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 Amendment
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed 5 May, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
It will be noted a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made herein, and thus, necessitates this office action to be a new non-final office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at page 2 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5 November, 2025. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below.
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 1-9 and 15-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the body" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the body” is directed to the housing, in view of paragraph [0018] of the specification filed on 13 March, 2024. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted “the body” refers to a body of the housing.
Claims 2-9 depend from rejected claim 1, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the walls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the walls” are directed to the physical structure of the rotor rings delimiting the gaps/channels of the rotor, in view of paragraph [0040] and figure 1 of the specification filed on 13 March, 2024. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted “the walls” refers to walls of the rotor’s ring elements formed to delimit the gaps between ring elements.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the walls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the walls” are directed to the physical structure of the rotor rings delimiting the gaps/channels of the rotor, in view of paragraph [0040] and figure 1 of the specification filed on 13 March, 2024. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted “the walls” refers to walls of the rotor’s ring elements formed to delimit the gaps between ring elements.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the resulting liquid condensate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted “the resulting liquid condensate” refers to a resulting liquid condensate.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the formed liquid condensate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted “the resulting liquid condensate” refers a resulting liquid condensate.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rotor channels" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted “the rotor channels” refers to rotor channels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Claims 15-16 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 claimed invention as set forth within independent claims 1 and 10, and the dependents thereof. Particularly, the claimed inventions set forth “wherein the supply air input and exhaust air outlet are located on one side relative to the rotor rotation axis, and the supply air outlet and exhaust air input are located on the other side relative to the rotor rotation axis” (claim 1) or “at that, the input of supply air and the output of exhaust air are carried out on one side relative to the rotor’s axis of rotation, while the output of supply air and the input of exhaust air are carried out on the opposite side of the rotor’s axis of rotation” (claim 10). Particularly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, provides the supply air input and exhaust air outlet on the same side relative to the rotor’s rotation axis and the supply air outlet and exhaust air input on the other opposite side of the rotor’s rotation axis, which the prior art fails to disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest. The closest prior art of record appears to be ROBERT (GB 620602 A – published 28 March, 1949) which includes a supply air inlet (11), a supply air outlet (16), an exhaust air inlet (15), and an exhaust air outlet (12). However, ROBERT provides wherein supply air inlet and outlet are along the same side of the rotor’s axis of rotation and the exhaust air inlet and outlet are along the same opposite side of the rotor’s axis of rotation (see annotated figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
967
1139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of ROBERT
While rearrangement of parts is a matter of design choice, rearranging the positioning of the supply air inlet and outlet and the exhaust air inlet and outlet to be positioned as structurally required would change the operation of the device of ROBERT and is not provided any articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to motivate one having ordinary skill within the art to make such modification. See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(C) and § 2143.01 – IV and VI. Particularly, such modification would require a different in the routing of the fluid within ROBERT and require a reconstruction of the rotor (23 and 24) to allow for the fluid to flow between the structurally defined inlets and outlets. Absent some teaching, motivation, and suggestion to do so, a prima facie case of obviousness. As such, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the claimed invention for these reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights