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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III, Sub species 1 (figures 4 and 1a-1d) in the reply filed on 7/17/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 are pending, claims 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey et al (U.S. PG-Pub 2010/0059358) in view of Demmons et al. (US Patent Application Publication (US PG-Pub 2009/0218210).
Regarding Claim 11, Ritchey discloses a system comprising:
a heat pipe (heat pipes 80 and 90 with connector pipes 100), wherein a first portion of the heat pipe is located in a first portion of the vapor compression distillation system (at heat pipe 80), and a second portion of the heat pipe is located in a second portion of the vapor compression distillation system (at heat pipe 90); wherein the heat pipe is configured to transfer heat from the first portion of the vapor compression distillation system to the second portion of the vapor compression distillation system ( the heat pipe 80 absorbs heat and transfers it to upper heat pipe 90 per paragraph 0064-0065) and the heat pipe is a sealed tube and a working fluid of the heat pipe is protected within the sealed tube under at least a partial vacuum.
However Ritchey does not explicitly disclose details of the heat pipes each heat pipe of the first plurality of heat pipes are a sealed tube and a working fluid of each heat pipe of the first plurality of heat pipes are protected within the sealed tube under at least a partial vacuum, While Ritchey does disclose that the heat pipes at lower and upper heat pipes 80 and 90 and where refrigerant moves from the lower heat pipe to the upper heat pipe per paragraph 0064-0065, where refrigerant moves in a continuous flow between the two sections, however Ritchey does not disclose that the heat pipes are sealed in a partial vacuum as Ritchey is silent as to that aspect of heat pipe construction.
Demmons teaches (Figure 1-8) one or more heat pipes (6) for a distillation system (per paragraph 0022), where the one or more heat pipes are a sealed tube ( tube 4 in figure 1) and a working fluid (working fluid 5) of each heat pipe of the first plurality of heat pipes are protected within the sealed tube under at least a partial vacuum ( the working fluid is sealed under a partial vacuum in the tube per paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tubes of Ritchey be sealed under a partial vacuum as recognized by Demmons. Doing so would allow provide for an extremely well known construction of heat pipes and allow for the speed of propagation of vapor working fluid/refrigerant in the heat pipe be high as recognized by Demmons (per paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 12, Ritchey as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 11 above but Ritchey fails to specifically disclose the heat pipe is selected from the group consisting of advanced heat pipes and thermosiphons.
Examiner notes that the instant specification [0009] and [0023] seems to disclose that advanced heat pipes are a known type of heat pipe in the prior art and their construction allows for a greatly enhanced thermal conductivity. Applicants own specification cites a reference “Thermal Property Analysis of the Qu Supertube” by Michael McKubre. Therefore, examiner asserts advanced heat pipes are a known improvement to a conventional heat pipe that allows for greater thermal conductivity.
Therefore, examiner asserts it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus disclosed by Ritchey to include advanced heat pipes as taught by the instant specification as one skilled in the art would readily recognize the thermal efficiency benefits of having a heat pipe with an enhanced thermal conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2025 with respect to claim 11-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that the vapor compression distillation system first claimed in the preamble is not disclosed by Ritchey and additionally that the combination of Ritchey in view of Demmons would not be made by a person of ordinary skill in the art since the heat pipes in both reference are used for different purposes. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that regarding the vapor compression distillation system; In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific features of the vapor compression distillation system specifically that "[i]n a vapor compression distillation system, the "vapor" refers to water vapor created by the system. This water vapor (or steam in most cases) is compressed at one point in the system to increase its temperature and pressure so that it can be used to boil water and create more water vapor, a portion of which is condensed to extract purified water and the rest compressed again into higher temperature and pressure steam to be once more used to create more vapor, etc.” as recited in the DiFillipo declaration and the applicant’s arguments are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case the vapor compression distillation system is recited in claim 11, solely in terms of the heat pipes being in a first and second portion of the system and specific construction of the heat pipe, no additional features of the vapor compression system are recited in the body of the claims. As such, any additional limitations regarding the structure of the vapor compression system must be positively recited in the body of the claims in order to be given patentable weight. In this case since no structure of the vapor compression system other than the heat pipes is explicitly required the combination of Ritchey in view of Demmons still reads on the claim limitations as noted above.
Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the heat pipes as used in Demmons system in place of the heat pipes of Ritchey, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case the Ritchey teaches all of the claim limitations except Ritchey is silent as to the method of operation of the heat pipes themselves and does not go into the specific internal structure of the heat pipes being a sealed tube and a working fluid of each heat pipe of the first plurality of heat pipes are protected within the sealed tube under at least a partial vacuum. While Ritchey does disclose that the heat pipes at lower and upper heat pipes 80 and 90 and where refrigerant moves from the lower heat pipe to the upper heat pipe per paragraph 0064-0065, where refrigerant moves in a continuous flow between the two sections utilizing “heat pipe technology” per paragraph 0064. However Ritchey does not disclose that the heat pipes are sealed in a partial vacuum as Ritchey is silent as to that aspect of heat pipe construction and only generally discloses “heat pipe technology”. Demmons is not relied upon to teach any specific structure of the system but merely how heat pipes are constructed to function. Since Demmons teaches the heat pipes are a sealed tube (tube 4 in figure 1) and a working fluid (working fluid 5) of each heat pipe of the first plurality of heat pipes are protected within the sealed tube under at least a partial vacuum ( the working fluid is sealed under a partial vacuum in the tube per paragraph 0023). In this case the examiner is not relying on the heat pipes of Demmons to modify the system or location of the heat pipes of Ritchey but rather to simply clarify a feature of heat pipes construction and their method of operation that Ritchey does not explicitly disclose. It is commonly known in the heat exchange art how heat pipes are generally constructed and operate but Ritchey does not explicitly spell that construction and method out in its disclosure. In the case of the above rejection Demmons is only relied upon to clarify how heat pipes are configured to operate, in that heat pipes are sealed tubes with a working fluid under partial vacuum as explicitly taught by Demmons. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the heat pipes of Ritchey be similarly configured as a sealed tube with a working fluid under a partial vacuum as that is how heat pipe technology is operated as evidenced by Demmons.
Finally regarding the argument that the heat pipes of Ritchey may not be sealed in the manner of Demmons, would have no expectation of success and would be inoperative if combined as asserted on page 8 of the applicant’s arguments. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that a “heat pipe” is a well-known term in the heat exchange arts. Ritchey refers to the heat pipe as using “heat pipe technology that does not require regeneration and allows for a constant flow of refrigerant through the system”, per paragraph 0064, and that when air moves through the heat pipe that may contain finned coils or other mechanism designed to provide adequate surface contact area per paragraph 0026 and 0065. In this case the air moves over the fins of the heat pipe which would be on the outside of the heat pipe and does not imply that air is moving within the heat pipe where refrigerant/working fluid would be flowing within a circuit through the heat pipe sections per paragraph 0065 of Ritchey; additionally the examiner notes that refrigerant and working fluid are often used interchangeably in the heat pipe art, since refrigerants are often used as a working fluid. This specific construction disclosed by Ritchey implies a loop heat pipe construction. Ritchey discloses all of the claimed limitations except for the circuit containing the refrigerant/working fluid is sealed in a partial vacuum. While this is common within heat pipe construction Ritchey is silent as to the refrigerant/working fluid being sealed under a partial vacuum. The Demmons reference was brought in to disclose that heat pipes are a sealed tube ( tube 4 in figure 1) and a refrigerant/working fluid (working fluid 5) of each heat pipe of the first plurality of heat pipes are protected within the sealed tube under at least a partial vacuum ( the working fluid is sealed under a partial vacuum in the tube per paragraph 0023). Sealing the refrigerant/working fluid of Ritchey within the circuit under a partial vacuum would provide for an extremely well known construction of heat pipes that would allow for the speed of propagation of vapor working fluid/refrigerant in the heat pipe to be high as recognized by Demmons (per paragraph 0023). Constructing the loop/circuit heat pipe of Ritchey to have the refrigerant/ working fluid sealed therein under a partial vacuum as taught by Demmons, would still allow air to pass through/over the fins of Ritchey as only the refrigerant/ working fluid is sealed within the heat pipe, where refrigerant/working fluid flows in a circuit through the portions at upper and lower heat pipes 80 and 90 and connector pipes 100 of Ritchey. Given the above Ritchey would still function appropriately in that it would allow air to pass over the heat pipes and would allow refrigerant /working fluid to be sealed within the heat pipe loop/circuit if the heat pipe loop/circuit formed by 80, 90 and 100 of Ritchey was sealed under a partial vacuum as taught by Demmons above.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 8/6/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 11 and 12 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey et al (U.S. PG-Pub 2010/0059358) in view of Demmons et al. (US Patent Application Publication (US PG-Pub 2009/0218210) as set forth in the last Office action because: It refer(s) only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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 on 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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763