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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 August, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings include a typographical error by the recitation of “condensor” and “charge condensor” in figure 1. It should be corrected to - - condenser - - and - - charge condenser - -.
The drawings include a typographical error by the recitation of “evaporator/condensor” in figure 3. It should be corrected to - -
The drawings include a typographical error by the recitation of “bas stream” in figure 2. It should be corrected to - - gas stream - -.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 9 August, 2023, with regards the amendment at page 2 of the amended specification to incorporate incorporation by references, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
MPEP 608.01(p) – I(B) states,
“ As a safeguard against the omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, applicant may include a statement at the time of filing of the later application incorporating by reference the prior application. See MPEP § 201.06(c) and 211 et seq. where domestic benefit is claimed. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216 where foreign priority is claimed. See MPEP § 217 regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b). The inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement in the later-filed application will permit applicant to include subject matter from the prior application into the later-filed application without the subject matter being considered as new matter. For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). Although, as discussed above, an incorporation by reference statement can be used as a safeguard against an omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, it should be noted that an incorporation by reference statement will not satisfy the specific reference requirement of 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 or 37 CFR 1.78. See Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1309, 126 USPQ2d 317 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
, and wherein MPEP 1893.03(b) states,
“An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that
An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.
Similarly, PCT Article 11(3) provides that
...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
As such, the inclusion of the recitation,
PNG
media_image1.png
104
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,is new matter, as the recitation to include the incorporation by reference of the applications was made after (i.e., 9 August, 2023) the effective filing date of the instant application (i.e., 8 February, 2022).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the recitation of implied phrases (i.e. “The invention is directed to…” in the first sentence). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, line 6 of the specification recites, “condensing surface is the heat exchanging surface of the heat exchanger. Sicj a heat”, which appears to include a typographical error for reciting “Sicj”. It appears the word intended is ‘such’, and is suggested to be corrected to - - condensing surface is the heat exchanging surface of the heat exchanger. [[Sicj]] Such a heat - -.
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.
Claims 5-7, 11, and 13-14 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 claim 5, the phrase "preferably the condenser has an outlet that allows used hygroscopic material to be recycled to the first reservoir" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably an aqueous calcium chloride (CaCl₂) solution, an aqueous lithium chloride (LiCl) solution or an aqueous sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution, and wherein the hygroscopic liquid is preferably glycerin, ethanol, or methanol" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "wherein the hygroscopic material is preferably one or more selected from the group of CaCl₂, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, MgCl₂, KOH, NaOH, ZnBr, CH₃CO₂, silcagel, zeolite, and metal organic framework (MOF)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “optional second heat exchanger” "wherein preferably at least one of these additional heat exchanger is configured to increase the temperature of humidified or dehumidified gas stream before entering the thermochemical reactor" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "which system inlet is connected to the condenser inlet and, if present, the humidifier inlet" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the humidifier inlet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the humidifier4" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-10 12, and 15 are allowable.
Claims 5-7, 11, 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest, the requirements of the claimed invention set forth by independent claim 1, and the dependents thereof. The closest prior art of record is considered to be BOLIN (WO 2009/070091 A1 – published 4 June, 2009), as BOLIN includes a thermochemical reactor in connection with a condenser to produce clean water. However, BOLIN fails to disclose “a condenser inlet for a gas stream to enter the condenser” and “a condenser outlet for a dehumidified gas stream to exit the condenser, wherein the condenser outlet is connected to the thermochemical reactor such that it can provide the reactor with a dehumidified gas stream”. Particularly, BOLIN only provides a single coupling pipe (4) between the thermochemical reactor (1) and the condenser (3/3’). More so, BOLIN does not provide dehumidification to the gas stream, or explanation that would reasonably provide the water condenser of BOLIN is capable of dehumidification or dehumidifying a gas stream. Lastly, BOLIN fails to provide a surface of which the condensate is produced on for a hygroscopic material to be applied to. Absent some teaching, motivation, or suggestion to modify the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. For these reasons, the preponderance of evidence supports allowability of the subject matter of independent claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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 at (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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/20/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763