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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-7 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 claim 4, the recitation “the water buffer” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 is rejected for its dependency.
Regarding claims 5-7, the limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. 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.
NOTE: Examiner suggests “control unit” be amended to “controller” to preclude this interpretation and rejection
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS6331271U, hereinafter FOR1, in view of Larinoff (US4296802A).
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches a water cooling system (see Fig. 1) comprising: a compressed gas cooler (air cooler 2) configured to cool compressed gas compressed by a compressor that takes in a gas being processed; a wet-type water cooler (cooling tower 1) into which condensed water generated in the compressed gas cooler is introduced as makeup water (via drain pipe 13); a cooling water pump (pump 8) configured to send cooling water discharged from the wet-type water cooler to a cold end of the compressed gas cooler to cool the compressed gas by means of the cooling water; a first condensed water line pipe (drain pipe 13) configured to send condensed water discharged from the compressed gas cooler; and a first flow rate regulating valve (see valve 9) provided in the first condensed water line pipe that is configured to regulate a flow rate of the condensed water.
FOR1 does not teach a dry-type water cooler configured to cool the cooling water discharged from a warm end of the compressed gas cooler.
Larinoff teaches (see Fig. 1) a dry-type water cooler (dry cooling tower 12) configured to cool the cooling water discharged from a warm end of the compressed gas cooler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified FOR1 to include the dry cooler of Larinoff, in order to conserve water by using the dry cooler when ambient conditions permit (Col. 1, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 2, FOR1 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, and FOR1 as modified further teaches a cooling water line pipe configured to send the cooling water discharged from the wet-type water cooler (see line with pump) to the cold end of the compressed air cooler (2), wherein the cooling water line pipe is further configured to send the cooling water from the warm end of the compressed air cooler to the dry-type water cooler (as modified above), and wherein the cooling water line pipe is further configured to send the discharged cooling water to the wet-type water cooler (1).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS6331271U, hereinafter FOR1, in view of Larinoff (US4296802A) and Li (CN211261216U).
Regarding claims 3-6, FOR1 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and FOR1 does not teach a water buffer for storing the condensed water, a second condensed water line pipe configured to send condensed water from the water buffer to the wet-type water cooler; and a second flow rate regulating valve provided in the second condensed water line pipe that is configured to regulate the flow rate of the condensed water; a first control unit configured to control the first flow rate regulating valve to control the amount of condensed water supplied, a first control unit that controls the second flow rate regulating valve to control the amount of condensed water supplied.
Li teaches (see Fig. 1) a water buffer (water storage tank 2) for storing the condensed water (via condensed water collector 1), a second condensed water line pipe (line with valve 10) configured to send condensed water from the water buffer to the wet-type water cooler (cooling tower 6); and a second flow rate regulating valve (valve 10) provided in the second condensed water line pipe that is configured to regulate the flow rate of the condensed water; a first control unit (controller - Page 3) configured to control the first flow rate regulating valve (9) to control the amount of condensed water supplied, a first control unit (controller - Page 3) that controls the second flow rate regulating valve (10) to control the amount of condensed water supplied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified FOR1 to include the buffer tank, valve and controls of Li, in order to provide means to store the water for additional uses, such as irrigation and the like (Page 4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS6331271U, hereinafter FOR1, in view of Larinoff (US4296802A) and Furlong (US20160348979A1).
Regarding claim 7, FOR1 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and FOR1 does not teach a second control unit configured to control an operation rate of the dry-type water cooler in accordance with an increase or decrease in the cost of electric power.
Furlong teaches a second control unit (50 Fig. 1) configured to control an operation rate of the dry-type water cooler (dry cooler 142) in accordance with an increase or decrease in the cost of electric power (see Fig. 10 & ¶[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified FOR1 to include the controls of Furlong, in order to reduce operating costs (¶[0079]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS6331271U, hereinafter FOR1, in view of Larinoff (US4296802A) and Klein (US6912859B2).
Regarding claim 8, FOR1 teaches the water cooling system according to claim 1 for a compressor, however, does not explicitly teach the water cooling system is provided to an air separation device.
Klein teaches wherein such a main compressor and cooling tower system (Fig. 1-2, with main air compressor cooler, condensate water collector, cooling tower) is provided to an air separation device (air separation plant – Col. 1, lines 35-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified FOR1 to provide such a water cooling system to an air separation device, in order to improve efficiency and reduce cost to an air separation plant (Col. 11, lines 0-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights