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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 4,5, 7, 9-14, 17-19, 21, 23, 26, 28, and 36, in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “separation module”, “retentate and an aqueous filtrate”, “cooling element/device” and “condensation enhancement structures” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The phrase of “atmospheric water generation” and “dehumidified air” (outlet) is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
The phrase of “configured to disperse a nucleation initiator into the inner volume of the nucleation chamber to cause nucleation of water droplets from water vapor in the volume of gas about one or more particles or droplets of the nucleation initiator to form an aqueous product; and an aqueous product outlet disposed through the outer shell of the nucleation chamber” which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed electrospray nozzle, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
In this view, the at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows: “a device comprising: a chamber having an outer shell defining an inner volume; a first inlet through the outer shell of the chamber to direct a volume of a gas into a cyclonic pathway in the inner volume of the chamber; at least one electrospray nozzle positioned within the inner volume of the chamber; and an outlet disposed through the outer shell of the chamber.”
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites “cooling element/device” in line 2. It is unclear the claim refers to the cooling element or cooling device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20230068823; hereinafter Lee).
As regarding claim 1, Lee discloses the claimed invention for a device comprising: a chamber (110) having an outer shell defining an inner volume; a first inlet (114) through the outer shell of the chamber to direct a volume of a gas into a cyclonic pathway ([0026]) in the inner volume of the chamber; at least one electrospray nozzle (118 of figs. 3-9) positioned within the inner volume of the chamber; and an outlet (180) disposed through the outer shell of the chamber.
With respect to the limitations recited in claim 4, which pertain to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article being worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
As regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for a dehumidified air outlet (116) formed through the outer shell of the nucleation chamber, the dehumidified air outlet being configured to communicate the volume of the gas out of the nucleation chamber.
As regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for wherein the cyclonic pathway is defined at least in part by a concave shape (fig. 5) of an inner surface of the nucleation chamber.
As regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for wherein one or more electrospray nozzles are at least partially disposed in one or more apertures (118 of figs. 3-9) extending at least partially through the outer shell of the nucleation chamber.
As regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for wherein each of the one or more electrospray nozzles define a plurality of channels (118 of figs. 3-9) formed therein, the plurality of channels being dimensioned and configured to communicate a portion of the quantity of the nucleation initiator into the inner volume of the nucleation chamber.
With respect to the limitations recited in claim 18, which pertain to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article being worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus 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.
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) 2, 21, 23, 26, 28, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20230068823; hereinafter Lee) as applied to supra, and further in view of Stuckenberg et al (US 20230010090; hereinafter Stuckenberg).
As regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a separation module configured to separate the aqueous product into a water-based permeate and a concentrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a separation module configured to separate the aqueous product into a water-based permeate and a concentrate in order to reduce fouling and improve efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Stuckenberg ([0101]).
Claims 21, 23, 26, and 28 and 36 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9 and 17 above.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20230068823; hereinafter Lee) as applied to supra, and further in view of Willey et al (US 20060081178; hereinafter Willey).
As regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more electrospray nozzles comprises a plurality of electrospray nozzles in a same plane, and wherein respective of the plurality of electrospray nozzles in the same plane are oriented in different directions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the one or more electrospray nozzles comprises a plurality of electrospray nozzles in a same plane, and wherein respective of the plurality of electrospray nozzles in the same plane are oriented in different directions in order to promote uniform droplet dispersion and enhance interaction with surrounding gas flows without increasing system size or complexity, since it was known in the art as shown in Willey (figs. 3 and 6).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20230068823; hereinafter Lee) as applied to supra, and further in view of Cremaschi (US 20210093996).
As regarding claim 12, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more electrospray nozzles comprise one or more electrodes configured to charge the nucleation initiator prior to or while dispersing the nucleation initiator into the inner volume of the nucleation chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the one or more electrospray nozzles comprise one or more electrodes configured to charge the nucleation initiator prior to or while dispersing the nucleation initiator into the inner volume of the nucleation chamber in order to produce uniform, fine droplets with controlled trajectories, enhance nucleation efficiency, reduce droplet coalescence, and minimize nozzle fouling, since it was known in the art as shown in Cremaschi ([0036]).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20230068823; hereinafter Lee) as applied to supra.
As regarding claim 13, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least a portion of an inner surface of the nucleation chamber comprises or is coated with one of: a hydrophilic material, a hydrophobic material, a superhydrophobic material, an oleophobic material, an oleophilic material, a polymer, noble metals, rare-earth oxides, organic monolayers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to wherein at least a portion of an inner surface of the nucleation chamber comprises or is coated with one of: a hydrophilic material, a hydrophobic material, a superhydrophobic material, an oleophobic material, an oleophilic material, a polymer, noble metals, rare-earth oxides, organic monolayers in order to control droplet adhesion and coalescence, enhance water collection efficiency, prevent surface fouling, and maintain consistent separator performance over time, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As regarding claim 14, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for a condensation region (fig. 2; no number) within a bottom portion of the inner volume of the nucleation chamber, wherein the condensation region is configured to cause condensation of the water droplets formed about the one or more particles or droplets of the nucleation initiator.
As regarding claims 17, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a cooling element/device configured to decrease a temperature of the volume of the gas to between about 33o F and about 75o F. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a cooling element/device configured to decrease a temperature of the volume of the gas to between about 33o F and about 75o F in order to enhance device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen temperature range or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen temperature range is critical and unexpected results.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20230068823; hereinafter Lee) as applied to supra, and further in view of Spence et al (US 4853010; hereinafter Spence).
As regarding claim 19, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for one or more condensation enhancement structures disposed within a bottom portion of the inner volume of the nucleation chamber, the one or more condensation enhancement structures configured to increase a rate of condensation of the water droplets formed about the one or more particles or droplets of the nucleation initiator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide one or more condensation enhancement structures disposed within a bottom portion of the inner volume of the nucleation chamber, the one or more condensation enhancement structures configured to increase a rate of condensation of the water droplets formed about the one or more particles or droplets of the nucleation initiator in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Spence (col 5 ln 3-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773