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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 09/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 09/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 9, 10, 22, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 6, the recited limitation “each of the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a lower portion of the storage tank” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Examiner interprets “each of the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a lower portion of the storage tank” as “each of the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a bottom portion of the storage tank” as the specification discloses a system in which the plurality of diffusion openings may flow the second fluid into a bottom portion of the storage tank ([0022]) but does not disclose a system in which the plurality of diffusion openings may flow the second fluid into a lower portion of the storage tank.
As to claim 9, the recited limitation “the first fluid is received from an upper portion of the storage tank” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Examiner interprets “the first fluid is received from an upper portion of the storage tank” as “the first fluid is received from a top portion of the storage tank” as the specification discloses a system in which the first fluid is received from a top portion of the storage tank ([0006]) but does not disclose a system in which the first fluid is received from an upper portion of the storage tank.
As to claim 10, the recited limitation “the second fluid is provided from the second end of the outer tube to a lower portion of the storage tank” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Examiner interprets “the second fluid is provided from the second end of the outer tube to a lower portion of the storage tank” as “the second fluid is provided from the second end of the outer tube to a lower portion of the storage tank” as the specification discloses a system in which the second fluid is provided from the second end of the outer tube to a bottom portion of the storage tank ([0022]) but does not disclose a system in which the second fluid is provided from the second end of the outer tube to a lower portion of the storage tank.
As to claim 22, the recited limitation “the plurality of baffles are configured to divert the flow of the second fluid transversely within the outer tube” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Examiner interprets “the plurality of baffles are configured to divert the flow of the second fluid transversely within the outer tube” as “the plurality of baffles are configured to divert the flow of the first fluid transversely within the outer tube” as the specification discloses a system in which the flow of the first fluid is diverted by the plurality of baffles ([0022]) but does not disclose a system in which the flow of both the first and second fluids are diverted by the plurality of baffles.
As to claim 23, the recited limitation “the diffusion chamber is defined at least in part by a tubesheet” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Examiner interprets “the diffusion chamber is defined at least in part by a tubesheet” as “the entrance chamber is defined at least in part by a tubesheet” the specification discloses the entrance chamber is defined at least in part by a tubesheet but does not disclose that the diffusion chamber is defined in part by a tubesheet.
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 15 and 16 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.
The term “low concentration liquid desiccant” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low concentration” 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. The desiccant concentration has been rendered indefinite as "low concentration" does not indicate a specific concentration that can be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner interprets “low concentration liquid desiccant” to be “liquid desiccant” as “low concentration” is indefinite.
The term “high concentration liquid desiccant” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high concentration” 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. The desiccant concentration has been rendered indefinite as "high concentration" does not indicate a specific concentration that can be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Examiner interprets “high concentration liquid desiccant” to be “liquid desiccant” as “high concentration” is indefinite.
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)(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, 7, 15, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon (KR 2022/0040572).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a stratification tank system, comprising:
an outer tube (110, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0050]);
a plurality of baffles (133 and 134, Fig. 3, [0114], [0123]) within the outer tube (110) configured to divert a flow of a first fluid (L, Fig. 5, [0146]) from side-to-side through the outer tube (Fig. 5); and
a plurality of inner tubes (151, Fig. 5, [0154]) within the outer tube (110) that extend through the plurality of baffles ([0142]),
wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid (C) from a first end (111, Fig. 5) of the outer tube to a second end (113, Fig. 5) of the outer tube (Fig. 5) and into a diffusion chamber (125, Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of diffusion openings (125a and 132d, Fig. 5),
wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank (The examiner is taking the position that the second fluid flows outside of (125a) to another area, which is considered to be a storage tank).
Regarding claim 2, Jeon teaches the plurality of diffusion openings comprise at least eight diffusion openings (Fig. 3, there are more than 8 of openings 132d).
Regarding claim 3, Jeon teaches the plurality of diffusion openings comprise twelve diffusion openings (Fig. 3, there are more than 12 of openings 132d).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon teaches the outer tube is configured to receive the first fluid through an opening (111a, Fig. 5, [0054]) at the second end (111, Fig. 5, [0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Jeon teaches the first fluid is liquid desiccant ([0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon teaches the flow of the first fluid through the outer tube causes heat to be transferred from the second fluid to the first fluid ([0163]).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon teaches a surface area of each of the plurality of baffles comprises at least 50% of a cross-sectional area of an interior of the outer tube (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Jeon teaches the plurality of baffles are located between a first opening (123a, Fig. 5) at the first end (123a, Fig. 5) of the outer tube and a second opening (125a, Fig. 5) at the second end (125a, Fig. 5) of the outer tube.
Regarding claim 21, Jeon teaches each of the plurality of inner tubes pass through corresponding openings of the plurality of baffles ([0120], [0121], [0129], [0130]).
Regarding claim 22, Jeon teaches the plurality of baffles are configured to divert the flow of the first fluid transversely within the outer tube (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Jeon teaches the entrance chamber is defined at least in part by a tube sheet (131b, [0099]).
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salvagno (US 5715696).
Regarding claim 1, Salvagno teaches a stratification tank system, comprising:
an outer tube (25, Fig. 1, page 2, paragraph 9);
a plurality of baffles (35, Fig. 1, page 2, paragraph 9) within the outer tube configured to divert a flow of a first fluid (Fig. 1, gas having reduced humidity exiting from evaporator 11 via openings 23 and 24, passing through sections defined by baffles 35 and exiting 36; page 3, paragraph 1, “dried air stream from the evaporator 11” ; in light of the specification disclosing the first fluid and the second fluid to be the same desiccant but with different concentrations, the claimed first fluid and second fluid are broadly interpreted to be the same fluid with different concentrations, which can be air having different humidity as different concentrations of water) from side-to-side through the outer tube (Fig. 1, page 2, paragraph 9, “baffles 35 are provided by which the air stream is forced on a snake-like path”); and
a plurality of inner tubes (30, Fig. 1) within the outer tube that extend through the plurality of baffles (Fig. 1),
wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid (humid air entering gas/gas heat exchanger 15, Fig. 1, page 2, paragraph 9, “arrangement including an evaporator 11 connected to a conventional cooling plant 10 and mounted to a subsequent gas/gas heat exchanger 15” and “gaseous medium is formed by an air stream which contains a high humidity content of water vapor before entering the arrangement”; in light of the specification disclosing the first fluid and the second fluid to be the same desiccant but with different concentrations, the claimed first fluid and second fluid are broadly interpreted to be the same fluid with different concentrations, which can be air having different humidity as different concentrations of water) from a first end of the outer tube (32, Fig. 1) to a second end (33, Fig. 1) of the outer tube and into a diffusion chamber (chamber between 33 and 26) comprising a plurality of diffusion openings (openings in 33 where pipes pass through 33, Fig. 1, page 2, paragraph 9, “ends of the pipe assembly 29 is provided with plates 32 and 33 which close off both end areas of the tank 25”), wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank (11, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Salvagno teaches each of the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a bottom portion of the storage tank (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Salvagno teaches the first fluid is received from the storage tank (first fluid flows from 11 to 23 and 24 into 15, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Salvagno teaches the first fluid is received from a top portion of the storage tank (first fluid flows from 11 to 23 and 24 into 15, Fig. 1, left direction is broadly interpreted to be the top direction as the device would still function in this orientation).
Regarding claim 10, Salvagno teaches the second fluid is provided from the second end of the outer tube to a lower portion of the storage tank (second fluid coming out of inner tubes (30) at the second end (33) is provided to the storage tank (11) at cover 13 at the bottom end after flowing through longitudinal ribs 18 , Fig. 1, right direction is broadly interpreted to be the bottom direction as the device would still function in this orientation).
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lizhi (CN 101975421).
Regarding claim 1, Lizhi teaches a stratification tank system, comprising:
an outer tube (43, Fig. 8);
a plurality of baffles (47, Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 2) within the outer tube (43) configured to divert a flow of a first fluid (page 8, paragraph 3, “air”) from side-to-side through the outer tube (page 8, paragraph 2, “the air flows meanderingly under the action of the baffle”); and
a plurality of inner tubes (46, Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 1) within the outer tube (43) that extend through the plurality of baffles (Fig. 8),
wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid (page 8, paragraph 3, “dehumidification solution”) from a first end (41, Fig. 8) of the outer tube to a second end (45, Fig. 8) of the outer tube (Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 3, “dehumidification solution goes through the tube side”) and into a diffusion chamber (chamber between 44 and 45, Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of diffusion openings (page 8, paragraph 1, 45 and the hole “formed in the head 44”),
wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank (12, Fig. 3; the outer tube being the humidifier 17 flows into 12, which could be considered a storage tank).
Regarding claim 13, Lizhi teaches a top chamber (41, Fig. 8; 20, Fig. 3, “LiCl solution enters the dehumidifier 17 through the liquid inlet 20”) configured to receive the second fluid from a regenerator and feed the second fluid to the plurality of inner tubes (Fig. 3, page 6, paragraph 6, “LiCl solution coming out of the liquid outlet 2 of the regenerator 3 is pre-cooled by the partition wall heat exchanger 12 and then enters the heat pump evaporator 11 to be cooled to a required temperature to realize the regeneration of the LiCl solution”).
Regarding claim 16, Lizhi teaches the second fluid is liquid desiccant (Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 2, “the humidification solution goes through the tube side”).
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koump (US 4279293).
Regarding claim 1, Koump teaches a stratification tank system, comprising:
an outer tube (14, Fig. 1, Description paragraph 1);
a plurality of baffles (46, Description paragraph 3) within the outer tube (Fig. 1) configured to divert a flow of a first fluid from side-to-side through the outer tube (Fig. 1); and
a plurality of inner tubes (28, Fig. 1, Description paragraph 2) within the outer tube that extend through the plurality of baffles (Fig. 1),
wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid from a first end (24, Fig. 1, Description paragraph 2) of the outer tube to a second end (22, Fig. 1, Description paragraph 2) of the outer tube and into a diffusion chamber (39, Fig. 1, Description paragraph 3) comprising a plurality of diffusion openings (40 and openings which 28 passes through 22, Fig. 1, Description paragraph 2),
wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank (The examiner is taking the position that the second fluid flows outside of (40, with openings in 22 flowing into 40) to another area, which is considered to be a storage tank).
Regarding claim 14, Koump teaches the flow of the first fluid is counterflow a flow of the second fluid (Fig. 1, Description paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 17, Koump teaches the plurality of inner tubes are comprised of one or more metals (Description paragraph 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR 2022/0040572).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon does not teach each of the plurality of diffusion openings have an area of at least 0.04 inches squared.
However, adjusting the diffusion opening area such that the plurality of diffusion openings have an area of at least 0.04 inches squared would have involved a mere change in the size of a device which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the device will still function properly with the size modification.
Therefore, adjusting the diffusion opening area such that the plurality of diffusion openings have an area of at least 0.04 inches squared is a matter of design choice in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that such a modification is significant. (See re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955))
Regarding claim 5, Jeon teaches each of the plurality of diffusion openings are spaced at least 1 inch from each other
However, Jeon teaches the openings are spaced apart (Fig. 3). Adjusting the spacing between diffusion openings such that the plurality of diffusion openings of the heat exchanger are spaced at least 1 inch from each other would have involved a mere change in the proportion of a device which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the device will still function properly with the proportion modification.
Therefore, adjusting the spacing between diffusion openings such that the plurality of diffusion openings of the heat exchanger are spaced at least 1 inch from each other is a matter of design choice in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that such a modification is significant. (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandermeulen (US 2019/154280) and further in view of Jeon (KR 2022/0040572).
Regarding claim 1, Vandermeulen teaches a tank system ([0086]).
Vandermeulen does not teach a stratification tank system, comprising: an outer tube; a plurality of baffles within the outer tube configured to divert a flow of a first fluid from side-to-side through the outer tube; and a plurality of inner tubes within the outer tube that extend through the plurality of baffles, wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid from a first end of the outer tube to a second end of the outer tube and into a diffusion chamber comprising a plurality of diffusion openings, wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank.
However, Jeon teaches a stratification tank system, comprising:
an outer tube (110, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0050]);
a plurality of baffles (133 and 134, Fig. 3, [0114], [0123]) within the outer tube (110) configured to divert a flow of a first fluid (L, Fig. 5, [0146]) from side-to-side through the outer tube (Fig. 5); and
a plurality of inner tubes (151, Fig. 5, [0154]) within the outer tube (110) that extend through the plurality of baffles ([0142]),
wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid (C) from a first end (111, Fig. 5) of the outer tube to a second end (113, Fig. 5) of the outer tube (Fig. 5) and into a diffusion chamber (125, Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of diffusion openings (125a and 132d, Fig. 5),
wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank (The examiner is taking the position that the second fluid flows outside of (125a) to another area, which is considered to be a storage tank).
Jeon teaches the effects of the invention are that the desiccant can effectively remove the moisture contained in the humid air ([0036]) and that the liquid desiccant can be effectively cooled ([0038]). Jeon also teaches the temperature of the dehumidifying liquid rises due to the absorbed heat generated during the dehumidification process, and the dehumidifying ability decreases ([0006]). Therefore, effectively cooling the desiccant is advantageous as maintaining the temperature of the liquid desiccant below a certain temperature also maintains continuous dehumidification capability ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank system of Vandermeulen to use the stratification tank system (Jeon: “membrane dehumidifying module 100”) as the conditioner (Vandermeulen: 703) in order to effectively remove the moisture contained in the humid air (Jeon: [0036]) (Vandermeulen: 724) and to effectively cool the liquid desiccant (Jeon: [0038]) to maintain continuous dehumidification capability (Jeon: [0007]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Vandermeulen teaches the outer tube is configured to feed the first fluid out through an opening (Jeon: 113a, Fig. 5) at the first end (Jeon: 113, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Vandermeulen teaches the first fluid is fed to a regenerator (Vandermeulen: [0086]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Vandermeulen teaches the outer tube is configured to provide the first fluid to a regenerator (Vandermeulen: [0086]).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizhi (CN 101975421) and further in view of Vandermeulen (US 2019/154280).
Regarding claim 25, Lizhi teaches a stratification tank system, comprising:
a heat exchanger (Fig. 8, page 7, paragraph 6), the heat exchanger comprising:
an outer tube (43, Fig. 8) configured to receive a first fluid from a top portion of the storage tank (Example 9, page 9, the same structure in Fig. 8 can be used as a humidifier 17, and in page 2, paragraph 4, a dehumidification solution storage tank is connected to the liquid inlet of the dehumidifier; additionally, the tube can be configured to receive from any portion of a storage tank);
a plurality of baffles (47, Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 2) within the outer tube configured to divert a flow of the first fluid (page 8, paragraph 3, “air”) side-to-side through the outer tube (page 8, paragraph 2, “the air flows meanderingly under the action of the baffle”); and
a plurality of inner tubes (46, Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 1) within the outer tube that extend through the plurality of baffles (Fig. 8),
wherein each of the plurality of inner tubes is configured to flow a second fluid (page 8, paragraph 3, “dehumidification solution”) from a first end (left 44, Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 2, “heads 44 to block the left and right ends of the housing”) of the outer tube to a second end (right 44, Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 2, “heads 44 to block the left and right ends of the housing”) of the outer tube (Fig. 8, page 8, paragraph 3, “dehumidification solution goes through the tube side”) and into a diffusion chamber (chamber between 44 and 45, Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of diffusion openings (page 8, paragraph 1, 45 and the hole “formed in the head 44”),
wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a storage tank (12, Fig. 3; the outer tube being the humidifier 17 flows into 12, which could be considered a storage tank).
wherein the plurality of diffusion openings are configured to flow the second fluid into a bottom portion of the storage tank (12, Fig. 3; the outer tube being the humidifier 17 flows into partition wall heat exchanger 12 (page 6, paragraph 6), which could be considered a storage tank, the outlet of 12 could be considered the bottom portion as 12 would still function when the outlet is positioned at the bottom).
Lizhi does not teach the heat exchanger is positioned within a storage tank.
However, Vandermeulen teaches a heat exchanger positioned within a storage tank to simplify maintenance and prevent small leaks from impacting system integrity or performance ([0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger of Lizhi to add a storage tank and position the heat exchanger within the storage tank to simplify maintenance and prevent small leaks from impacting system integrity or performance (Vandermeulen: [0109])
Regarding claim 26, modified Lizhi teaches the heat exchanger is configured to receive the second fluid from a regenerator (Fig. 4, page 6, paragraph 6, the dehumidifying solution LiCl enters the heat exchanger 12, the regenerator 3, and follows the regeneration cycle; the regenerated and concentrated LiCl solution then enters the storage tank 13 and back to the dehumidifier 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights