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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 08/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending with claims 2-12 newly added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,195 in view of Hwang et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0182790).
Regarding claims 1-4, the claims recite the same limitations as claims 1-4 of US 12,151,195 except for said water condensing surface being roughened or patterned.
Hwang teaches it is known for a superhydrophobic coating on a water condensing surface to be roughened or patterned (superhydrophobic surface 100 having complex structure 20 and polymer layer 13) that includes air between the microstructures and between the nano-fiber structures to minimize contact area with water so that the superhydrophobic surface is not infiltrated by water drops (paragraphs 36-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the superhydrophobic coating of the water condensing surface to be roughened or patterned in order to minimize contact area with water to improve the hydrophobic properties of the water condensing surface.
Regarding claims 6-11, the claims recite the same limitations as claims 6-9, 11-12 of US 12,151,195 except for the evaporator comprising a tube carrying a refrigerant fluid and having a superhydrophobic coating, a superhydrophilic coating, or a combination thereof and including a roughened or patterned surface for claim 6 and said evaporator includes a first plurality of fins and having a superhydrophobic coating, a superhydrophilic coating, or a combination thereof and including a roughened or patterned surface for claim 7.
Hwang teaches it is known for a superhydrophobic coating on a evaporator tube (40, Fig. 12) carrying a refrigerant fluid having a superhydrophobic coating to have a roughened or patterned surface (superhydrophobic surface 100 having complex structure 20 and polymer layer 13) and said evaporator includes a first plurality of fins (54, Fig. 14) and having a superhydrophobic coating, a superhydrophilic coating, or a combination thereof and including a roughened or patterned surface (superhydrophobic surface 100 having complex structure 20 and polymer layer 13) that includes air between the microstructures and between the nano-fiber structures to minimize contact area with water so that the superhydrophobic surface is not infiltrated by water drops (paragraphs 36-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the evaporator comprising a tube carrying a refrigerant fluid and having a superhydrophobic coating including a roughened or patterned surface said evaporator includes a first plurality of fins and having a superhydrophobic coating, a superhydrophilic coating, or a combination thereof and including a roughened or patterned surface in order to minimize contact area with water to improve the hydrophobic properties of the water condensing surface.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the claims recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 6 of US 12,151,195 except for said superhydrophobic coating comprises a superhydrophobic surface having a contact angle greater than 150 degrees, said superhydrophilic coating comprises a superhydrophilic surface having a contact angle less than 10 degrees, or a combination thereof.
Hwang further teaches the concept of a superhydrophobic surface having a contact angle greater than 150 degrees (paragraph 57) that are known contact angles for superhydrophobic surfaces that minimizes the contact area with water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the superhydrophobic surface to have a contact angle greater than 150 degrees taught by Davidovits in order to minimize the contact area of water and allow the water to form droplets or spheres and repel from the water condensing surface.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (US Pat. 9,234,706) in view of Hwang et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0182790).
Regarding claim 1, Hamada discloses an apparatus, which comprises: a compressor (1, Fig. 1); a fluid cooling device (refrigerant is cooled via vapor compression system 1, 3, 4, 5), wherein said fluid cooling device comprises a vapor compression refrigerator (vapor compression refrigerator made up of components shown in Figure 1); means to enhance water capture from ambient air on a water condensing surface (fin of heat exchangers having hydrophobic coating to enhance water drainage which results in enhanced water capture from ambient air; column 2, lines 15-19; column 2, lines 49-63), said water condensing surface thermally connected to said fluid cooling device (fins connected to heat exchange tubes 9 of fluid cooling device), said water condensing surface includes a plurality of protruding fin-like surfaces (8) protruding from a first tube (first tube 9 of first exchanger 5); said water condensing surface comprising a hydrophobic coating on the water condensing surface (column 2, lines 15-19); a second plurality of fins extending from a second tube in fluid communication with said compressor (fins of second heat exchanger 3 which can also operate as the cooled evaporator depending on position of four-way valve 2, Figs. 1, 4); and an air fan (6, 7) configured to induce airflow across said water condensing surface.
Hamada does not explicitly teach said water condensing surface comprising a superhydrophobic coating on the water condensing surface, a superhydrophilic coating on the water condensing surface, or a combination thereof, said water condensing surface being roughened or patterned.
Hwang teaches the concept of a water condensing surface (40, Figs. 11-12; 54, Figs. 13-14) comprising a superhydrophobic coating (12, 20) on the water condensing surface (100), said water condensing surface being roughened or patterned (superhydrophobic surface 100 having complex structure 20 and polymer layer 13) that allows the heat exchanger to have a super-hydrophobic surface to allow water drops to agglomerate intactly and enhance capture and drainage of the water from the heat exchanger (paragraphs 71, 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hamada to have said water condensing surface comprising a superhydrophobic coating on the water condensing surface, said water condensing surface being roughened or patterned taught by Hwang in order to further enhance the capture, collection and drainage of water formed on the water condensing surface of the heat exchanger in order to reduce defrost cycles and shorten drainage times. It is noted the recitation of “or” only requires one of a superhydrophobic, superhydrophilic, or combination to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1 wherein said water condensing surface includes at least one plate (plate of fins 8).
Regarding claim 3, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1 wherein said air fan (6, 7) is configured to induce airflow across said second plurality of fins (fins of exchanger 3 or 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1 wherein cold refrigerant fluid is moved from said vapor compression refrigerator (Figs. 1, 4) past said water condensing surface (surface of fins 8), through said compressor (1), through said second tube (tube of exchanger 3, 5), and back to said vapor compression refrigerator (Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 5, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and Hwang further teaches wherein said superhydrophobic coating comprises a superhydrophobic surface having a contact angle greater than 150 degrees (paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 6, Hamada discloses an apparatus comprising: a compressor (1, Figs. 1, 4) in fluid communication with an evaporator (3 or 5 depending on position of valve 2, Figs. 1, 4), the evaporator comprising a tube carrying a refrigerant fluid; a vapor compression refrigerator (Figs. 1, 4) in fluid communication with the tube carrying refrigerant, the vapor compression refrigerator further in fluid communication with a condenser (3 or 5 depending on position of valve 2, Figs. 1, 4); and an air fan (6, 7) configured to induce airflow across said evaporator.
Hamada does not explicitly teach the tube of the evaporator having a superhydrophobic coating, a superhydrophilic coating, or a combination thereof and including a roughened or patterned surface.
Hwang teaches the concept of an evaporator comprising a tube (40, Figs. 11-12) having comprising a superhydrophobic coating (100), said water condensing surface being roughened or patterned (superhydrophobic surface 100 having complex structure 20 and polymer layer 13) that allows the heat exchanger to have a super-hydrophobic surface to allow water drops to agglomerate intactly and enhance capture and drainage of the water from the heat exchanger (paragraphs 71, 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Hamada to have the tube of the evaporator having a superhydrophobic coating and including a roughened or patterned surface taught by Hwang in order to further enhance the capture, collection and drainage of water formed on the water condensing surface of the heat exchanger in order to reduce defrost cycles and shorten drainage times. It is noted the recitation of “or” only requires one of a superhydrophobic, superhydrophilic, or combination to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 6 and said air condenser includes a second plurality of fins (fins of exchanger 3 or 5) and Hwang further teaches wherein said evaporator (210, Fig. 13) includes a first plurality of fins (54) and having a superhydrophobic coating (100, Fig. 14), a superhydrophilic coating, or a combination thereof and including a roughened or patterned surface (superhydrophobic surface 100 having complex structure 20 and polymer layer 13).
Regarding claim 8, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 6 wherein said air fan (6, 7; Figs. 1, 4) is configured to induce airflow across said condenser (3, 5; Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 9, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 6 wherein cold refrigerant fluid is moved from said vapor compression refrigerator (Fig. 1) past said evaporator (5), said compressor (1), through said condenser (3), and back to said vapor compression refrigerator (4, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 6 wherein the vapor compression refrigerator includes a throttle (4).
Regarding claim 11, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 6 wherein the compressor (1), condenser (3), vapor compression refrigerator (4), and evaporator (5) operate in a continuous vapor compression refrigeration loop (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, Hamada as modified discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 6 and Hwang further teaches wherein said superhydrophobic coating comprises a superhydrophobic surface having a contact angle greater than 150 degrees (paragraphs 44, 57), said superhydrophilic coating comprises a superhydrophilic surface having a contact angle less than 10 degrees, or a combination thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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 (571) 270-5054. 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.
/JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights