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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/16/25 have been fully and carefully considered.
Applicant has amended claim 1, with support from the original specification, and argues that Lei (CN 109138052) fails to anticipate or make obvious all limitations of the claim as amended (see arguments page 6-7). This is found persuasive, however upon updated search and consideration new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment are presented with this office action. This action will be made Final.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 are set forth, necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5 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 it depends. Claims 4-5 recite limitations to obtaining energy by the energy source from “a fuel source”, however claim 1, as amended recites “the energy source…operational without reliance on…fuel sources”, therefore claims 4-5 comprise limitations expressly omitted by claim 1, and are improper dependent claims. 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.
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.
Claim 7 and 9 and 21 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 claims 7 and 9, “a storage tank” is already recited in claim 1, as amended, therefore use of storage tank here should use “the” or “said” for clear antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 21, “at least one storage tank” is confusing because “a storage tank” is already recited in claim 1, as amended, therefore use of storage tank here should further limit the tank of claim 1, such as “wherein the storage tank comprises at least one storage tank” or similar.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 21-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al (US 2013/0255280) taken in combination with Lei et al (CN 109138052, with para number made to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN 109138052 Obtained 6 March 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches a portable ambient air water generating system (title, abstract), Murphy teaches the system comprises liquid water generator 10 obtaining water 12 from ambient air 14 by thermoelectric cooling device 16, with heat sink 26 having heat sink fins 28 and cold sink 22 having cold sink fins 24 (Figs 1-9, [0033]), the cold sink fins 24 serving as atmospheric water condenser that collects the water in collecting tray 46, where it is pumped via pump 80 through plumbing system and passed through multistage filtration and UV light sterilization to ensure safe drinking water is stored in reservoir 50 (Figs 1-4,8-9 [0033-0037,0065]), the system having power supply 62 that can be selected as either battery and/or solar electrical generating panel system (i.e. energy source, Fig 2, [0049]), the system comprising control circuit board (i.e. controller), that monitors and adjust operations of the system including pump and water level detection of water reservoir 50 ([0050-0059]), when the power source is selected as either battery and/or solar electrical generating panel system, the system therefore operates without reliance on external infrastructure or fuel sources ([0049]).
However while Murphy teaches the system is portable, Murphy is silent to the system being mounted upon a mobile trailer.
Lei teaches a system for generating liquid water from a gaseous ambient environment containing water vapor (see title, abstract), the system comprising: a vehicle that has the system mounted on it as a car chassis or semi-trailer (supporting module behind vehicle body 1, Fig 1 [0021]); a liquid water generator 4 provided on the mobile trailer, the liquid water generator is configured to generate liquid water by condensing the water vapor from the ambient gaseous environment (air-to-water module 4, Fig 1 [0021]); and an energy source 2 provided on the mobile trailer that is self-contained and is configured to collect and store energy sufficient to power the liquid water generator 4 (power supply module 2, comprises diesel gen set, where the diesel is considered the stored energy sufficient to power the liquid water generator 4, Fig 1 [0021,0028]).
Both Murphy and Lei substantially teach atmospheric water generating system, both Murphy and Lei are interested in portability of the system, the skilled artisan therefore recognizes the importance of portable atmospheric water generation before the effective filing date of the invention and would be motivated to mount the system of Murphy on a trailer as taught by Lei to achieve portable atmospheric water generation of Murphy.
Regarding claims 2-3, Murphy has taught the energy source comprises solar electrical generating panel system, of which solar energy comprises visible light as well as UV light.
Regarding claims 4-5, in modified Murphy, Lei has the energy source 2 obtains energy from diesel (Fig 1 [0021,0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Murphy has taught cold sink fins and filtration as set forth above, and Lei further teaches condenser 10 to condense moisture from air (Fig 2 [0022]) and filtration system 16 for removing impurities (Fig 3 [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy has taught storage tank as set forth above, Lei further teaches clean water tank 18 (Fig 3 [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy has taught filtration and UV sterilization as set forth above, Lei further teaches filtration system 16 and ozone generator 19 for microbe management (Fig 3 [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Murphy has taught plumbing system including pump to deliver water to reservoir as set forth above, Lei further shows plumbing system conveying water between liquid water generator 4 water filter box 12 and clean water tank 18 (indicated as directional arrows, pumps on Fig 3, [0027]).
Regarding claim 21, Murphy further teaches the system is modular and multiple units are combined to obtain desired water production [0048].
Regarding claim 22, in Murphy as modified above, Lei has taught the system is fitted to a semi-trailer, i.e. a standard shipping container.
Regarding claim 24, Murphy has taught filtration and UV sterilization as set forth above, and Lei further teaches reverse osmosis filtration ([0027]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al (US 2013/0255280) taken in combination with Lei et al (CN 109138052, with para number made to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN 109138052 Obtained 6 March 2025) as applied above and further in combination with Dorfman (US 2016/0333553).
Regarding claims 23, modified Murphy teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Murphy does not teach wherein the controller recirculates the liquid water in the tank through the filtration system.
Dorfman teaches an atmospheric water generating system (title, abstract), Dorfman teaches “portable AWGs for drinking water applications relied on various forms of filtration and recirculation as the primary means of controlling bacterial growth” [0003].
Therefore Dorfman substantially teaches that it was well-known to the skilled artisan to recirculate and filter drinking water for controlling bacterial growth, and therefore the skilled artisan would find obvious to modify Murphy to have drinking water recirculation through the filtration system of Murphy with the expected result of controlling bacterial growth.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al (US 2013/0255280) taken in combination with Lei et al (CN 109138052, with para number made to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN 109138052 Obtained 6 March 2025) as applied above and further in combination with Faqih (US 2002/0046569).
Regarding claims 25, modified Murphy teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Murphy does not teach wherein the inlet air comprises a pre-filter to remove smoke dust, particulates from the air.
Faqih teaches a system for generating freshwater from hot and humid atmospheric air (title, abstract), Faqih teaches “in the case of water production from atmospheric humidity, a filter on the front inlet 104 (FIG. 2b) of the humid hot air is preferred to prevent dust, pollutants and volatile particulates from contaminating the condensate, especially if the apparatus is used in the open air, outside the buildings” (Fig 2A-B, [0119]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Murphy in view of Faqih to include inlet air prefilter to prevent dust, pollutants and volatile particulates from being condensed into the freshwater recovered from the inlet air as taught by Faqih.
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 JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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 on (571) 272-5954. 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 MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772