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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (Translation of JP2017129305A) in view of Martin et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0223876A1), hereinafter referred to as Takahashi and Martin.
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a cooling arrangement for cooling at least one oil-to-air external heat exchanger (OAEHE), in a transformer (203, 204, see intended use analysis below), wherein the cooling arrangement comprises:
at least one impeller-motor device (2);
at least one fluid pipe (23); and
a first fluid discharge device (1), wherein the first fluid discharge device (1) comprises a fluid inlet arranged to receive a fluid from the at least one fluid pipe (23, shown in figure 8), and
at least one fluid outlet (shown in figure 8, wherein the outlet for the working fluid is on the top portion of the jet generating pipe (1)) arranged to direct the fluid towards the OAEHE (203, 204, see intended use analysis below), wherein
the at least one impeller-motor (22) device (2) is adapted to supply the fluid to the inlet of the first fluid discharge device via the at least one fluid pipe (shown in figure 8) and cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid outlet (shown in figures 8-9) of the first fluid discharge device (1) in a direction of the at least one OAEHE, and wherein the cooling arrangement further comprises a second fluid discharge device (1’) adapted to disturb the fluid that flows from the at least one fluid outlet of the first fluid discharge (1) device by applying a cross flow jet (shown in figure 8, wherein the fluid emitted from the first jet generating pipe (1) will be disturbed to some degree by the fluid emanating from the second jet generating pipe (1’)). Although Takahashi discloses airflow from the second fluid discharge device combining with airflow from the first fluid discharge device, wherein the airflow inherently produces a mixed airflow extending in angled directions (shown in figure 5), Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose a second fluid discharge device applying a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid from the first fluid discharge device.
Martin, also drawn to a bladeless fan for producing cooling air, teaches a fluid discharge device (204) adapted to disturb a fluid that flows (shown in figures 4 and 8, wherein an upstream airflow passes though the entrainment disc (204)) by applying a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid (shown in figure 4, wherein the airflow emanating from the nozzle (402) is angled when compared to airflow passing through the central opening (222)). It is noted that Takahashi discloses the first and second fluid discharge devices configured in series, wherein Martin teaches that it is old and well known to have a fluid discharge device alter a fluid flow with a nozzle producing an airflow that is angled (see figure 4). Martin further states, “As the primary airflow is directed over the Coanda surface of the nozzle, the airflow and resulting cooling is amplified by the Coanda effect. In addition, a secondary airflow is generated by entrainment of air from the external environment, specifically from the region around the outer edge of the nozzle. A portion of the secondary airflow entrained by the primary airflow may also be guided over the mouth of the nozzle. This secondary airflow combines with the primary airflow to produce a total amplified airflow projected forward from the fan system toward the radiator. As such, the combination of entrainment and amplification results in a total airflow from the bladeless cooling fan system that is greater than the airflow output from a fan assembly without such a Coanda amplification surface adjacent the emission area, or from a fan assembly having fans or blades (e.g., bladed radiator fan 600 of FIG. 6).” (¶43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second fluid discharge device of Takahashi with a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid from the first fluid discharge device, as taught by Martin, the motivation being an amplification of airflow with less efficiency loss, wherein the cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid flow produces “total airflow from the bladeless cooling fan system that is greater than the airflow output from a fan assembly without such a Coanda amplification surface adjacent the emission area, or from a fan assembly having fans or blades (e.g., bladed radiator fan 600 of FIG. 6)” (¶43).
Regarding limitations “for cooling at least one oil-to-air external heat exchanger, OAEHE, in a transformer”, “direct the fluid towards the OAEHE” and “the OAEHE” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of the cooling arrangement, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Takahashi further teaches the second fluid discharge device (1’) disturbs the fluid that flows from the at least one fluid outlet of the first fluid discharge device (1) by destabilizing (shown in figure 8 of Takahashi, wherein the presence of the jet generating tube (1’) creates a disturbance in the airflow, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1) and/or widen the fluid by applying a cross flow jet (cross flow is created to some degree by the serial arrangement of the jet generating pipes (1, 1’) of Takahashi, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi further teaches wherein the applied cross flow jet is continuous (shown in figure 8, wherein the airflow travels from the blower (2) to the jet generating pipes (1,1’), further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi further discloses the at least one impeller-motor device (2) is adapted to supply the fluid to the second discharge device (1’, shown in figure 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi further discloses the second fluid discharge device (1’) is located between the first fluid discharge device (12) and the at least one OAEHE (“When a plurality of jet generating pipes are provided concentrically, the outer jet generating pipe and the inner jet generating pipe may be provided at the same height, or one of the outer jet generating pipe and the inner jet generating pipe may be lower than the other. It can also be provided at a position or higher position”, wherein the order of the smaller diameter jet generating pipe and larger diameter jet generating pipe in the direction of flow is interchangeable).
Regarding limitations “the at least one OAEHE” recited in Claim 6, which are directed to the intended use of the cooling arrangement, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi further discloses a diameter of the second fluid discharge device (1’) is smaller than a diameter of the first fluid discharge device (1, “When a plurality of jet generating pipes are provided concentrically, the outer jet generating pipe and the inner jet generating pipe may be provided at the same height, or one of the outer jet generating pipe and the inner jet generating pipe may be lower than the other. It can also be provided at a position or higher position”, wherein the order of the smaller diameter jet generating pipe and larger diameter jet generating pipe in the direction of flow is interchangeable), and wherein the cross flow jet is applied outwards from the second fluid discharge device (shown in figure 8, wherein the disruption of airflow caused by the presence of the jet generating tube (1’) further causes a cross flow in the horizontal direction perpendicular to said airflow, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi further discloses the first fluid discharge device (1) and the second fluid discharge device (1’) is circular (shown in figure 8, “The shape of the jet generating tube 1 in plan view is not limited to the above-described circular shape”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (Translation of JP2017129305A) in view of Martin et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0223876A1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 above and in further view of Hirayama (Translation of JP2007168642A), hereinafter referred to as Hirayama.
Regarding Claim 3, in addition to Takahashi and Martin, Hirayama further teaches wherein the applied cross flow (shown in figure 8) jet is continuous (shown in figure 8, “the jet blowout (F) may be a steady flow with a constant wind speed, but it is effective to use an intermittent flow or a pulsating flow with a variation in the wind speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Takahashi with an applied cross flow jet being continuous, as taught by Hirayama, the motivation being to create a real time effect of the airflow through constant monitoring.
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi fails to disclose the applied cross flow jet is pulsating.
Hirayama teaches an applied cross flow (shown in figure 8) jet is pulsating (shown in figure 8, “the jet blowout (F) may be a steady flow with a constant wind speed, but it is effective to use an intermittent flow or a pulsating flow with a variation in the wind speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Takahashi with an applied cross flow jet being pulsating, as taught by Hirayama, the motivation being to reduce wear of mechanical components, conserve resources such as electrical power and increase the operational life of the system.
Alternatively, Hirayama discloses the claimed invention except for a constant flow instead of a pulsating flow. Hirayama shows that a pulsating flow is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two flow configurations were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a pulsating flow for a continuous flow.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (Translation of JP2017129305A) in view of Martin et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0223876A1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 above and in further view of Xu et al. (Translation of CN206478897U), hereinafter referred to as Xu.
Regarding Claim 11, although Takahashi discloses a channel for housing the jet generating pipes (1, 1’), Takahashi fails to disclose the cooling arrangement comprises a funnel.
Xu, also drawn to a cooling arrangement having a bladeless fan, teaches the cooling arrangement comprises a funnel (“the heat dissipation frame of the air inlet direction of the end surface is funnel-shaped, and the opening direction is inlet direction, the bladeless fan is installed in the middle of the hopper”, shown in figure 2, wherein the heat dissipation frame (3) houses the bladeless fan (41)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Takahashi with a funnel, as taught by Xu, the motivation being that funnel shaped channels are known to smooth airflow while increasing velocity and reducing pressure and reducing air resistance.
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Takahashi further teaches the at least one fluid discharge device (1) and/or the second fluid discharge device (1’) is arranged in the funnel (the funnel housing the bladeless fan is previously taught by Xu in the rejection of Claim 11).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (Translation of JP2017129305A) in view of Martin et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0223876A1) and in further view of Lin et al. (Translation of CN104575959A) hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding Claim 13, Takahashi discloses a method performed by a cooling arrangement for cooling at least one external heat exchanger (203,204), wherein the cooling arrangement comprises
at least one impeller-motor device (2), at least one fluid pipe (23) and a first fluid discharge device (1) comprising a fluid inlet for receiving a fluid from the at least one fluid pipe (23, shown in figure 8), and
at least one fluid outlet (shown in figure 8, wherein the outlet for the working fluid is on the top portion of the jet generating pipe (1)), the method comprising:
supplying the fluid into the at least one fluid pipe (23), using the at least one impeller-motor device (2, shown in figure 8);
transporting the fluid along the at least one fluid pipe (23) to the inlet of the first fluid discharge device (1, shown in figure 8);
causing the fluid to flow through the first fluid discharge device (1);
discharging the fluid from the at least one fluid outlet, wherein the cooling arrangement further comprises a second fluid discharge device (1’), and wherein the method further comprises:
disturbing the fluid that flows from the at least one fluid outlet of the first fluid discharge device (1), using the second fluid discharge device (shown in figure 8, wherein the fluid emitted from the first jet generating pipe (1) will be disturbed to some degree by the fluid emanating from the second jet generating pipe (1’)). Takahashi fails to disclose an oil-to-air external heat exchanger, OAEHE, in a transformer and discharging the fluid from the at least one fluid outlet in a direction of the at least one OAEHE.
Lin, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches an oil-to-air external heat exchanger (3), OAEHE, in a transformer (see abstract) and discharging the fluid from the at least one fluid outlet (1) in a direction of the at least one OAEHE (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cooling arrangement of Takahashi with cooling an oil-to-air external heat exchanger, OAEHE, in a transformer and discharging the fluid from the at least one fluid outlet in a direction of the at least one OAEHE, as taught by Lin, the motivation being that “because the electromagnetic effect, the internal winding will generate a lot of heat, is cooled by transformer oil, otherwise it will cause terrible accident burning main transformer. cooling the transformer oil, winding to radiator installed outside the main transformer, the transformer cooling oil is cooled by the forced air cooling fan of the cooling then enters the transformer body in to cool the transformer windings” (¶2). Although Takahashi discloses airflow from the second fluid discharge device combining with airflow from the first fluid discharge device, wherein the airflow produces a mixed airflow extending in angled directions (shown in figure 5), Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose applying a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid from the first fluid discharge device.
Martin, also drawn to a bladeless fan for producing cooling air, teaches a fluid discharge device (204) adapted to disturb a fluid that flows (shown in figures 4 and 8, wherein an upstream airflow is passing though the entrainment disc (204)) by applying a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid (shown in figure 4, wherein the airflow emanating from the nozzle (402) is angled when compared to airflow passing through the central opening (222)). It is noted that Takahashi discloses the first and second fluid discharge devices configured in series, wherein Martin teaches that it is old and well known to have a fluid discharge device alter a fluid flow with a nozzle producing an angled direction airflow (see figure 4). Martin further states, “As the primary airflow is directed over the Coanda surface of the nozzle, the airflow and resulting cooling is amplified by the Coanda effect. In addition, a secondary airflow is generated by entrainment of air from the external environment, specifically from the region around the outer edge of the nozzle. A portion of the secondary airflow entrained by the primary airflow may also be guided over the mouth of the nozzle. This secondary airflow combines with the primary airflow to produce a total amplified airflow projected forward from the fan system toward the radiator. As such, the combination of entrainment and amplification results in a total airflow from the bladeless cooling fan system that is greater than the airflow output from a fan assembly without such a Coanda amplification surface adjacent the emission area, or from a fan assembly having fans or blades (e.g., bladed radiator fan 600 of FIG. 6).” (¶43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second fluid discharge device of Takahashi with a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid from the first fluid discharge device, as taught by Martin, the motivation being an amplification of airflow with less efficiency loss, wherein the cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid produces “total airflow from the bladeless cooling fan system that is greater than the airflow output from a fan assembly without such a Coanda amplification surface adjacent the emission area, or from a fan assembly having fans or blades (e.g., bladed radiator fan 600 of FIG. 6)” (¶43).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Takahashi further teaches disturbing the fluid that flows from the at least one fluid outlet of the first fluid discharge device (1) comprises destabilizing (shown in figure 8, wherein the presence of the jet generating tube (1’) creates a disturbance in the airflow, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 13) and/or widen the fluid by applying a cross flow jet (cross flow is created to some degree by the serial arrangement of the jet generating pipes, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 13).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (Translation of JP2017129305A) in view of Lin et al. (Translation of CN104575959A) as applied in Claims 13-14 above and in further view of Simmonds et al. (US PG PUG. 2012/0114513A1), hereinafter referred to as Simmonds.
Regarding Claim 15, Takahashi fails to disclose generating a filtered fluid to the at least one impeller-motor device.
Simmonds, also drawn to a cooling arrangement having a bladeless fan (see abstract), teaches generating a filtered fluid to the at least one impeller-motor device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cooling arrangement of Takahashi with generating a filtered fluid to the at least one impeller-motor device, as taught by Simmonds, the motivation being that “filtration in the air flow path through the nozzle resulting in a reduction in wear on the parts of the fan assembly and thus a reduction in the maintenance costs. Preferably, an additional filter is located upstream of the means for creating an air flow. Advantageously, this arrangement provides a superior level of filtration and cleaning of the air flow in the appliance. As well as filtration of the air flow path through the nozzle, the additional filter ensures that the said means is protected from debris and dust that may be drawn into the appliance” (¶15).
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (Translation of JP2017129305A) in view of Martin et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0223876A1), hereinafter referred to as Takahashi and Martin.
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a cooling arrangement for cooling at least one oil-to-air external heat exchanger, OAEHE, in a transformer (203, 204, see intended use analysis below), wherein the cooling arrangement comprises:
at least one impeller-motor device (2);
at least one fluid pipe (23); and
a first fluid discharge device (1’), wherein the first fluid discharge device (1’) comprises a fluid inlet arranged to receive a fluid from the at least one fluid pipe (23’, shown in figure 8), and
at least one fluid outlet (shown in figure 8, wherein the outlet for the working fluid is on the top portion of the jet generating pipe (1’)) arranged to direct the fluid towards the OAEHE (203, 204, see intended use analysis below), wherein
the at least one impeller-motor (22) device (2) is adapted to supply the fluid to the inlet of the first fluid discharge device via the at least one fluid pipe (shown in figure 8) and cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid outlet (shown in figures 8-9) of the first fluid discharge device (1’) in a direction of the at least one OAEHE, and wherein the cooling arrangement further comprises a second fluid discharge device (1) adapted to disturb the fluid that flows from the at least one fluid outlet of the first fluid discharge (1’) device by applying a cross flow jet (shown in figure 8, wherein the fluid emitted from the first jet generating pipe (1’) will be disturbed to some degree by the fluid emanating from the second jet generating pipe (1)). Although Takahashi discloses airflow from the second fluid discharge device combining with airflow from the first fluid discharge device, wherein the airflow produces a mixed airflow extending in angled directions, Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose a second fluid discharge device applying a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid from the first fluid discharge device.
Martin, also drawn to a bladeless fan for producing cooling air, teaches a fluid discharge device (204) adapted to disturb a fluid that flows (shown in figures 4 and 8, wherein an upstream airflow is passing though the entrainment disc (204)) by applying a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid (shown in figure 4, wherein the airflow emanating from the nozzle (402) is angled when compared to airflow passing through the central opening (222)). It is noted that Takahashi discloses the first and second fluid discharge devices configured in series, wherein Martin teaches that it is old and well known to have a fluid discharge device alter a fluid flow with a nozzle producing an airflow that is angled (see figure 4). Martin further states, “As the primary airflow is directed over the Coanda surface of the nozzle, the airflow and resulting cooling is amplified by the Coanda effect. In addition, a secondary airflow is generated by entrainment of air from the external environment, specifically from the region around the outer edge of the nozzle. A portion of the secondary airflow entrained by the primary airflow may also be guided over the mouth of the nozzle. This secondary airflow combines with the primary airflow to produce a total amplified airflow projected forward from the fan system toward the radiator. As such, the combination of entrainment and amplification results in a total airflow from the bladeless cooling fan system that is greater than the airflow output from a fan assembly without such a Coanda amplification surface adjacent the emission area, or from a fan assembly having fans or blades (e.g., bladed radiator fan 600 of FIG. 6).” (¶43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second fluid discharge device of Takahashi with a cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid from the first fluid discharge device, as taught by Martin, the motivation being an amplification of airflow with less efficiency loss, wherein the cross flow jet perpendicular or inclined to the fluid produces “total airflow from the bladeless cooling fan system that is greater than the airflow output from a fan assembly without such a Coanda amplification surface adjacent the emission area, or from a fan assembly having fans or blades (e.g., bladed radiator fan 600 of FIG. 6)” (¶43).
Regarding limitations “for cooling at least one oil-to-air external heat exchanger, OAEHE, in a transformer”, “direct the fluid towards the OAEHE” and “the OAEHE” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of the cooling arrangement, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi further discloses the second fluid discharge device (1) disturbs the fluid that flows from the at least one fluid outlet of the first fluid discharge device (1’) by destabilizing (shown in figure 8, wherein the presence of the jet generating tube (1) creates a disturbance in the airflow, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1) and/or widen the fluid by applying a cross flow jet (cross flow is created to some degree by the serial arrangement of the jet generating pipes (1, 1’), further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1)).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi teaches a diameter of the second fluid discharge device (1) is larger than a diameter of the first fluid discharge device (1’, “When a plurality of jet generating pipes are provided concentrically, the outer jet generating pipe and the inner jet generating pipe may be provided at the same height, or one of the outer jet generating pipe and the inner jet generating pipe may be lower than the other. It can also be provided at a position or higher position”, wherein the order of the smaller diameter jet generating pipe and larger diameter jet generating pipe in the direction of flow is interchangeable), and wherein the cross flow jet is applied inwards from the second fluid discharge device (1, shown in figure 8, wherein the disruption of airflow caused by the presence of the jet generating tube (1) further causes a cross flow in the horizontal direction perpendicular to said airflow, further taught by Martin in the rejection of Claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights