DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 9-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(a) and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 2/11/2026.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2005/0016828, hereinafter Bednarek.
Regarding claim 1, Bednarek teaches a water vapor distillation apparatus (figure 20) comprising: a sump (item 500); an evaporator (the outside of item 600) having a first side in communication with the sump (figure 20) and a second side in fluid communication with a steam chest (item 300) (figure 20); a concentrate reservoir (labeled in annotated figure below) attached to the steam chest (figure 20) via an inflow path (the lower inlet of item 301, figure 20), the concentrate reservoir having a first portion (labeled in annotated figure below) and second portion (labeled in annotated figure below), the second portion defined at least in part by an internal obstruction (labeled in annotated figure below) comprising a sleeve (the labeled internal obstruction is considered to be a “sleeve”) that extends into the concentrate reservoir generally perpendicular to the first portion (figure 20) and dividing the concentrate reservoir into an unsheltered section and a sheltered section that is fluidically isolated from direct inflow by the sleeve (figure 20); a venting pathway (the upper pathway of item 301) extending from the concentrate reservoir to the steam chest (figure 20), the venting pathway extending parallel to and above the first portion of the inflow path (figure 20) the venting pathway being in fluidic communication with the sheltered section (figure 20); a float assembly (paragraph [0116] and the sensors in item 301 and is labeled as L1 in figure 14a) disposed entirely in the sheltered section (figure 20), and displaceable over a displacement range (paragraph [0116]) inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of steam chest liquid levels (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)); a sensor configured to monitor a position of the float assembly and output a data signal indicative of a liquid level in the steam chest based on a position of the float assembly (paragraphs [0106] and [0116]); and a compressor (item 100) having an inlet establishing fluid communication with the steam chest (figure 20) and an outlet establishing fluid communication with a condenser (the inside of item 600 and figure 20).
Bednarek is silent as to the venting pathway has a smaller cross-sectional area than that of the first portion of the inflow path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum cross-sectional areas of the venting pathway and the inflow pathway such that the venting pathway has a smaller cross-sectional area than the inlet pathway (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to make the cross-sectional area of the venting pathway to be small than the cross-sectional area of the inlet pathway, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Bednarek teaches wherein the sleeve extends into the concentrate reservoir at an angle substantially perpendicular to the first portion of the inflow path (figure 20).
Regarding claim 11, Bednarek teaches a water vapor distillation apparatus (figure 20) comprising: a sump (item 500) having a source fluid input (where item V1 is); an evaporator (the outside of item 600) having a first side in fluid communication with the source fluid input via the sump (figure 20) and a second side in fluid communication with a steam chest (item 300) (figure 20); a concentrate reservoir (labeled in figure above) attached and disposed laterally to the steam chest (figure 20), the concentrate reservoir comprising an internal obstruction (labeled in figure above) diving the concentrate reservoir into an unsheltered portion (labeled in figure above as second portion) exposed to inflow and a sheltered portion (labeled in figure above as first portion) fluidically sheltered from inflow turbulence, a concentrate level sensor disposed in the sheltered portion (figure 20); a condenser (item the inside of item 600) in heat transfer relationship with a plurality of exterior surfaces of the evaporator (figure 20), the condenser including a condensing portion (the upper portion of the inside of item 600) and a condensate accumulation portion (the bottom portion of the inside of item 600); a compressor (item 100) having a low pressure vapor inlet establishing fluid communication with the steam chest (figure 20) and a high pressure vapor outlet establishing fluid communication (figure 20) with the condenser (the inside of item 600) via a condenser inlet, the condenser configured to condense a high pressure vapor stream from the compressor by contacting the high pressure vapor stream with the plurality of exterior surfaces of the evaporator (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is shown in figure 20); and an auxiliary condensate reservoir (item 501) in fluid communication with the condensate accumulation portion through a passage (the lower opening leading to item 501) located at an accumulation surface of the accumulation portion (figure 20) and separate from and attached to the condenser separate from and attached to the condenser adjacent to the accumulation surface of the accumulation portion (figure 20), the auxiliary condensate reservoir including a condensate level sensor (the sensors in item 501 and labeled L2 in figure 14a) configured to monitor a level of condensate in the accumulation portion and generate a data signal indicative of a percentage which the accumulation portion is filled with (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Regarding claim 12, Bednarek teaches all limitations of claim 11; however, they are silent as to volume of the accumulation portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum volume of the accumulation portion to a range of less than ten liters (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to make the volume of the accumulation portion to a volume of less than ten liters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Bednarek teaches wherein the plurality of exterior surfaces are exterior surfaces of a plurality of evaporator tubes (the inside exterior surfaces of item 600) included in the evaporator (figure 20).
Regarding claim 17, Bednarek teaches wherein the concentrate level sensor includes a float assembly (paragraph [0116]) disposed in a sheltered section (the side wall separates the sheltered section from the unsheltered section and the float is in the sheltered side, figure 20) of the concentrate reservoir separated from an unsheltered portion of the concentrate reservoir by a barrier (figure 20).
Regarding claim 19, Bednarek teaches wherein the concentrate level sensor is disposed within a sleeve which forms the barrier (figure 20, the sensor is considered to be in a sleeve which is formed by the wall of item 301).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bednarek in view of United States Patent No. 3,813,916, hereinafter Clair.
Regarding claim 2, Bednarek teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Bednarek fails to teach the sensor is an encoder,
Clair provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use an optical encoder with the float to indicate the rise and fall of the level in the container (Clair, abstract).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., an encoder) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a generic float sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an encoder), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float sensor with an encoder), and the results of the substitution (i.e., determining the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute a generic float sensor of reference Bednarek with an encoder of reference Clair, since the result would have been predictable.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bednarek in view of in view of United States Application Publication No. 2009/0025399, hereinafter Kamen
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bednarek is silent with regards to the specific sensor and float used, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional sensors for floats and float types. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float assembly which is displaceable about a pivot (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) with a magnet on the float assembly (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) and a hall effect sensor which cooperates with the magnet to output the angular position of the float (Kamen, paragraph [0409]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the float and sensor of the float from a control magnet connected with a float and a Hall generator motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen.
Further, Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., generic float valve) with other component(s) (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float valve with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., sensing the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the generic float of reference Bednarek with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor of reference Kamen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Bednarek is silent with regards to the specific sensor and float used, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional sensors for floats and float types. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float assembly which is displaceable about a pivot (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) with a magnet on the float assembly (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) and a hall effect sensor which cooperates with the magnet to output the angular position of the float (Kamen, paragraph [0409]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the float and sensor of the float from a control magnet connected with a float and a Hall generator motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen.
Further, Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., generic float valve) with other component(s) (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float valve with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., sensing the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the generic float of reference Bednarek with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor of reference Kamen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Bednarek is silent with regards to the specific sensor and float used, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional sensors for floats and float types. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float assembly which is displaceable about a pivot (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) with a magnet on the float assembly (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) and a hall effect sensor which cooperates with the magnet to output the angular position of the float (Kamen, paragraph [0409]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the float and sensor of the float from a control magnet connected with a float and a Hall generator motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen.
Further, Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., generic float valve) with other component(s) (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float valve with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., sensing the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the generic float of reference Bednarek with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor of reference Kamen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Bednarek teaches all limitations of claim 11; however, Bednarek teaches the evaporator/condenser uses multiple parallel tubes, however Bednarek is silent as to the number of evaporator tubes.
Kamen teaches a water vapor distillation system which teaches having a large number of tubes within the evaporator/condenser may produce more water, but a design having a lower number of tubes may provide the most efficient use of resources (Kamen, paragraph [0443]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum number of evaporator tubes to a range of 90-100 which would allow to produce more water while providing the most efficient use of resources. (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 15, Bednarek teaches all limitations of claim 11; however, Bednarek teaches the evaporator/condenser uses multiple parallel tubes, however, Bednarek is silent as to the number of evaporator tubes.
Kamen teaches a water vapor distillation system which teaches having a large number of tubes within the evaporator/condenser may produce more water, but a design having a lower number of tubes may provide the most efficient use of resources (Kamen, paragraph [0443]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum number of evaporator tubes to a range of 70-80 which would allow to produce more water while providing the most efficient use of resources. (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 16, Bednarek teaches all limitations of claim 11; however, Bednarek is silent with regards to specific connection for the float, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional connections for floats. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float ball with an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial (Kamen, paragraph [0411]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connection for the float from the float which is connected to an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen. Regarding the limitation that the float pivots over a displacement range inclusive of points at even height with a range of levels defined by the accumulation portion, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Bednarek and Kamen and the apparatus of modified Bednarek is capable pivoting over a displacement range that is inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of the accumulation portion. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Bednarek (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 18, Bednarek teaches all limitations of claim 17; however, Bednarek is silent with regards to specific connection for the float, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional connections for floats. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float ball with an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial (Kamen, paragraph [0411]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connection for the float from the float which is connected to an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen. Regarding the limitation that the float pivots over a displacement range inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of steam chest liquid levels, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Bednarek and Kamen and the apparatus of modified Bednarek is capable pivoting over a displacement range that is inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of steam chest liquid levels. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Bednarek (see MPEP §2114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Bednarek teaches away from having a pivoted float architecture rather than towards it is not found persuasive. Bednarek specifically teaches utilizing a float valve or other device for controlling the height/level of liquid in the head in paragraph [0116]. Therefore, Bednarek does not teach away from having a float architecture as Bednarek specifically teaches having a float. The fact that Bednarek teaches an advantage of using a capacitive level sensor doesn’t prevent using the float as described in Bednarek itself.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the office effectively reconstructs Applicant’s disclosed architecture by taking a generalized “reservoir with barrier” concept from Bednarek and then importing pivoted float hardware from Kamen is not found persuasive. Firstly, the claim is read utilizing the lens of a broadest reasonable interpretation and then applying that interpretation to the prior art. This interpretation as applied to Bednarek regarding the reservoir with barrier is taught as described above in the rejection and the annotated figure above. There is nothing in the claim nor in Bednarek which would prevent this interpretation for Bednarek to read on the specified claim limitations. Regarding applicant’s assertion that the pivoted float hardware is being imported and the law requires more than the ability to combine features after learning Applicant’s argument. Bednarek already teaches a float structure within the reservoir, as shown above in the rejection Bednarek is the only reference being utilized to reject the independent claims. The reference of Kamen is only being utilized for substituting the generalized float of Bednarek with a more specific float as described by Kamen. This combination is based upon KSR rationale B, simple substitution and not just combining features as applicant’s allege.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding applicant’s argument that the cross-sectional relationship of the venting pathway and the inflow path would not have been a mere routine optimization or obvious design choice is not found persuasive. Applicant has not shown any criticality of the relationship of the cross-sectional relationship of the venting pathway and the inflow path. Applicants seem to allege that the cross-sectional relationship is part of the claimed integrated architecture, and not an arbitrary size choice, but provides not evidence or showing that this is the case and it seems as though any size of the venting pathway/cross-sectional relationship would function as described (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding applicant’s argument that the office must provide a persuasive reason why one would have replaced Bednarek’s concentrate-reservoir level-sensing arrangement, already pointed toward capacitive sensing, with Kamen-style pivoted float and then further replace the position sensor with an encoder. Firstly, as described above, Bednarek already discloses a float system for detecting and controlling the level of fluid within the device, the reference of Clair is being utilized for replacing the sensor with an encoder and utilized KSR rationale B as the reason for combining and therefore provides a reason for combining.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights