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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numbers and text labels are cut off from the image, see at least Figure 4, Figure 10 and Figure 16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the use of solid black shading in Figures 8, 9 and 10. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A smart nitrogen control system in at least claim 1, 17 and 20;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation “wherein the hybrid drying system configured to be retrofitted to the climate controlled system” should be - - wherein the hybrid drying system is configured to be retrofitted to the climate controlled system - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 19, the recitation “bends through the T-joint to the to the process air discharge opening” should be - - bends through the T-joint to the process air discharge opening - - for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 17 and 20, the claims recite the limitation “a smart nitrogen control system configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air”. The term “system” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which nitrogen is selectively injected into the process air. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of injecting nitrogen. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, 17 and 20, the term “smart” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “smart” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the nitrogen control system, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 7, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the position of the fire damper, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation “the fire damper” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes the limitation has been interpreted as - - a fire damper - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 20, the term “standalone” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “standalone” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the ECU, the term render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 20, the recitation “the control panel is configured to control the condenser to a moisture level” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, the limitation is lacking an action that the condenser performs. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, in light of “a condenser configured to remove moisture” in claim 20 and, where the controller 140 may then control the condenser 106 to change the relative humidity of the process air in 0036 of Applicant Specification, the recitation is interpreted generically as - - the control panel is configured to control the condenser to change a moisture level - - for clarity.
Further Regarding Claims 1, 17 and 20, Claim limitation “a smart nitrogen control system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6, 9-16 and 18-19 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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, 8-10, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1)
Regarding Claim 1, He teaches a hybrid drying system [where the invention utilizes a dehumidifying rotary system to further dry air after it has been condensed and dehumidified by the front surface cooler; 0021] for treating process air entering a climate controlled system [drying chamber 8, Figure 1, where the invention improves the uniformity of air entering the drying chamber; 0024], the hybrid drying system comprising:
a desiccant dryer [dehumidifying impeller system 4, Figure 1; 0035] configured to remove moisture from the process air [where dehumidifying impeller system 4 includes a silicone media impeller; 0035];
an environmental control unit (ECU) [front surface cooler 3, rear surface cooler 6 and hydrophilic fins that are connected as one unit by expansion, Figure 1; 0035] including a condenser [where front surface cooler 4 condenses and dehumidifies hot and humid external air; 0038] fluidly connected to the desiccant dryer and configured to further remove moisture from the process air [where the air after condensation and dehumidification then continues to pass through the dehumidification wheel processing area of the dehumidification wheel system 4; 0038];
and does not teach a smart nitrogen control system configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air.
However, Zhang teaches a technology for an organic light emitting diode packaging process [0001] where a smart nitrogen control system [gas supply device 30, Figure 1; 0045] is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air [where a protective gas is provided for operating space 10 by a gas supply device 30 to purge oxygen; 0043-0044; where the protective gas is nitrogen gas; 0029] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device by maintaining a low moisture low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of He to have teach a smart nitrogen control system configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air in view of the teachings of Zhang where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device by maintaining a low moisture low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Regarding Claim 3, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the smart nitrogen control system is configured to reduce the oxygen level of the process air to less than 500 ppm.
However, Zhang teaches a technology for an organic light emitting diode packaging process [0001] wherein the smart nitrogen control system [gas supply device 30, Figure 1; 0045] is configured to reduce the oxygen level of the process air to less than 500 ppm [where the gas supply device 30 is required to supply more protective gas, namely purging, when the oxygen content of the protective gas is greater than the second threshold value where the second threshold value may be 10 ppm and can be determined according to the operating environment; 0059] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, oxygen content, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device being processed by maintaining a low moisture and low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004; 0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the smart nitrogen control system is configured to reduce the oxygen level of the process air to less than 500 ppm in view of the teachings of Zhang where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device being processed by maintaining a low moisture and low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004; 0059].
Regarding Claim 8, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach an oxygen sensor, wherein the smart nitrogen control system is configured to activate nitrogen injection when the oxygen level is greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) as detected by the oxygen sensor.
However, Zhang teaches a technology for an organic light emitting diode packaging process [0001] including an oxygen sensor [where the first sensing assembly 40 detects that the oxygen content of the protective gas is greater than a second threshold value; 0044], wherein the smart nitrogen control system [gas supply device 30, Figure 1; 0045] is configured to activate nitrogen injection when the oxygen level is greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) as detected by the oxygen sensor [where the gas supply device 30 is required to supply more protective gas, namely purging, when the oxygen content of the protective gas is greater than the second threshold value ; 0059; where the second threshold may be 10 ppm; 0059] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization, determined according to the operating environment; 0059, of a known result effective variable, oxygen content, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device being processed by maintaining a low moisture and low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of He to have an oxygen sensor, wherein the smart nitrogen control system is configured to activate nitrogen injection when the oxygen level is greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) as detected by the oxygen sensor in view of the teachings of Zhang where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device being processed by maintaining a low moisture and low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Regarding Claim 9, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches where the hybrid drying system configured to be retrofitted to the climate controlled system [where housing 1 connects to drying chamber 8, Figure 1 and Figure 2; 0034].
Regarding Claim 12, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a temperature sensor [where the casing 1 and the drying chamber 8 are provided with a temperature monitoring system connected to the control system; 0034; where the temperature and humidity display and control of this invention uses an Austrian E+E temperature and humidity probe; 0039] for detecting a temperature of the process air [where in order to accurately monitor the temperature and humidity parameters inside the casing 1 and the drying chamber 8 in real time, users can set temperature and humidity sensors at each airflow node to monitor the air conditions; 0035] and a controller [control system; 0038] configured to control the condenser to change the temperature of the process air [where the control system controls the operation of each device; 0038] based on an output of the temperature sensor [where the temperature and humidity display and control of this invention uses an Austrian E+E temperature and humidity probe; 0039].
Regarding Claim 15, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15, and further teaches where the hybrid drying system is at least one of air cooled [where hydrophilic fins are connected to cooler 3 and surface cooler 6; 0035; where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand fins are configured for air heat exchange].
Regarding Claim 16, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the desiccant dryer [dehumidification rotary system 4, Figure 1] is a regenerative desiccant dryer [where in order to remove the moisture adsorbed in the dehumidifying impeller system 4, the regeneration device 7 generates regenerated hot air inside the casing 1. The regenerated hot air passes through the regeneration zone of the dehumidifying impeller in the dehumidifying impeller system 4, carrying away the moisture in the dehumidifying impeller part that rotates to the regeneration zone; 0038] including batches of operative material [a washable silicone media; 0012].
Regarding Claim 17, He teaches a hybrid drying system for treating process air [where the invention utilizes a dehumidifying rotary system to further dry air after it has been condensed and dehumidified by the front surface cooler; 0021] entering a climate controlled system [drying chamber 8, Figure 1, where the invention improves the uniformity of air entering the drying chamber; 0024], the hybrid drying system comprising:
a desiccant dryer [dehumidifying impeller system 4, Figure 1; 0035] configured to remove moisture from the process air [where dehumidifying impeller system 4 includes a silicone media impeller; 0035];
an environmental control unit (ECU) [front surface cooler 3, rear surface cooler 6 and hydrophilic fins that are connected as one unit by expansion, Figure 1; 0035] including a condenser [where front surface cooler 4 condenses and dehumidifies hot and humid external air; 0038] fluidly connected to the desiccant dryer and configured to further remove moisture from the process air [where the air after condensation and dehumidification then continues to pass through the dehumidification wheel processing area of the dehumidification wheel system 4; 0038], and
the ECU being connected inline with the desiccant dryer thereby optimizing airflow therebetween [where the air after condensation and dehumidification then continues to pass through the dehumidification wheel processing area of the dehumidification wheel system 4; 0038]; and does not teacha smart nitrogen control system configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air.However, Zhang teaches a technology for an organic light emitting diode packaging process [0001] where a smart nitrogen control system [gas supply device 30, Figure 1; 0045] is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air [where a protective gas is provided for operating space 10 by a gas supply device 30 to purge oxygen; 0043-0044; where the protective gas is nitrogen gas; 0029] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device by maintaining a low moisture low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of He to have teach a smart nitrogen control system configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air in view of the teachings of Zhang where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device by maintaining a low moisture low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Claim 17 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “thereby optimizing airflow therebetween”. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 18, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 and further teaches where the smart nitrogen control system includes an oxygen sensor, wherein the smart nitrogen control system is configured to activate nitrogen injection when the oxygen level is greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) as detected by the oxygen sensor.
However, Zhang teaches a technology for an organic light emitting diode packaging process [0001] including an oxygen sensor [where the first sensing assembly 40 detects that the oxygen content of the protective gas is greater than a second threshold value; 0044], wherein the smart nitrogen control system [gas supply device 30, Figure 1; 0045] is configured to activate nitrogen injection when the oxygen level is greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) as detected by the oxygen sensor [where the gas supply device 30 is required to supply more protective gas, namely purging, when the oxygen content of the protective gas is greater than the second threshold value ; 0059; where the second threshold may be 10 ppm; 0059] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization, determined according to the operating environment; 0059, of a known result effective variable, oxygen content, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device being processed by maintaining a low moisture and low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of He to have an oxygen sensor, wherein the smart nitrogen control system is configured to activate nitrogen injection when the oxygen level is greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) as detected by the oxygen sensor in view of the teachings of Zhang where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an environment that will not damage an electronic device being processed by maintaining a low moisture and low oxygen environment [Zhang; 0004].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Pahwa et al. (US20130160644A1).
Regarding Claim 4, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the condenser is configured to reduce a moisture level of the process air to less than 18 percent relative humidity independently from the desiccant dryer.
However, Pahwa teaches equipment that uses a solid desiccant material to remove moisture from air or other gases [0001] where the condenser [where cooling coil 13 and 14 removes as much moisture as possible by condensation before entering process sector 2, Figure 3; 0008] is configured to reduce a moisture level of the process air to less than 18 percent relative humidity independently from the desiccant dryer [where the air entering the process sector 2 of desiccant wheel 1 has a relative humidity of 20% or less, Figure 3; 0008] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, relative humidity, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., decreasing relative humidity for processes that require an extremely low delivered air dew point [Pahwa;0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the condenser is configured to reduce a moisture level of the process air to less than 18 percent relative humidity independently from the desiccant dryer in view of the teachings of Pahwa where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., decreasing relative humidity for processes that require an extremely low delivered air dew point [Pahwa;0008].
Regarding Claim 5, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and dose not teach where the desiccant dryer and the condenser are configured to reduce a moisture level of the process air to less than 5 percent relative humidity.
However, Pahwa teaches equipment that uses a solid desiccant material to remove moisture from air or other gases [0001] where the desiccant dryer [desiccant wheel process sector, Figure 17A] and the condenser [cooling coil, Figure 17A] are configured to reduce a moisture level of the process air to less than 5 percent relative humidity [where the performance of very dry rooms such as lithium battery manufacturing the process air leaves process sector at 55 °F with a -70 °F dewpoint, Figure 17A; 0039; where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the air is at 0.2% relative humidity based on the given temperature 55 °F with a -70 °F dewpoint] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, relative humidity, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., decreasing relative humidity for processes that require an extremely low delivered air dew point [Pahwa; 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the desiccant dryer and the condenser are configured to reduce a moisture level of the process air to less than 5 percent relative humidity in view of the teachings of Pahwa where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., decreasing relative humidity for processes that require an extremely low delivered air dew point [Pahwa; 0057].
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Clearman (US20080022705A1).
Regarding Claim 6, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a process air discharge opening [air supply duct 14, Figure 1 and Figure 2] configured to release the treated process air to the climate controlled system [drying chamber 8, Figure 2]; a manual exhaust damper [regeneration exhaust port; 0033] connected between the ECU [pre-cooler 3 and rear-cooler 6, Figure 1 and Figure 3] and the process air discharge [air supply duct 14, Figure 1] and does not teach a manual exhaust damper connected via a T-joint.
However, Clearman teaches a device and method for filtering and dehumidifying air in an enclosed space [0001] where a manual exhaust damper [manual damper 344, Figure 4] connected between the ECU [where airflow has been filtered and dehumidified in module 100, Fig 4; 0040; where module 100 is downstream the return airflow from the HVAC system; 0040] and the process air discharge via a T-joint [where path 342 diverts a fraction of the output airflow from module 100, Figure 4; 0041] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., introducing optional partial air return to an unconditioned space [Clearman; 0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Epstein have where the predefined temperature range includes a lower limit above the temperature required for maintaining the cryogenic fuel in the liquid phase in view of the teachings of Méndez where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., introducing optional partial air return to an unconditioned space [Clearman; 0041].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) and Garfinkle et al. (US20170216764A1) as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Gu (CN204373110U).
Regarding Claim 7, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and does not teach a fire damper near the process air discharge opening.
However, Gu teaches a bypass fresh air system [0002] including a fire damper [fire dampers FD, Figure 1] near the process air discharge opening [where fire dampers are installed where the indoor supply air duct and indoor return air duct pass through the machine room; 0023] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving fire safety of the system by preventing the spread of fire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a fire damper near the process air discharge opening in view of the teachings of Gu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving fire safety of the system by preventing the spread of fire.
Regarding Claim 8, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and does not teach a dynamic isolation damper connected between the ECU and a fire damper.
However, Gu teaches a bypass fresh air system [0002] including a dynamic isolation damper [electric double-leaf regulating valve M4 on supply air duct SF, Figure 1] connected between the ECU [combined air conditioning unit 1, Figure 1] and the fire damper [fire damper FD on supply air duct SF, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., adjusting ventilation as needed [Gu;0004; 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Epstein have where the predefined temperature range includes a lower limit above the temperature required for maintaining the cryogenic fuel in the liquid phase in view of the teachings of Méndez where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., adjusting ventilation as needed [Gu; 0004; 0029].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Forkosh (US6494053B1).
Regarding Claim 10, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the ECU is positioned above the desiccant dryer and the ECU is fluidly connected to the desiccant dryer via a non-linear duct.
However, Forkosh teach an invention in the field of systems which combine dehumidification and air conditioning [col. 1, lines 10-13] where the ECU [conditioner system 310, Figure 6] is positioned above the desiccant dryer [dehumidifier 342, Figure 6] and the ECU is fluidly connected to the desiccant dryer via a non-linear duct [where waste heat outlet 334 leads into waste heat inlet 352 and where air outlet 348 leads into fresh air inlet 338, Figure 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of rearranging the ECU above the desiccant dryer such that the desiccant dryer and ECU are fluidly connected via a non-linear duct.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have where the ECU is positioned above the desiccant dryer and the ECU is fluidly connected to the desiccant dryer via a non-linear duct in view of the teachings of Forkosh where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed configuration would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 11, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and does not teach where the ECU is connected to the desiccant dryer via a duct having two elbows.
However, Forkosh teach an invention in the field of systems which combine dehumidification and air conditioning [col. 1, lines 10-13] where the ECU [conditioner system 310, Figure 6] is connected to the desiccant dryer [dehumidifier 342, Figure 6] via a duct having two elbows [annotated Figure 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of rearranging the ECU above the desiccant dryer such that the desiccant dryer and ECU are fluidly connected via a duct having two elbows.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have where the ECU is connected to the desiccant dryer via a duct having two elbows in view of the teachings of Forkosh where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed configuration would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Millar (US20220113088A1).
Regarding Claim 13, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where a humidity sensor [where the casing 1 and the drying chamber 8 are provided with a temperature monitoring system connected to the control system; 0034; where the temperature and humidity display and control of this invention uses an Austrian E+E temperature and humidity probe; 0039] configured to detect a humidity of the process air [where in order to accurately monitor the temperature and humidity parameters inside the casing 1 and the drying chamber 8 in real time, users can set temperature and humidity sensors at each airflow node to monitor the air conditions; 0035] and a controller configured to control the condenser to change the humidity of the process air [where the control system controls the operation of each device; 0038] based on an output of the relative humidity sensor [where the temperature and humidity display and control of this invention uses an Austrian E+E temperature and humidity probe; 0039] but does not teach the humidity sensor is a relative humidity sensor.
However, Millar a system and method for drying materials [0002] where the humidity sensor [internal environment sensors 84; 0050] is a relative humidity sensor [where the internal environment sensors 84 measure relative humidity and the temperature of the air in the kiln; 0050] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., controlling drying where relative humidity influences drying time [Millar; 0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the humidity sensor is a relative humidity sensor in view of the teachings of Millar where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., controlling drying where relative humidity influences drying time [Millar; 0069].
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Weagraff (US5546673A).
Regarding Claim 14, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach an on/off switch for manually activating the hybrid drying system and an emergency off (EMO) switch for automatically deactivating the hybrid drying system upon detection of an emergency condition.
However, Weagraff teaches a control system to a control a dryer [col.1, lines 8-13] including an on/off switch [drying mode switch 90, Figure 1] for manually activating the hybrid drying system [where the drying mode switch 90 is positioned to the drying position to begin operation of the dryer; col. 4, lines 2-4; where the drying mode switch is positioned to the “shut-down” position; col. 4, lines 16-22] and an emergency off (EMO) switch [snap switch 40, Figure 1] for automatically deactivating the hybrid drying system upon detection of an emergency condition [where snap switch 40 closes if the temperature reaches 500 F so as to close down the system under high heat; col. 3, lines 31-36] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a means to operate the system and shut down the system during dangerously high temperatures [Weagraff; col. 2, lines 24-27].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where an on/off switch for manually activating the hybrid drying system and an emergency off (EMO) switch for automatically deactivating the hybrid drying system upon detection of an emergency condition in view of the teachings of Weagraff where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a means to operate the system and shut down the system during dangerously high temperatures [Weagraff; col. 2, lines 24-27].
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN109099647A) in view of Zhang (US20160013452A1) as applied to claim 17 above and in further view of Tucker et al. (US4176525A)
Regarding Claim 19, He, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 and further teaches a process air discharge opening [air supply duct 14, Figure 1 and Figure 2] configured to release the treated process air to the climate controlled system [drying chamber 8, Figure 2]; and a manual exhaust damper [regeneration exhaust port; 0033] connected between the ECU [pre-cooler 3 and rear-cooler 6, Figure 1 and Figure 3] and the process air discharge via a T-joint [air supply duct 14, Figure 1], the manual exhaust damper being connected inline with the condenser [where the front surface cooler 3 condenses and dehumidifies the hot and humid external air; 0038; where the rotary system further dehumidifies the air and then a regeneration device 7 is connected to the rear of the rotor system 4; 0035] and does not teach where the manual exhaust damper connected via a T-joint and the process air discharge opening being connected to the ECU via the T-joint so that airflow from the ECU passes straight through the T-joint to the manual exhaust damper and bends through the T-joint to the to the process air discharge opening.
However, Tucker teaches combined environmental and refrigeration systems [col. 1, lines 6-11] where an exhaust damper [exhaust air damper B3, Figure 4B in plenum 42, Figure 4B] connected via a T-joint [see annotated Figure 4B below] and the process air discharge opening [air return duct 46, Figure 4B] is connected to the ECU [where in dehumidification mode evaporator EV3 lowers the air moisture content and condenser CD3 reheats air, Figure 4B; col. 6, lines 37-55] via the T-joint [see annotated Figure 4B below] so that airflow from the ECU passes straight through the T-joint to the manual exhaust damper [where the air flows straight toward damper B3 from condenser CD3, Figure 4B] and bends through the T-joint to the to the process air discharge opening [where the air flow bends downward, as oriented in Figure 4B, through air return duct 46, Figure 4B] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of rearranging the exhaust such that the exhaust damper is connected via a T-joint and airflow from the ECU passes straight through the T-joint to the manual exhaust damper.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have where the manual exhaust damper connected via a T-joint and the process air discharge opening being connected to the ECU via the T-joint so that airflow from the ECU passes straight through the T-joint to the manual exhaust damper and bends through the T-joint to the to the process air discharge opening in view of the teachings of Tucker where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed configuration would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image2.png
385
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshti et al. (US20150045961A) in view of Weagraff (US5546673A).
Regarding Claim 20, Koshti, in light of indefiniteness, teaches a standalone environmental control unit (ECU) [environmental control system 418, Figure 1] and nitrogen system [inert gas supply 118A, where the inert gas may be nitrogen, Figure 1; 0035] for treating process air entering a climate controlled system [factory interface chamber 414c, Figure 4], the standalone ECU and nitrogen system comprising:
an ECU including a condenser [where devices for reducing moisture content, such as condensers or other moisture removers may be used; 0050] configured to remove moisture from the process air [0050]; and
a controller [controller 425, Figure 4] including:
a relative humidity sensor [a relative humidity sensor 130, Figure 4; 0037] configured to detect a relative humidity of the process air [where the environmental control system 118 monitors relative humidity by sensing RH in the factory interface chamber 113C with a relative humidity sensor 130; 0037], wherein the controller is configured to control the condenser to change a moisture level of the process air based on an output of the relative humidity sensor [where the inert gas recirculation to inert gas supply 118A though filter 352; 0050; where the relative humidity may be lowered by a control signal from the controller 125 to the environmental control system 118 initiating a flow of a suitable amount of an inert gas from the inert gas supply 118A into the factory interface chamber 114C; 0038, Figure 4]; and
a smart nitrogen control system [inert gas supply 118A, where the inert gas may be nitrogen, Figure 1; 0035] configured to reduce an oxygen level of the process air via selective injection of nitrogen into the process air [where the predefined reference relative humidity value may be less than 1000 ppm; where the RH may be lowered by a control signal from the controller 125 to the environmental control system 118 initiating a flow of a suitable amount of an inert gas from the inert gas supply 118A into the factory interface chamber; 0038], wherein the condenser is configured to change the moisture level of the process air to less than 18 percent relative humidity [where the predefined threshold level of relative humidity may be less than about 5% moisture, Figure 4; 0056].
Koshti does not teach the controller is a control panel including an on/off switch for manually activating the standalone ECU and nitrogen system and an emergency off (EMO) switch for automatically deactivating the standalone ECU and nitrogen system upon detection of an emergency condition.
However, Weagraff teaches a control system to a control a dryer [col.1, lines 8-13] including a control panel [where all of the lights referred to in the description of the ladder diagram of FIG. 3A and 3B are mounted on a control panel readily visible to the operator of the dryer; col. 4, lines 7-16] including an on/off switch [drying mode switch 90, Figure 1] for manually activating the hybrid drying system [where the drying mode switch 90 is positioned to the drying position to begin operation of the dryer; col. 4, lines 2-4; where the drying mode switch is positioned to the “shut-down” position; col. 4, lines 16-22] and an emergency off (EMO) switch [snap switch 40, Figure 1] for automatically deactivating the hybrid drying system upon detection of an emergency condition [where snap switch 40 closes if the temperature reaches 500 F so as to close down the system under high heat; col. 3, lines 31-36] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a means to operate the system and shut down the system during dangerously high temperatures [Weagraff; col. 2, lines 24-27].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a control panel including an on/off switch for manually activating the standalone ECU and nitrogen system and an emergency off (EMO) switch for automatically deactivating the standalone ECU and nitrogen system upon detection of an emergency condition in view of the teachings of Weagraff where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a means to operate the system and shut down the system during dangerously high temperatures [Weagraff; col. 2, lines 24-27].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights