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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-13, in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims include an alleged special technical feature.
This is not found persuasive because independent claim 14 of group II does not include the alleged special technical feature.
To elaborate, the alleged special technical feature comprises the following limitation “wherein each stack further comprises at least two evaporation frames (4) placed side by side along with alternate placement of condensation frames (3) and preheating frames (6)”. This limitation is recited by independent claims 1 and 5 of Group I. However, said limitation is not present in Claim 14, nor is any equivalent thereof.
Though the limitation in question suffers from several serious clarity issues (see 112(b) rejections below), under Examiner’s current interpretation of said limitation, said limitation appears to patentably distinguish claims 1 and 5 from the prior art of record (see “Discussion of Prior Art” below for details). This limitation is the only one which patentably distinguishes said claims from the prior art. Therefore, if claims 1 and 5 do encompass a special technical feature, it would necessarily include this limitation.
In order to traverse a restriction of the basis that the restricted groups comprise a special technical feature, said special technical feature must be present in both restricted groups. Because claim 14 does not include this limitation or any equivalent thereof, it remains that Groups I and II lack the same or corresponding special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/202/205.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s claims include several reference numerals corresponding to elements described in the specification and illustrated in the Figures. The claims make use of some of said reference numerals to refer to certain claimed elements.
Namely, the claims use reference numerals 3, 4, and 6 to refer to the “at least one condensation frame”, the “at least one evaporation frame”, and the “at least one preheating frame” respectively. For example, claim 1 recites “each frame (3), (4), and (6)” refer to --each of the at least one condensation frame, the at least one evaporation frame, and the at least one preheating frame--.
Such usage of reference numerals within the claim is clear and acceptable. However, Examiner notes that the use of reference numerals corresponding to those in the specification and/or figures does not impart any additional limitations onto claimed elements.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following errors
The table on page 6 indicates that Figure 2 illustrates a system having the following stack arrangement: (3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6)+(3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6). However, a review of Figure 2 shows that it does not have said stack arrangement. Instead, Figure 2 illustrates the following stack arrangement: (3,6,3,4,3,6)+(3,6,3,4,3,6).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
1) The drawings are of low quality, having lines and reference characters which are blurred, for lack of a better term.
2) Many of the lines intended to illustrate various fluid flows appear to broken or partially omitted, especially in Figures 2 and 3. It is unclear if this is a result of the low image quality or a result of inadvertent error.
3) In Figure 3, Examiner believes there should be a vertical line dividing the adjacent evaporation frames 4 from one another, said vertical line being representative of a polymeric sheet separating the two adjacent frames.
Figure 3, shows broken vertical lines between the adjacent evaporation frames. Said lines extend over only part of the height of the evaporation frames. Said broken vertical lines are suggestive of something different than the polymeric sheets which separate the other frames from one another. Applicant should either: i) amend Figure 3 to feature unbroken lines which extend the entire height of the evaporation frames, or ii) provide an explanation as to why the lines between adjacent evaporation frames extend only part of the height of the evaporation frames and/or are broken.
4) In Figure 3, reference numeral 5, indicating a distillate, is erroneously applied to one of the evaporation chambers.
5) The figures fail to illustrate a stack arrangement of (3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6)+(3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6), as is required by claim 3. Although the table on page 6 of the specification indicates that Figure 2 shows said stack arrangement, a review of Figure 2 reveals that it does not. Instead, Figure 2 shows the following stack arrangement: (3,6,3,4,3,6)+(3,6,3,4,3,6).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to.
Claim 1 requires that each stack comprise “at least one evaporation frame (4)” in line 4. Claim 1 then goes on to specify that each stack “further comprises at least two evaporation frames” in lines 20-21. Because the stacks are clearly required to include more than one evaporation frame, the fact that claim 1 describes the stacks as comprising “at least one evaporation frame (4)” is objectionable.
Claim 5 is objected to for substantially the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, 7-10, and 12-13 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.
Claims 1-4 are replete with indefinite limitations concerning the manner in which the condensation, evaporation, and preheating frames are arranged within the plurality of stacks. Particular issues which have come to Examiner’s attention are identified below.
Nevertheless, it is recommended Applicant thoroughly review claims 1-4, as well as all other pending claims, to ensure that said claims are clear with respect to the arrangement of the various frames. Special care should be taken to ensure that the contents of claims 2-4 do not contradict the requirements of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each stack further comprises at least two evaporation frames (4) placed side by side along with alternate placement of condensation frames (3) and preheating frames (6)” in lines 20-22.
Claim 1 earlier recites “at least one evaporation frame (4); at least one preheating frame (6); at least one condensation frame (3)” in lines 4-6.
It is unclear if the “at least two evaporation frames (4)” recited in line 20 is/are the “at least one evaporation frame (4)” recited in line 4. Consequently, it is unclear if each stack is required to comprise at least one evaporation frame plus at least two additional evaporation frames (i.e. at least three evaporation frames), or if each stack is merely required to comprise at least two evaporation frames.
It is also unclear if the “condensation frames (3) and preheating frames (6)” in lines 21-22 are the “at least one preheating frame (6)” and the “at least one condensation frame (3)” of lines 5 and 6. Consequently, it is unclear if each stack is required to comprise at least two of each of the preheating and condensation frames, or if each stack is merely required to comprise at least one of each of said frames.
A review of the specification, figures, and dependent claims suggests that Applicant’s intention is for the “at least two evaporation frames (4)”, “condensation frames (3)”, and “preheating frames (6)” of lines 20-22 to be the “at least one evaporation frame (4),” “at least one preheating frame (6),” and “at least one condensation frame (3)” of lines 4-6.
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each stack further comprises at least two evaporation frames (4) placed side by side along with alternate placement of condensation frames (3) and preheating frames (6)” in lines 20-22.
The requirement that the “at least two evaporation frames” be placed “side by side” is unclear. Initially, Examiner interpreted said requirement as necessitating that the at least two evaporation frames be adjacent to one another, i.e. such that no condensation or preheating frames are positioned in between said two evaporation frames. Such an interpretation is consistent with the “stack configuration” as recited in dependent claim 4.
Applicant’s 11/20/2025 Remarks, assert that the limitation in lines 20-22 distinguishes the claimed invention from the Hanemaaijer and Henderyckx references. This could only be true if “side by side” is treated as necessitating adjacency of the at least two evaporation frames, i.e. such that no condensation or preheating frames are positioned in between said two evaporation frames. Thus, Applicant’s remarks suggest that “side by side” should be treated as such.
However, a review of dependent claims 2 and 3 suggests that said interpretation is too narrow. It is not possible for the at least two evaporation frames be adjacent to one another while also having either of the stack configurations recited in claims 2 and 3. Thus, the presence of claims 2 and 3 suggest that the two evaporation frames need not be adjacent one another.
Nevertheless, in light of other contradictions between claim 1 and claims 2 and 3 (see further rejections below), Examiner finds it most likely that Applicant intended to narrow the claims so as to require that each stack comprises two adjacent evaporation frames. For the purposes of examination, the limitation to “side by side” has been interpreted broadly. Under the broad interpretation of “side by side”, any frame in a stack of frames like that disclosed by Applicant can reasonably be considered to be “side by side” with any other frame in said stack.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should either:
1) affirm Examiner’s broad interpretation of “side by side”;
2) amend claim 1 to clarify the scope of “side by side” as desired.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the alternating arrangement… according to stack configuration (3,6,3,4)+(3,6,3,4)" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for “the alternating arrangement” but not for “the alternating arrangement… according to stack configuration (3,6,3,4)+(3,6,3,4)”.
With Regard to claims 2-4: Claim 2 recites “wherein the [frames] are in the alternating arrangement in the series of stacks according to stack configuration (3,6,3,4)+(3,6,3,4).”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the [frames] are arranged in the series of stacks according to stack configuration (3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6)+(3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6).”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the [frames] are arranged in the series of stacks according to stack configuration (3,6,3,4,4)+(3,6,3,4,4).”
The scopes of “stack configuration (3,6,3,4)+(3,6,3,4)”, “stack configuration (3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6)+(3,6,3,4,3,6,3,6)”, and “stack configuration (3,6,3,4,4)+(3,6,3,4,4)”. Namely, it is unclear if each series of numbers bracketed by parenthesis represents a stack. If this is the case, then in the context of claim 2 for example, a stack would comprise a condensation frame, a preheating frame, a condensation frame, and an evaporation frame, arranged in that order.
It would be consistent with Applicant’s specification (especially Page 6) and Figures to interpret each series of numbers bracketed in parenthesis as representing a stack. And if the parenthesis used in defining the stack arrangements are not used to represent a stack, then it is unclear what significance they have if any.
However, claim 1 very clearly requires that each stack comprise at least two evaporation frames. If the parenthesis represent a stack, then the stack arrangements described in claims 2 and 3 have only one evaporation frame per stack. Consequently, the parenthesis represent a stack, it would be impossible for a system to satisfy all of the limitations of claims 2 and 3.
Perhaps if the claimed pairs of parenthesis bracketed sequences were considered to represent a stack (e.g. “(3,6,3,4)+(3,6,3,4)” as recited in claim 2), then it would be possible for the a system to comprise two evaporation frames per stack while also having the stack arrangements of claims 2 and 3. However, to treat the claimed pairs of parenthesis bracketed sequences as representing a single stack would be inconsistent with Applicant’s specification.
To elaborate, Applciant’s specification describes Figures 1 and 2 as having the same stack arrangements as are recited in claims 2 and 3 respectively. If the pairs of parenthesis bracketed sequences together represent a single stack, then the system of Figures 1 and 2 only comprise a single stack, whereas independent claims 1 and 5 require that the claimed system comprise “a series of stacks”, i.e. more than one stack. Thus, if the two pairs of parenthesis in claims 2 and 3 were treated as representing a single stack, then Figures 1 and 2 would not be illustrations of the claimed invention. For at least this reason, Examiner finds that the only reasonable interpretation of claims 2-4 is to treat a single parenthesis bound sequence as representative of a stack, e.g. in the context of claim 2 “(3,6,3,4)” would represent a stack.
Consequently, the limitations of claims 2 and 3 appear to contradict the requirements of claim 1 in that they appear to require stacks having only one evaporation frame, whereas claim 1 very clearly requires that each stack requires two evaporation frames. These contradictions cannot be reconciled and substantially preclude any examination of claims 2 and 3 on their merits.
To overcome this rejection Applicant should either:
1) Confirm that a single parenthesis bound sequence as representative of a stack in claims 2-4; or
2) Explain how the various stack arrangements as recited in claims 2-4 should instead be interpreted.
If Applicant elects to pursue option 1, then they must also either: i) cancel claims 2 and 3, or ii) amend claim 1 to remove the requirement that each stack comprises two evaporation frames.
Claim 5 is indefinite for substantially the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “wherein at least two evaporation- condensation units are arranged in series forming a multistage system for evaporation and condensation.”
It is unclear if the at least two evaporation-condensation units are related in any way to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit outlined in claim 1.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent that the at least one evaporation-condensation unit of claim 1 be at least two evaporation-condensation units in the context of claim 12.
Applicant should amend claim 12 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 13 recites “at least two evaporation- condensation units are integrally mounted in series within a sealed unit forming a multistage system for evaporation and condensation.”
It is unclear if the at least two evaporation-condensation units are related in any way to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit outlined in claim 1.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent that the at least one evaporation-condensation unit of claim 1 be at least two evaporation-condensation units in the context of claim 13.
Applicant should amend claim 13 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
With regard to claims 2 and 3: As explained in detail in the 112(b) rejections above, claim 1 requires that each stack comprises two evaporation frames which are adjacent to one another (i.e. “placed side by side”. Claims 2 and 3 require that each stack has only one evaporation frame, wherein said evaporation frame is positioned such that it is not adjacent any other evaporation frame. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 fail to include of the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Discussion of Prior Art
Independent claim 1 is drawn to an evaporation and condensation system comprising “at least one evaporation-condensation unit comprising a plurality of frames arranged in a serries of stacks, wherein each stack comprises: “at least one evaporation frame (4); at least one preheating frame (6); at least one condensation frame (3), and a polymeric sheet (8) separating each frame (3), (4), and (6) from each other” and “wherein each stack further comprises at least two evaporation frames (4) placed side by side along with alternate placement of condensation frames (3) and preheating frames (6)”.
These limitations of claim 1 include a number of significant clarity issues (see 112(b) rejections above), but are presently interpreted by Examiner to require the following:
An evaporation unit comprised of a series of stacks, i.e. at least two stacks, wherein each of said stacks comprises at least two evaporation frames (4), at least one preheating frame (6), at least one condensation frame (3), and a plurality of polymeric sheets (8), wherein one of said plurality of polymeric sheets is arranged on either side of each frame so as to separate each frame from each adjacent frame (including adjacent frames which are part of a different stack in the serries of stacks), and wherein the at least two evaporation frames are disposed adjacent one another with one of said plurality of polymeric sheets positioned in between.
Using Applicant’s reference characters, an exemplary embodiment of the invention recited in claim 1 could have the following arrangement: [3, 8, 6, 8, 3, 8, 4, 8, 4, 8] + [3, 8, 6, 8, 3, 8, 4, 8, 4, 8], wherein each of bracketed sequences individually represents a stack and the combination of the two bracketed sequences represents a serries of stacks forming an evaporation unit. Note that the forgoing arraignment is substantially identical to that recited in dependent claim 4 under Examiner’s interpretation of the claims.
The closest prior art references of record are, in no particular order, as follows:
Reference A - Goodman (US 3,155,565). See Figures 2-4 and specification.
Reference B - Usher et al. (US 3,399,708), hereafter referred to as Usher. See Figures 1 and 2 and specification.
Reference C - Prince et al. (US 10,118,128), hereafter referred to as Prince. See Figures 8 and 14-19 and specification.
Combination D - Hanemaaijer et al. (US 8,287,735), hereafter referred to as Hanemaaijer, in combination with Iaconelli (US 3,695,444). See Hanemaaijer Figures 1 and 2 and specification. See Iaconelli Figures 1-3 and 5 and specification.
The subject matter of claim 1 differs from the prior art references/combinations listed above in that it requires that each stack in the plurality of stacks include at least two evaporation frames, wherein said at least two evaporation frames are disposed adjacent one another with one of said plurality of polymeric sheets positioned in between. There is no prior art of record which cures the deficiencies of the references listed above.
In view of the above, claim 1 and its dependents appear to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. However, because the distinguishing claim language includes a number of significant clarity issues, it would be premature to deem said claims allowable over the prior art.
Independent claim 5 is distinguished from the prior art of record in substantially the same way as claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 appears to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. However, because the distinguishing claim language includes a number of significant clarity issues, it would be premature to deem said claim allowable over the prior art.
The following prior art references are also cited as being pertinent to the claims:
Goodman (US 2,960,160) discloses a system that is substantially identical to that of the Goodman reference cited above.
Usher (US 3,469,615) discloses a system that is similar to that of the Usher reference cited above.
Heinzl (US 9,861,935) teaches a system similar to that of Applicant (see Figures).
Escher et al. (US 9,416,031) and related Escher et al. (9,630,862) teach systems similar to that of Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772