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 .
Preliminary Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 7/30/2024. Accordingly, Claims 1-2 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not describe steps drawn to a method of manufacturing in light of “a design and manufacturing method thereof.” 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 and 2 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 Claims 1 and 2, The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The recitations “…which is aimed at a technical prejudice of an industry that refuses to use water working medium that vaporizes too slowly to replace a refrigerant used by existing electric air conditioners, which consumes a lot of energy and pollutes the environment with many disadvantages” and “to improve the water vapor gradient of the interface, further promoting the rapid vaporization of the droplets to meet the needs of absorbing enough heat to achieve the effect of a cold electric air conditioner” are examples of narrative language in claim 1. The recitations “wherein the technical feature thereof is to…” and “…, that is, on the opposite tray for stable rotation” are examples of narrative language in claim 2.
Also, for example, there appears to be no antecedent bases for certain limitations in the claims, such as: claim 1, lines 9-10 “…the countless micro—vortex cyclones…”, and claim 2, lines 21-27 “…the water pipe is connected to the water volume regulator defined by the water vapor saturation sensor at the outlet of the air duct to connect to the water supply source; piezoelectric ceramics driven by a switching power supply that generate ultrasonic waves are provided in the extended space of the vaporization chamber, the air outlet, and the air duct.…”
Some examples of unclearly worded limitations in the claims are: claim 1, lines 8-9 “…convert these water working mediums into ultra fine-droplets”, claim 2, lines 2-5 “…while the lower tray is fixed on the reverse driving shaft, and the driven shaft rotates in the reverse direction…”
The above is an indicative, but not necessarily an exhaustive, list of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, problems. Applicant is therefore advised to carefully review all of the claims for additional problems. Correction is required of all of the 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph problems, whether or not these were particularly pointed out above.
Regarding Claims 1, the recitation of “A design and manufacturing method…” renders the claim indefinite.
In particular, attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process raises an issue of indefiniteness because it merely recites a use without active, positive steps delimiting how this use is practiced.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation “room temperature” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “room temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, where room temperature is defined as “far below the boiling point of water working medium”, Applicant Specification, p.2, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the temperature of the water flow, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 1, the term “countless” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “countless” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the number of micro-vortex cyclones, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 1, the term “large area” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the area of the splash surfaces, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 1, the term “sufficient amount” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the amount of splash of room-temperature water flow, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 1, the term “large number” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The terms “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the number of splash wings, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “greatly reduce” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “greatly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the reduction of water vapor saturation, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, the term “high-speed” or “high speed” are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite.
The terms “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the speed of vaporization and the speed of rotating splash wings, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 2, the term “certain curved surface shape” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the curved surface shape, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation “the center of the upper tray is provided with a vaporization chamber cover; the driving shaft passes through the large circular hole in the center” lack antecedent basis.
One skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - a center of the upper tray is provided with a vaporization chamber cover; the driving shaft passes through a large circular hole in the center - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation “fixed on corresponding upper and lower trays; the two trays are respectively pulled by two driving shafts…” lacks antecedent basis.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - fixed on a corresponding upper tray and a corresponding lower tray; the two trays are respectively pulled by two driving shafts - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 2, The recitation of “the two trays are respectively pulled by two driving shafts which are coaxially sleeved together and rotate in opposite directions …; one bottom end of the cylindrical splash wing grid is fixed on a tray connected to the driving shaft, …; splashing spokes are fixed on the outermost driving shaft, and a center of the upper tray is provided with a vaporization chamber cover; the driving shaft passes through a large circular hole in the center and is fastened to the center of several compressed air blades arranged below the circular hole of the vaporization chamber cover; the compressed air blades connected to the upper tray drive the upper tray and the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the upper tray to rotate at high speed, while the lower tray is fixed on the reverse driving shaft, and the driven shaft rotates in the reverse direction and drives the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the lower tray to rotate at high speed..” renders the claims unclear.
In particular, it is unclear to which driving shaft of the two driving shafts the one bottom end of the cylindrical splash wing grid is connected. Further, the splashing spokes are fixed on the outermost driving shaft however it is unclear which of the driving shafts is outermost. It is further unclear which driving shaft of the two driving shafts passes through the center of the upper tray. The recitation “while the lower tray is fixed on the reverse driving shaft, and the driven shaft rotates in the reverse direction and drives the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the lower tray to rotate at high speed” is unclear which of the two driving shafts is considered the reverse driving shaft and the driven shaft.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted generically as - - the two trays rotate in opposite directions at high speed to drive the two groups of cylindrical splash wing grids to rotate in opposite directions; one bottom end of the cylindrical splash wing grid is fixed on a tray connected to a driving shaft, and the other suspended edge end is supported by a ceramic bearing or a pulley stuck on the track groove of another set of corresponding cylindrical splash wing grid bottom ends, that is, on the opposite tray for stable rotation; splashing spokes are fixed on an outermost driving shaft, and a center of the upper tray is provided with a vaporization chamber cover; a driving shaft passes through a large circular hole in the center and is fastened to the center of several compressed air blades arranged below the circular hole of the vaporization chamber cover; the compressed air blades connected to the upper tray drive the upper tray and the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the upper tray to rotate at high speed, while the lower tray is fixed on a reverse driving shaft, and a driven shaft rotates in the reverse direction and drives the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the lower tray to rotate at high speed; - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation “and the water pipe is connected to the water volume regulator defined by the water vapor saturation sensor at the outlet of the air duct to connect to the water supply source; and piezoelectric ceramics driven by a switching power supply that generate ultrasonic waves are provided in the extended space of the vaporization chamber, the air outlet, and the air duct” lacks antecedent basis.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend the claims to recite - - and the water pipe is connected to a water volume regulator defined by a water vapor saturation sensor at an outlet of an air duct to connect to a water supply source; and piezoelectric ceramics driven by a switching power supply that generate ultrasonic waves are provided in an extended space of the vaporization chamber, the air outlet, and the air duct- - for clarity.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazem et al. (US20110309160A1) in view of Martínez (Martínez, P., et al., Experimental study of an ultrasonic mist generator as an evaporative cooler, Nov 2020, Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol. 181, [retrieved on 7 Jan 2026]. Retrieved from Internet <DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116057:>) and Acosta (Acosta, W., Experimental Study of the Spray Characteristics of a Research Airblast Atomizer, March 1984, [retrieved on 7 Jan 2026], Retrieved from Internet < https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19850007418 >.)
Regarding Claim 1, Kazem, in light of indefiniteness, teaches a design and manufacturing method of a refrigerating appliance for high-speed vaporization [rotary atomizer or mister for evaporative cooling; 0001] of a water working medium [where water is supplied via water pump 23 and tube 24, 0031]; a technical feature adopted is to use a large number of splash wings rotating [vanes 9 and 10 of rotating body, Figure 3; 0024; and vanes 15 and 16 of stationary body, Figure 4; 0025] at high speed to form two groups of large-area splash surfaces [where water droplets 20 are impinged by vanes and flatten on vanes 9 and the high-speed droplets strike and impinge on atomizing vanes 15; 0026], so as to continuously and repeatedly splash a sufficient amount of room-temperature water flow [water droplets 20 continue successive impingement and droplets that strike the case wall 28 drain back to be atomized again;0026;0032; where evaporative cooler uses fresh air flow 29 and 31, Figure 9;0011], and forcibly convert these water working mediums [where water is supplied via water pump 23 and tube 24; 0031] into ultra-fine droplets with the largest total surface area [where the water droplets propagate radially outward increasing the number and density of small droplets leading to mist generation;0026;0027].
Kazem does not teach the splash wings rotate in opposite directions such that countless micro-vortex cyclones are generated by the reversal of the splash wings.
However, Acosta teaches an atomizer [Abstract] where the splash wings [two concentric vaned swirlers, Figure 3, p.10; Abstract ] rotate in opposite directions [where the vaned swirlers swirl the air in opposite directions; Abstract] such that countless micro-vortex cyclones [swirled air; Abstract] are generated by the reversal of the splash wings [where each vaned-air swirler swirls the air in opposite directions to create a zone of high shearing action; p.2, Fuel Injector Modules] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, counter rotation, to a known device that was ready for improvement, stationary and rotating splash wings, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving atomization with higher shear forces in the air between splash wings [p.2, Fuel Injector Modules].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the splash wings rotate in opposite directions such that countless micro-vortex cyclones are generated by the reversal of the splash wings in view of the teachings of Acosta where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving atomization with higher shear forces in the air between splash wings [p.2, Fuel Injector Modules].
Kazem does not teach use of an ultrasonic sound field to greatly reduce the water vapor saturation.
However Martínez teaches an ultrasonic mist generator [Abstract] where an ultrasonic sound field [where ultrasonic mist generator is composed of an ultrasonic transducer capable of high frequency electronic signals; p. 3, left col., para 4] is used to greatly reduce the water vapor saturation [where results of a preliminary test show temperature drop and increase of specific humidity of the air, implying reduction in water saturation in the atomization chamber, Figure 3; p 8, right col., para. 4], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improve system efficiency increasing water mist evaporation area [Martínez, p.2, para. 2-4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to use of an ultrasonic sound field to greatly reduce the water vapor saturation in view of the teachings of Martínez where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improve system efficiency by increasing water mist evaporation area [Martínez, p.2, para. 2-4].
Further Regarding Claim 1, the claim language ““which is aimed at a technical prejudice of an industry that refuses to use water working medium that vaporizes too slowly to replace a refrigerant used by existing electric air conditioners, which consumes a lot of energy and pollutes the environment with many disadvantages” and “…that destroys the liquid-gas interface to improve the water vapor gradient of the interface, further promoting the rapid vaporization of the droplets to meet the needs of absorbing enough heat to achieve the effect of a cold electric air conditioner” do not require the prior art to perform an additional method step nor does it require additional structure beyond claim 1. Therefore, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed.
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kazem et al. (US20110309160A1) in view of Acosta (Acosta, W., Experimental Study of the Spray Characteristics of a Research Airblast Atomizer, March 1984, [retrieved on 7 Jan 2026], Retrieved from Internet < https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19850007418 >.), where the combined teachings do not teach the two groups of cylindrical splash wing grids rotate in opposite directions; the two trays are respectively pulled by two driving shafts which are coaxially sleeved together and rotate in opposite directions, and the two trays rotate in opposite directions at high speed to drive the two groups of cylindrical splash wing grids to rotate in opposite directions and the lower tray is fixed on a reverse driving shaft, and a driven shaft rotates in the reverse direction and drives the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the lower tray to rotate at high speed, the compressed air blades connected to the upper tray drive the upper tray and the cylindrical splashing wing grid on the upper tray to rotate at high speed. Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763