions, to thereby determine the amount of make-up needed to be supplied to the system to maintain consistent operation of the device. Hall et al ‘737 fails to disclose a sensor for sensing the temperature of the water of the media pad.
Derham et al (Abstract; The Figure; col. 2, line 64 through col. 3, line 20; col. 3, lines 50-54) disclose a cooling tower having a control system for controlling recirculation of cooling water from the sump to the cooling tower media, and control of the addition of make-up water to the system by providing the controller (30) with sensed conditions of the cooling water from the contact media within the tower, including sensing the temperature of the cooling water (at 36), and other cooling water conditions, such as total dissolved solids (TDS) and pH (at 34 and 32, respectively). With regard to instant claims 1-3, and 5-7, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide Hall et al ‘737 with a temperature sensor for sensing the water temperature at the media pad thereof, in view of Derham et al, since such would provide a better indication of the amount of water vaporized into the ambient air stream than the liquid level monitoring of the sump alone. With regard to instant claim 4, it would have been entirely obvious to utilize any commercially available computer and software, available at the time of the filing of the application, to operate the adiabatic heat transfer apparatus, as taught by Hall et al ‘737, given the well known data collection and processing means as suggested by Derham et al.
With regard to newly added claims 21-33, such are essentially of equivalent scope to the inventions as set forth by instant claims 1-7, and therefore would have been obvious for the same reasons as set forth above in view of Hall et al ‘737, taken together with Derham et al. Regarding the first and second sensors of claims 21-33, designed to sense the first and second fluid qualities, such as pH, TDS, and water temperature, clearly, as discussed above, Derham et al establishes the well known nature of utilizing various sensed fluid qualities to facilitate the conventional control of fluid flow to, from and through the heat exchange system. Lastly, as stated above, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to utilize a conventional processor and known software to provide for any of the claimed process operations, as set forth in the instant apparatus claims, based upon the sensed process parameters of the adiabatic heat transfer system, as suggested by Hall et al ‘737, taken together with Derham et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/8-23-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights