DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 19/016,474.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 1-23 are examined.
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 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 6 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.
Claim 6 defines “truss-like structure,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what scope is covered by such a term. Does the term “like” broaden the term truss so as to cover things that are not completely trusses and if so how much does such a term broaden such a term? For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, “truss-like structures” is considered a structure which comprises of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal members connected to one another to from a rectangular truss structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bland et al. (U.S. Publication 2006/0053727).
Regarding claim 20, Bland et al. disclose an adjustable structure (#100) forming a portion of a modular cooling tower field (see paragraphs 5 and 37), said adjustable structure comprising an adjustable framework (#100) with horizontal members (#114) and vertical members (#112), said vertical members each having a top (the top end as depicted in figure 1A) and a bottom end (the bottom end of figure 1A), and an axis in the vertical direction (the vertical, y-axis direction of figure 1A), said vertical and horizontal members having dimensional measurements (see figure 1A), and a predetermined bolt hole patterns consistent along a length of each of said vertical and horizontal members (see figures 1D and 2A, where the vertical members #112 comprise of repeating bolt holes along its length to accommodate repeating rows of beams and the ends of the horizontal members #114 comprise of repeating bolt holes to engage vertical members at ends thereof), said predetermined bolt hole patterns including a plurality of connection points (see figures 1D and 2A), said adjustable framework having modifiable dimensions for in-situ assembly and replacement of a single cooling tower cell within said cooling tower field, such that adjusting dimensions of said adjustable framework in-situ during assembly is performed without altering said plurality of connection points and/or locations of said bolt hole pattern on said vertical or horizontal members (see figure 2C, where multiple connection points/bolt holes are provided but need not be used for the vertical members so that the tower extends a required distance as needed by the end user and is thus configured to be adjusted as defined).
Regarding claim 22, Bland et al. disclose said adjustable structure forms a portion of a crossflow modular cooling tower cell (see figure 1A and 6C, where the structure is configured to form a portion of a crossflow cooling tower cell).
Regarding claim 23, Bland et al. disclose a plenum formed within said adjustable framework designed to receive and distribute dry air through said adjustable structure, said plenum extending vertically from approximately a bottom of said adjustable framework to approximately a top of said adjustable framework (see figure 6C and paragraph 37, where air can travel through the outer perimeter rectangular openings between horizontal and vertical members and travel to an interior plenum portion of the framework so as to allow air to rise and leave through the top of the framework thereof and allow the framework to function as a cooling tower).
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 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. (U.S. Patent 8,578,680) in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al. (EP 0388222).
Regarding claim 1, Abeln et al. disclose a method of assembling in-situ a modular cooling tower cell for use in a cooling tower field, comprising:
removing a first single cooling tower cell in a cooling tower field having a plurality of cooling tower cells, including removing vertical columns which form an original structure of said first single cooling tower cell, exposing said cooling tower cell basin footing of said first single cooling tower cell (col. 6, ll. 16-27 disclose an original, existing cooling tower is dismantled and removed from a location so a new tower can be positioned in its place, where dismantling includes the entire structure to be removed, including any vertical supports, from a foundation or surface thereof to expose a basin used with such a tower);
providing a first framework module (#20/30) of said modular cooling tower cell, said first framework structure including a rectangular framework with horizontal (#34) and vertical members (#32), said vertical members each having a top (the top end as depicted in figure 5) and a bottom end (the bottom end of figure 5), and an axis in the vertical direction (the vertical, y-axis direction of figure 5), said vertical and horizontal members having dimensional measurements (see figure 3);
lifting said first framework structure of said modular cooling tower cell, (see figures 5 and 6 and col. 6, ll. 16-27), and positioning said first framework structure above a selected installation location (see figure 5 and col. 6, ll. 16-27, where the framework is lifted and positioned above the second location where it is to be installed);
lowering said first framework structure onto the selected installation location (the framework #30 is to be lowered to the second location for installation); and
securing said first framework structure to said selected installation location and/or to an adjacent cooling tower cell within said cooling tower field (it is inherent the base of the first framework structure would be attached to a foundation or footing at the second installation location in order to prevent movement of the framework and allow proper support of the framework).
However, Abeln et al. do not disclose the vertical and horizontal members have predetermined bolt hole patterns consistent along a length of each of the vertical and horizontal members, where the bolt hole pattern includes a plurality of connection points so that the first framework can be adjusted in dimension in-situ during assembly without altering locations of said plurality of connection points and/or locations of said bolt hole pattern on said vertical or horizontal members. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bland et al., that such cooling tower structures can be formed using modular frameworks formed of horizontal members #114 and vertical members #112, each comprising of respective bolt holes #208 in order to attach such elements to one another, where the horizontal members #114 comprise of a pattern of bolt holes that extend at either end of the horizontal member so as to form a pattern of two columns and two rows and where the vertical members can be formed in-situ or pre-formed with attachment holes #208, with each set comprising of one or more pairs of attachment holes #208 along the length therein in a pattern to form a plurality of levels in the framework. See figures 1D and 2A. Figure 2C of Bland et al. depicts that additional sets of attachment holes #208 are provided to allow another column beam connection adjacent to another beam #240 if needed. See paragraph 52. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the vertical and horizontal members of Abeln et al. to comprise of a pattern of bolt holes consistent along their length to form a plurality of connection points, as taught in Bland et al., in order to allow for proper attachment of the beams and posts with one another and form a frame of desired dimensions. With respect to the “adjusting dimensions” limitations, as depicted in figure 2C, Bland et al. teach that the openings can be provided on both sides of the vertical post and in pairs in order to allow beams #240 to extend away from and attach to the same post, where the holes need not be used if no further beam need to be attached and paragraphs 36 and 49 disclose the adjustability of the size, number, and location of the elements of such a frame, and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the dimensions of the first framework of Abeln et al., such as by removing or adding beams and vertical members as needed, in order to provide the frame to the appropriate size as needed by the end user to thus fit the size of the existing or new cooling towers as required and also since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
With respect to the “securing” limitations of step (f), Abeln et al. is considered to meet such limitations since it is inherent the base of the first framework structure would be attached to a foundation or footing at the second installation location in order to prevent movement of the framework and allow proper support of the framework. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Abeln et al. as meeting such limitations as defined, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Kato et al., that such framework structures #50 of a cooling tower are attached to a foundation beam #55 using a foundation connector #56 to connect the vertical member to the beam #55 to strengthen the connection and support the framework above the foundation #55 which surrounds a cooled water basin. See figure 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have secured the framework of Abeln et al. to a foundation beam within an exposed cooling water basin of a cooling tower field, as taught in Kato et al., in order to properly secure the framework to the foundation and prevent movement of the framework during use.
Regarding claim 4, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious the method is performed while at least cooling tower cell remains operational in said cooing tower field (Abeln et al. disclose in col. 1, ll. 33-50 that such framework structures are used to replace similar existing structures located within a power plant, where it is critical to minimize downtime during replacement construction of such structures in order to prevent the entire power plant from shutting down during construction. Thus, Abeln et al. is considered to suggest that when multiple towers are present, such towers are repaired piecemeal in order to prevent significant downtime of such facilities and thus allow using of one cooling tower while another is being repaired. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Abeln et al. as comprising of a field of cooling towers, where one remains operational while the other is repaired, it would have been obvious to have applied such a replacement method of Abeln et al. to a power plant which comprising of more than one cooling tower, where only one tower is needed to be repaired while the other tower(s) remain operational in order to reduce downtime of using the powerplant while still allowing the powerplant to operate in a safe condition and to also save on costs by only repairing that which is damaged, as taught in Abeln et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious said first framework structure includes angled longitudinal members (Abeln et al. teach longitudinal diagonals #36 within such a framework; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious said first framework structure of said modular cooling tower cell further includes a plurality of brace members (Abeln et al.; #36) such that said first framework structure provides a truss-like structure (see figure 3 of Abeln et al., where the diagonals #36 form truss structures with the horizontal and vertical members).
Regarding claim 7, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious said cooling tower is a crossflow cooling tower, and said first framework structures forms a crossflow cooling tower cell for said crossflow cooling tower (Abeln et al. disclose such a framework is open so as to provide crossflow cooling for the cooling tower to be formed by such a framework).
Regarding claim 8, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious forming dry air inlets with said first formwork structure on at least two opposing sides of said crossflow cooling tower cell, such that after installation, dry air flowing through said dry air inlets is directed within said first framework structure in a direction approximately perpendicular to said vertical members (as depicted in figures 2 and 3 of Abeln et al., the first framework #30 comprises of air inlets that are rectangularly shaped between column elements #32 on all four vertical outer sides of the structure, which openings allow for air to travel horizontally through the structure).
Regarding claim 9, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious forming a plenum with said first framework structure for receiving and distributing said dry air flowing through said dry air inlets, said plenum extending vertically from approximately a bottom of said first framework structure to a top of said first framework structure, and having a top opening for air egress from said first framework structure (the polygonal prism shape of the framework structure #30 of Abeln et al. along with the rectangular openings formed between adjacent beams #34 in each row form a plenum that allow air to transfer horizontally from the inlets to vertically through the structure and out of the top, horizontal openings of the first framework, between the horizontal members at the top thereof).
Regarding claim 10, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious providing a second framework structure of the modular cooling tower cell (Abeln et al.; the second framework #31 of figures 2 and 4), said second framework including a second adjustable rectangular framework (such a framework #31 of Abeln et al. would similarly be adjustable as taught in Bland et al. and modified in Abeln et al. as explained above) with second horizontal members (Abeln et al.; #34) and second vertical members (Abeln et al.; #32), said second vertical members each having a top and a bottom end and an axis in the vertical direction (see figure 4 of Abeln et al.), said second vertical and horizontal members having dimensional measurements and a second predetermined bolt hole pattern consistent along a length of each of said second vertical and horizontal members, said second predetermined bolt hole pattern including a plurality of second connection points (when Abeln et al. is modified in view of Bland et al. to include bolt hole patterns on the horizontal and vertical members, such modifications would be done to the second framework as well in order to properly attach and modularly form such framework structures as explained above).
Regarding claim 11, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious lifting said second framework structure of said modular cooling tower cell and positioning said second framework structure above a selected second installation location (see figure 2 of Abeln et al., where the second framework #31 is lifted and rotated with a crane to a second position over the first framework #30); lowering said second framework structure onto the selected second installation location (see figure 7 of Abeln et al., where the second framework structure is lowered onto the first framework structure, where the top and bottom ends of each respective structure would align with one another so as to be attached to one another); adjusting dimensions of said second framework in-situ during assembly without altering said plurality of connection points and/or locations of said bolt hole pattern on said vertical or horizontal members (Such limitations do not require the step of adjusting to be completed during the lower or lifting steps and only require that such adjusting is completed at some point during assembly of the tower. As depicted in figure 2C, Bland et al. teach that the openings can be provided on both sides of the vertical post and in pairs in order to allow beams #240 to extend away from and attach to the same post, where the holes need not be used if no further beam need to be attached and paragraphs 36 and 49 disclose the adjustability of the size, number, and location of the elements of such a frame, and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the dimensions of the second framework of Abeln et al., such as by removing or adding beams and vertical members as needed, in order to provide the frame to the appropriate size as needed by the end user and thus match the size of the first framework as needed by the end user and also since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).); and securing said second framework structure to a second selected installation location and/or said first framework structure and/or to an adjacent cooling tower cell within said cooling tower field (see figures 2 and 7 of Abeln et al., where the second framework is secured to the first framework structure and thus meets at least one of the options in the “or” clause).
Regarding claim 12, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious said step (k) of securing said second framework structure to said second selected installation location includes securing said second framework structure to at least a second foundation beam of said cooling tower cell basin footing and/or said first framework structure (see figures 2 and 7 of Abeln et al., where the second framework is secured to the first framework structure and thus meets at least one of the options in the “or” clause).
Regarding claim 13, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious said step (k) of securing said second framework structure to said first framework structure includes stacking and securing said second framework structure on top of said first framework structure (see figures 2 and 7 of Abeln et al., where the second framework is secured on top of the first framework structure).
Regarding claim 14, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious said cooling tower is a crossflow cooling tower, and said second framework structure forms a crossflow cooling tower cell for said crossflow cooling tower (Abeln et al. disclose such a second framework, along with the first framework, is open so as to provide crossflow cooling for the cooling tower to be formed by such a framework).
Regarding claim 15, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious forming dry air inlets with said second formwork structure on at least two opposing sides of said crossflow cooling tower cell, such that after installation, dry air flowing through said dry air inlets is directed within said second framework structure in a direction approximately perpendicular to said vertical members (as depicted in figures 2 and 7 of Abeln et al., the second framework #31 comprises of air inlets that are rectangularly shaped between column elements #32 on all four vertical perimeter sides of the structure, which openings allow for air to travel horizontally through the structure).
Regarding claim 16, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious forming a second plenum with said second framework structure for receiving and distributing said dry air flowing through said dry air inlets, said second plenum extending vertically from approximately a bottom of said second framework structure to a top of said second framework structure, and having a top opening for air egress from said second framework structure (the polygonal prism shape of the second framework structure #31 of Abeln et al. along with the rectangular openings formed between adjacent beams #34 in each row form a plenum that allow air to transfer horizontally from the perimeter inlets to vertically through the structure and out of the top, horizontal openings of the second framework, between the horizontal members at the top thereof).
Regarding claim 17, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious adjusting dimensions of said first framework in-situ during assembly includes expanding and/or contracting said first framework in at least one vertical or horizontal direction to align connecting elements of said first framework such that connecting elements of said first framework align with complementary connecting elements of said selected installation location and/or said adjacent cooling tower cell within said cooling tower field (As depicted in figure 6C of Bland et al., the cooling towers #600 are to be aligned with one another so as to extend the same vertical and horizontal dimensions during use. It would have thus been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the first framework of Abeln et al. to expand in either the vertical or horizontal direction, such as by adding more bays in a horizontal direction as taught in Bland et al., so as to align the framework with an existing cooling tower #600 within the tower field and thus form a uniform tower as needed by the end user and also since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).).
Regarding claim 18, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious adjusting dimensions of said first framework in-situ during assembly includes expanding and/or contracting said first framework in at least one vertical or horizontal direction such that said first framework aligns with an inlet pipe elevation of said adjacent cooling tower cell (see figure 6C of Bland et al., where the cooling towers #600 comprise of piping #649/658 which are to be aligned with one another in the vertical dimension and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the first framework of Abeln et al., as taught in Bland et al., in order to align the components of adjacent cooling towers with one another for proper interconnection and use of the towers with one another.).
Regarding claim 19, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious adjusting dimensions of said first framework in-situ during assembly includes expanding and/or contracting said framework in at least one vertical or horizontal direction to accommodate geological changes of earth at the selected installation location (As depicted in figure 6C of Bland et al. and figure 7 of Abeln et al., such cooling towers are typically provided on flat foundations with no change in elevation for proper installation and placement purposes. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that framework and other structures are constructed with specific vertical or horizontal dimensions in order to accommodate specific geological features, such as mountains or unlevel terrain, in order to properly form a level structure that meets certain building codes, such as by extending vertical columns different lengths in order to accommodate unlevel terrain or remove framework sections to build around vegetation or rock formations. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the framework of Abeln et al. so as to be adjusted in order to accommodate certain geological changes, such as uneven terrain, in order to construct the cooling tower to be level and aligned with other cooling towers and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al.
Regarding claim 2, when Abeln et al. is modified in view of both Bland et al. and Kato et al. as explained above in the rejection of claim 1, the prior art would teach the step of securing said first framework structure to said selected installation location includes securing said first framework structure to at least one foundation beam of said cooling tower cell basin footing and/or adjacent cooling tower cell (Kato et al. teach attaching such vertical members to a concrete beam #55 which forms the foundation that surrounds the basin, where such features would be provided within Abeln et al. as explained above).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al. and Simmons et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0208666), or in the alternative in view of Bland et al., Simmons et al., and Kato et al.
Regarding claim 3, Abeln in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious the claimed invention except for fitting lug projections extending from said vertical member top end and receiving lugs on said bottom end of said vertical members that are sized to be fitted with securing members. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Simmons et al., that frames of a structure that are to be lifted to a location and built vertically can comprise of a lifting projection #22 at a top end of the vertical members #28 of the framework and a receiving socket #26 at the bottom end of the vertical members #28, where the sockets and projections of adjacent frame structures #54/56 can engage one another to support such frame structures on top of one another. See figure 10. Furthermore, figure 6 of Simmons et al. depicts use of a lifting element #24 which is configured to engage the lifting element of the framework structure so as to lift the framework structure and lower the structure into place. Figure 9 of Simmons et al. also depicts the first framework structure can be supported on a ground support #38 and secured thereto with a similar projection #22 socket connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the framework structures of Abeln et al. so as to comprise of a fitting lug at the top ends of the vertical members and receiving lugs at the bottom end of the vertical members, as taught in Simmons et al., in order to provide for easier lifting, aligning, and attachment of vertically adjacent framework structures.
Claim(s) 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al.
Regarding claim 20, Abeln et al. disclose an adjustable structure forming a portion of a modular cooling tower field, said adjustable structure comprising an adjustable framework (#30) with horizontal members (#34) and vertical members (#32), said vertical members each having a top (the top end as depicted in figure 5) and a bottom end (the bottom end of figure 5), and an axis in the vertical direction (the vertical, y-axis direction of figure 5), said vertical and horizontal members having dimensional measurements (see figure 3).
However, Abeln et al. do not disclose the vertical and horizontal members have predetermined bolt hole patterns consistent along a length of each of the vertical and horizontal members, where the bolt hole pattern includes a plurality of connection points so that the first framework can be adjusted in dimension in-situ during assembly without altering locations of said plurality of connection points and/or locations of said bolt hole pattern on said vertical or horizontal members. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bland et al., that such cooling tower structures can be formed using modular frameworks formed of horizontal members #114 and vertical members #112, each comprising of respective bolt holes #208 in order to attach such elements to one another, where the horizontal members #114 comprise of a pattern of bolt holes that extend at either end of the horizontal member so as to form a pattern of two columns and two rows and where the vertical members can be formed in-situ or pre-formed with attachment holes #208, with each set comprising of one or more pairs of attachment holes #208. See figures 1D and 2A. Figure 2C of Bland et al. depicts that additional sets of attachment holes #208 are provided to allow another column beam connection adjacent to another beam #240 if needed. See paragraph 52. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the vertical and horizontal members of Abeln et al. to comprise of a pattern of bolt holes consistent along their length to form a plurality of connection points, as taught in Bland et al., in order to allow for proper attachment of the beams and posts with one another and form a frame of desired dimensions. With respect to the “adjusting dimensions” limitations, as depicted in figure 2C, Bland et al. teach that the openings can be provided on both sides of the vertical post and in pairs in order to allow beams #240 to extend away from away and attach to the same post, where the holes need not be used if no further beam need to be attached and paragraphs 36 and 49 disclose the adjustability of the size, number, and location of the elements of such a frame, and thus the framework of Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al. would be configured to be modifiable in dimensions, such as by added or removing beams and/or columns as needed to construct a framework of size and shape as needed by the end user.
Regarding claim 22, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al. render obvious said adjustable structure forms a portion of a crossflow modular cooling tower cell (Abeln et al. disclose such a framework is open so as to provide crossflow cooling portion for a cooling tower to be formed by such a framework).
Regarding claim 23, Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al., or in the alternative in view of Bland et al. and Kato et al., render obvious a plenum formed within said adjustable framework designed to receive and distribute dry air through said adjustable structure, said plenum extending vertically from approximately a bottom of said adjustable framework to approximately a top of said adjustable framework (the polygonal prism shape of the framework structure #30 of Abeln et al. along with the rectangular openings formed between adjacent beams #34 in each row form a plenum that allow air to transfer horizontally from the inlets to vertically through the structure and out of the top, horizontal openings of the first framework, between the horizontal members at the top thereof).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abeln et al. in view of Bland et al. and Simmons et al.
Regarding claim 21, Abeln in view of Bland et al. render obvious the claimed invention except for a fitting element extending from at least one of said vertical members top end along said axis and a receiving element on at least one of said bottom end of said vertical members that are sized to be fitted with a complementary receiving element of a second structure. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Simmons et al., that frames of a structure that are to be lifted to a location and built vertically can comprise of a lifting projection #22 at a top end of the vertical members #28 of the framework and a receiving socket #26 at the bottom end of the vertical members #28, where the sockets and projections of adjacent frame structures #54/56 can engage one another to support such frame structures on top of one another. See figure 10. Furthermore, figure 6 of Simmons et al. depicts use of a lifting element #24 which is configured to engage the lifting element of the framework structure so as to lift the framework structure and lower the structure into place. Figure 9 of Simmons et al. also depicts the first framework structure can be supported on a ground support #38 and secured thereto with a similar projection #22 socket connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the framework structures of Abeln et al. so as to comprise of a fitting element at the top ends of the vertical members and receiving element at the bottom end of the vertical members, as taught in Simmons et al., in order to provide for easier lifting, aligning, and attachment of vertically adjacent framework structures.
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 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 26, and 28 of copending Application No. 18/629,475 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘475, where the adjusting dimensions would be obvious from the prefabricating step of claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘475 when the horizontal and vertical members are connected together to a specific dimension with the connection points, or alternatively, is defined within claim 26 of U.S. App. ‘475;
Claim 2 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 1 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 3 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 1 of U.S. App.’ 475, where the lifting elements are equivalent to the fitting lug projections and the receiving elements are equivalent to the receiving lugs;
Claim 4 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 3 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 5 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 7 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 6 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 1 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 7 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 28 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 8 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 28 of U.S. App.’ 475, where such dry air inlets are common and obvious features of a cooling tower framework;
Claim 9 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 28 of U.S. App.’ 475, where such a plenum is a common and obvious feature of such colling tower framework elements in order for it to function as needed;
Claim 10 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 11 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 12 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 13 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 14 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 15 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475, where such dry air inlets are common and obvious features of a cooling tower framework;
Claim 16 of the present application is broader than but define within claim 2 of U.S. App.’ 475, where such a plenum is a common and obvious feature of such colling tower framework elements in order for it to function as needed;
Claim 17 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 26 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 18 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 26 of U.S. App.’ 475;
Claim 19 of the present application is broader than but defined within claim 26 of U.S. App.’ 475.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights