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 Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: For continuity of the claims, “two first embossed portion” should read, “two of the plurality of first embossed portions”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the facing partition plates”, in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a plurality of partition plates repeatedly arranged at intervals in a width direction of the external bar frame and separating a dry channel and a wet channel, wherein each of the plurality of partition plates faces another of the plurality of partition plates; and
embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates.”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the external body" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the outer body”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the embossed portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the embossed portions”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the embossed portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the embossed portions”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the partition plate" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the partitionplates”.
Claim 6 requires a first external bar frame and a second external bar frame alternately arranged to form an outer body having a pentagonal shape in which both sides of a triangle are formed at a bottom. This phrase is confusing since a pentagon does not ordinarily have “both sides of a triangle” at its bottom, and it is unclear which two sides are meant or how they relate to the rest of the pentagon.
Claim 6 requires a first air inlet formed in a first side among both sides of the first external bar frame. The creates confusion since there has been no previous recitation of any side of the first external bar frame. There is a recitation of “both sides of a triangle” so it is unclear if this requires the air inlet formed in one side of the triangle? Or if it can be on any side of the freme.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a first external bar frame and a second external bar frame alternately arranged to form an outer body having a pentagonal shape in which two sides of a triangle are formed at a bottom. . . a first blower supplying first air to a first air inlet formed in at one of the two sides of the triangle, and causing the heat-exchanged first air to be discharged through a first air outlet formed in a first sidewall”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the embossed portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the embossed portions”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the partition plate" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the partitionplates”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “protruding upwardly from both ends of an upper portion of the outer body”. However, no ends of an upper portion of the other body have been defined. Thus it is unclear if “both ends” are referring to the two longitudinal ends of the outer body, two ends of the guide portion, or something else. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “protruding upwardly from two ends of an upper portion of the outer body”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the external bar frame" in line 2. It is unclear if this external bar frame is referring to the first or second external bar frame of claim 6 . For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the partitionplates”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation, a water spraying device spraying water to be injected into the wet channel through the second air inlet. However, the claim previously requires, a second blower causing second air to be introduced into the dry channel through a second air inlet. In combination this claim requires the second blower to introduce air into the dry channel through the second air inlet, and inject water into the same air inlet. On its face, the claim seems to require one air inlet where air is introduced into the dry channel and water is introduced into the wet channel. However, according to Applicant’s specification, it appears that water is introduced into the same air inlet where air is introduced into the wet channel, not the dry channel. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 16 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a second blower causing second air to be introduced into the wet channel through a second air inlet formed in an upper surface of the second external bar frame in a height direction and causing the heat-exchanged second air to be discharged through a second air outlet”.
Claim 16 requires a first external bar frame and a second external bar frame alternately arranged to form an outer body having a pentagonal shape in which both sides of a triangle are formed at a bottom. This phrase is confusing since a pentagon does not ordinarily have “both sides of a triangle” at its bottom, and it is unclear which two sides are meant or how they relate to the rest of the pentagon.
Claim 16 requires a first air inlet formed in a first side among both sides of the first external bar frame. The creates confusion since there has been no previous recitation of any side of the first external bar frame. There is a recitation of “both sides of a triangle” so it is unclear if this requires the air inlet formed in one side of the triangle? Or if it can be on any side of the frame.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “a first external bar frame and a second external bar frame alternately arranged to form an outer body having a pentagonal shape in which two sides of a triangle are formed at a bottom. . . a first blower supplying first air to a first air inlet formed in first external bar frame at one of the two sides of the triangle, and causing the heat-exchanged first air to be discharged through a first air outlet formed in a first sidewall”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation, “protruding upwardly from both ends of an upper portion of the outer body”. However, no ends of an upper portion of the other body have been defined. Thus it is unclear if “both ends” are referring to the two longitudinal ends of the outer body, two ends of the guide portion, or something else. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “protruding upwardly from two ends of an upper portion of the outer body”.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 12-15, and 17-20 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2023-0026748 to Kim et al., hereinafter referred to as Kim, provided by Applicant with the IDS filed July 15, 2026 (see English language translation provided herewith), in view of US2017/0276434 to Kwon et al., hereinafter referred to as Kwon.
In reference to claim 1, Kim as modified by Kwon discloses the claimed invention.
Kim discloses an evaporative cooler, see figure 4, comprising:
an external bar frame (30/20) forming an outer body;
a plurality of partition plates (10) repeatedly arranged at intervals in a width direction (Y direction as seen in figure 3) of the external bar frame and separating a dry channel and a wet channel wherein each of the plurality of partition plates faces another of the plurality of partition plates.
Kim fails to disclose embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates.
Kwon teaches that in the art of evaporative coolers, that it is a known method to provide a plurality of partition plates (10, 20, 30, 40) repeatedly arranged at intervals separating a dry channel (DC) and a wet channel (WC), see figure 1 [0015], and embossed portions (21, 31) protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates (10, 20), see figure 1, forming the wet channel (WC) among the plurality of partition plates. See [0019] where Kwon teaches that some of the embossings (including 21/31) may be in contact with the embossings on another adjacent barrier plate. When the embossings (21, 31) on respective adjacent barrier plates (20, 30) are in contact with each other, then the embossings will protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates forming the wet channel (WC) among the plurality of partition plates. Kwon teaches that these embossings provide a sufficient rigidity to the thing pates and improves the heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger [0028]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim by Kwon such that embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates, in order to advantageously provide a sufficient rigidity to the thing pates and improve the heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger.
In reference to claim 2, Kim as modified by Kwon discloses the claimed invention.
Kim discloses the external body is divided into a first portion (above both lines in the annotated figure below), a second portion (between the lines in the annotated figure below), and a third portion (below both lines in the annotated figure below) in a height direction, and a heat exchange fin portion (50) is disposed in a flow path of the dry channel in the second portion (as defined below).
PNG
media_image1.png
311
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, Kim as modified by Kwon discloses the claimed invention.
Kwon discloses the embossed portion includes a plurality of first embossed portions formed at equal intervals in a length direction in the first portion (see annotated figure below), and a second embossed portion formed in the third portion, (see annotated figure below). Accordingly, when modifying Kim by Kwon as applied in Claim 1 supra, it would make sense that the embossed portions would also correspond to the positions claimed such that the conditions of claim 3 was met by the combination.
In reference to claim 4, Kim as modified by Kwon discloses the claimed invention.
Kim as modified supra fails to disclose two first embossed portion is included in a center of the first portion in the height direction. However, it is noted that the only differences between the claimed inventions and the prior art of record is nothing more than a rearrangement of embossed portions with respect to their location on the partition plates. There is no evidence of record that rearranging the embossed portions as claimed would do anything unpredictable or that it would modify the operation of the device as it appear that Kwon would work equally well if the embossments were in any position as long as they didn’t interfere with air/water flow and provided some rigidity and heat exchange efficiencies. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kwon and Kim such that, two first embossed portion is included in a center of the first portion in the height direction since it has been held that when a particular placement of a part of a prior art device would not modify the operation of the device, then the particular arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kwon as applied supra an in further view of US 3,995,689 to Cates, hereinafter referred to as Cates.
In reference to claim 5, Kim as modified by Kwon and Cates disclose the claimed invention.
Kim as modified supra fails to disclose the embossed portion includes a center tip as a center and a conical body whose radius decreases in the height direction of the center tip from a bottom surface of the partition plate, and a gap is formed between the opposing center tips.
Cates teaches that in the analogous art of heat exchangers including alternating wet and dry channels that it is known to form embossments (34) includes a center tip as a center and a conical body whose radius decreases in the height direction of the center tip from a bottom surface of the partition plate, and a gap is formed between the opposing center tips, see figure 5. Further there is no evidence that the particular shape if for any particular purpose or solves any problem. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim and Kwon as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., form a gap between the partition plates for flow of a wet and dry channel). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim and Kwon by Cates such that, the embossed portion includes a center tip as a center and a conical body whose radius decreases in the height direction of the center tip from a bottom surface of the partition plate, and a gap is formed between the opposing center tips, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of forming a spacing in between partition plates. Additionally, it has been held that a particular shape of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2018/0245815 to Lee et al., hereinafter referred to as Lee and in further view of Kwon.
In reference to claim 6, Kim as modified by Lee and Kwon disclose the claimed invention.
Kim discloses an evaporative cooler, see figure 4, comprising:
a first external bar frame (20) and a second external bar frame (30) alternately arranged to form an outer body having a pentagonal shape in which both sides of a triangle are formed at a bottom (see figure 4);
a plurality of partition plates (10) arranged in a width direction between the first external bar frame (20) and the second external bar frame (30) to form a dry channel and a wet channel (see figure 1);
a heat exchanger (50) including a heat exchange fin portion disposed in a flow path of at least one of the dry channel or the wet channel;
a first air inlet (37) formed in a first side among both sides of the first external bar frame (20) and causing the heat-exchanged first air to be discharged through a first air outlet (38) formed in a first sidewall, see figure 4;
a second air inlet (F1) formed in an upper surface of the second external bar frame in a height direction and causing the heat-exchanged second air to be discharged through a second air outlet (27);
water to be injected into the wet channel through the second air inlet (see underlined portion of page 2 of the English language translation).
Kim fails to disclose a first blower supplying first air to a first air inlet, a second blower causing second air to be introduced into the wet channel through a second air inlet, a water spraying device, nor embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates, nor embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates.
With respect to the first and second blowers and the water spraying device, Kim does teach airflow through each of the wet and dry channels as well as water through the wet channel, see underlined portion of page 2 of the English language translation. There must be some machinery to induce air and water flow through these wet and dry channels. Lee teaches that in the art of evaporative coolers, that it is a known method to provide a first blower (30) supplying first air to a first air inlet (11), a second blower (40) causing second air to be introduced into the wet channel through a second air inlet (13), and a water spraying device (90) for providing a flow of water to the wet channel. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., motivate airflow through the wet and dry channels and motivate water flow through the wet channel). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim by Lee such that the evaporative cooler included a first blower supplying first air to the first air inlet formed and causing the heat-exchanged first air to be discharged through the first air outlet; a second blower causing second air to be introduced into the wet channel through the second air inlet formed and causing the heat-exchanged second air to be discharged through the second air outlet; and, a water spraying device spraying water to be injected into the wet channel through the second air inlet as claimed, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of motivating water and air through the respective wet and dry channels of the cooler.
With respect to embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates, Kwon teaches that in the art of evaporative coolers, that it is a known method to provide a plurality of partition plates (10, 20, 30, 40) repeatedly arranged at intervals separating a dry channel (DC) and a wet channel (WC), see figure 1 [0015], and embossed portions (21, 31) protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates (10, 20), see figure 1, forming the wet channel (WC) among the plurality of partition plates. See [0019] where Kwon teaches that some of the embossings (including 21/31) may be in contact with the embossings on another adjacent barrier plate. When the embossings (21, 31) on respective adjacent barrier plates (20, 30) are in contact with each other, then the embossings will protruding in a direction facing each other from the facing partition plates forming the wet channel (WC) among the plurality of partition plates. Kwon teaches that these embossings provide a sufficient rigidity to the thing pates and improves the heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger [0028]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim by Kwon such that embossed portions protruding in a direction facing each other from partition plates forming the wet channel among the plurality of partition plates, in order to advantageously provide a sufficient rigidity to the thing pates and improve the heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger.
In reference to claim 7, Kim as modified by Lee and Kwon disclose the claimed invention.
Kwon discloses the embossed portions (31) include a plurality of first embossed portions formed at equal intervals in a length direction above a heat exchanger (64) in the height direction of the outer body and a second embossed portion formed below the heat exchanger, see figure 5. Accordingly, when modifying Kim by Kwon as applied in claim 6 supra, the limitations of claim 7 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 8, Kim as modified by Lee and Kwon disclose the claimed invention.
Kim as modified by Kwon supra fails to disclose two first embossed portion are included in a center of an upper portion of the heat exchanger in the height direction. However, it is noted that the only differences between the claimed inventions and the prior art of record is nothing more than a rearrangement of embossed portions with respect to their location on the partition plates. There is no evidence of record that rearranging the embossed portions as claimed would do anything unpredictable or that it would modify the operation of the device as it appear that Kwon would work equally well if the embossments were in any position as long as they didn’t interfere with air/water flow and provided some rigidity and heat exchange efficiencies. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kwon and Kim such that, two first embossed portion is included in a center of the first portion in the height direction since it has been held that when a particular placement of a part of a prior art device would not modify the operation of the device, then the particular arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Lee, and Kwon as applied supra an in further view of Cates.
In reference to claim 9, Kim as modified by Lee, Kwon, and Cates disclose the claimed invention.
Kim as modified supra fails to disclose the embossed portion includes a center tip as a center and a conical body whose radius decreases in the height direction of the center tip from a bottom surface of the partition plate, and a gap is formed between the opposing center tips.
Cates teaches that in the analogous art of heat exchangers including alternating wet and dry channels that it is known to form embossments (34) includes a center tip as a center and a conical body whose radius decreases in the height direction of the center tip from a bottom surface of the partition plate, and a gap is formed between the opposing center tips, see figure 5. Further there is no evidence that the particular shape if for any particular purpose or solves any problem. This is strong evidence that modifying Kim and Kwon as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., form a gap between the partition plates for flow of a wet and dry channel). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Kim and Kwon by Cates such that, the embossed portion includes a center tip as a center and a conical body whose radius decreases in the height direction of the center tip from a bottom surface of the partition plate, and a gap is formed between the opposing center tips, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of forming a spacing in between partition plates. Additionally, it has been held that a particular shape of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights