DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretations
The recitations of ‘horizontally’ and ‘vertically’ are understood to mean with respect to the installation, the final apparatus on how it is used.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 the phrase “stamped feature” is vague and unclear. However based on paragraph [0024], the stamped feature at least includes means for coupling the tubes through the fins (a hole for example).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lowenstein et al. US Patent 7,269,966.
Regarding claim 1, Lowenstein teaches a heat-mass exchanger comprising (see Figures 1 and 2):
A plurality of regeneration fins 16 extending vertically with respect to the installation (Figures 1 and 2);
A plurality of desiccant feed tubes 26 extending horizontally with respect to the installation (column 8 lines 1-3);
A plurality of regenerator heating tubes 12 extending horizontally with respect to the installation (column 7 lines 37-40);
The plurality of desiccant feed tubes 26 and regenerator heating tubes 12 extend through the fins 16 (column 7 lines 59-67, Figures 1 and 2);
The desiccant feed tubes 26 are positioned above the heating tubes 12 (Figure 1, column 8 lines 1-22); and
The desiccant feed tubes 26 include outlets 27 adapted for delivering liquid desiccant on to the surfaces of the fins 16 (column 8 lines 8-10).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lowenstein teaches a plurality of retention structures 38 (as spray nozzles 38) that extend from the desiccant feed tubes 26 and adapted to create a space for the liquid desiccant distribution and receive the liquid desiccant from the tubes 26 through the openings (spray nozzles 38, Figure 2, column 10 lines 1-6).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lowenstein teaches a wicking material 48 extends to the nozzles 38 designed to carry the liquid desiccant from the distribution reservoir 38 (column 10 lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 7, Lowenstein teaches holes 46 bored through the fins to allow the tubes through (Figure 3). The holes 46 are considered analogous to the claimed stamp feature.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the wicking region 54 extends along the surfaces of the fins (Figure 4, column 10 lines 44-46) and is configured to receive liquid desiccant delivered from the desiccant tubes 26 (column 10 lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 13, the wicking materials include foams, non-woven fabrics, and the like that are meant to wet and transport liquid through the material (column 8 lines 10-15 and column 10 line 27).
Regarding claim 14, the fins 16 are parallel with each other (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, the fins are perpendicular to the desiccant feed tubes 26 and heat exchange tubes 12 (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the fins can be made out of plastic, glass, carbon, ceramic, and cellulose meant to facilitate wetting and allow for liquid to flow uniformly over it (thus hydrophilic, column 9 lines 43-55).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Lowenstein teaches corrugated fins 106 (Figure 10A) and the fins may further include notches 34 (stamped or embossed features) which prevent liquid from dripping off the edge (column 9 lines 30-41, column 12 line 50).
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.
Claims 6, 8-10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenstein et al. US Patent 7,269,966 in view of Allen et al. US 11,022,330.
Regarding claim 6, Lowenstein does not explicitly teach the plurality of retention structures comprise O-rings sandwiched between pairs of the plurality of regeneration fins.
However, Allen teaches a heat exchanger for liquid desiccant conditioning comprising O-rings or gaskets at each of the ports to create a seal between the adjacent panels (column 6 lines 27-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lowenstein’s retention structures by including a gasket or O-ring to provide a seal between the adjacent fins/plates.
Regarding claims 8-10, Lowenstein does not explicitly teach the plurality of regeneration fins comprise collars through which the plurality of desiccant feed tubes extends.
However, Allen teaches a heat exchanger for liquid desiccant conditioning comprising gaskets at each of the ports to create a seal between the adjacent panels (column 6 lines 27-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lowenstein’s retention structures by including a gasket to provide a seal between the adjacent fins/plates. The modification would allow the collars to receive the liquid desiccant from at least one feed tube opening of a corresponding one of the plurality of desiccant feed tubes (claim 9). The modification would further allow one collar opening of each of the collars to feed the liquid desiccant to a corresponding surface of the plurality of regeneration fins (claim 10).
Regarding claim 15, Lowenstein teaches airflow 30 from the side but does not explicitly teach vertical air flow. However, Lowenstein is structured to allow vertical airflow. Allen does teach vertical airflow along their parallel plates (column 7 line 23), thus one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have vertical airflows with vertical parallel plates.
Regarding claim 16, Lowenstein teaches wicking regions on the fins but does not explicitly teach a membrane separating air flow from the fins. However, Allen teaches membranes 414 which can be sealed to the plates and located between the air flow and surface of the plates (column 3 line 3). The membrane permits transfer of water vapor therethrough (column 4 lines 53-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lowenstein with Allen by including membranes on the fins to contain the liquid desiccant and prevent it from being carried into the airflow while still allowing water vapor to pass between the air and desiccant.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenstein et al. US Patent 7,269,966 in view of Bugler US 2018/0003443.
Regarding claim 17, Lowenstein does not explicitly teach an evaporative media below the fins.
However, Bugler teaches heat exchanger apparatus that comprises a wet deck 64C beneath the tubes 24C (Figure 10, [0080]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide evaporative media below Lowenstein’s regeneration fins, as taught by Bugler, in order to increase contact between the draining liquid and airflow, thus providing additional evaporation and heat transfer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights