DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam (US 20190184334 A1) in view of Claridge (US 8500848 B2), and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 1, Moghaddam discloses an absorption vacuum dehumidification system, comprising:
an absorber (Figs. 4A, 15; 202, 802), wherein cooling water is inputted in and outputted from the absorber (Fig. 15 shows where the left section of element 802 has cooling water);
a desorber (Fig. 4A, 211), wherein hot oil is inputted in and outputted from the desorber;
a heat exchanger (Fig. 4A, SWHX) connected between the absorber and the desorber; and
a condenser (Fig. 4A, 204), wherein cooling water is inputted in and outputted from the condenser,
wherein a weak desiccant solution is pumped (Fig. 4A shows a solution pump) to the desorber and is heated up at the desorber (Fig. 4A: a heat exchange medium such as hot oil causes the solution to heat up and release the water vapor; see para. 15),
wherein first water vapor is desorbed (“desorbed vapor”) from the weak desiccant solution and is transferred to the condenser (Fig. 4A),
wherein the transferred first water vapor is cooled down to become liquid water (“condensate”) at the condenser (Fig. 4A), wherein a strong desiccant solution leaving the desorber is pre-cooled at the heat exchanger (SWHX) before entering the absorber (Fig. 4A shows where the strong desiccant solution leaves from the bottom of the desorber to the SWHX and exchanges its heat with the water vapor leaving the absorber 202; see para. 50), and the strong desiccant solution is diluted by absorbing second water vapor which is extracted from a moist air stream through the hydrophilic membrane (see para. 10 disclosing a hydrophilic membrane that permits water from the process air to be absorbed by the desiccant solution).
Moghaddam fails to disclose:
a vacuum section, where the absorber is connected to the permeate side of the vacuum section, where moist air stream entering a feed side of the vacuum section through the hydrophilic membrane, and where a dehumidified air stream is outputted from the vacuum section; and
wherein hot water (and not oil as disclosed) is inputted in and outputted from the desorber.
Claridge teaches a hydrophilic membrane dehumidification device comprising: a vacuum section (low pressure water vapor chamber; see abstract), where the absorber (Fig. 13, 54) is connected to the permeate side of the vacuum section, where moist air stream entering a feed side of the vacuum section through the hydrophilic membrane (col. 8, lines 53-58 discloses a zeolite membrane and zeolite is hydrophilic), and where a dehumidified air stream (Fig. 3,14B) is outputted from the vacuum section (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Moghaddam to include a vacuum section, where the absorber is connected to the permeate side of the vacuum section, where moist air stream entering a feed side of the vacuum section through the hydrophilic membrane, and where a dehumidified air stream is outputted from the vacuum section. With the modification, the collected water vapor would exit out of the vacuum section (Claridge) and then enter the “process air” section of the absorber (Moghaddam, Fig. 15). The water vapor would then be absorbed by the desiccant solution in the absorber.
The motivation to combine is to improve the water removal efficiency of the system. With the modification, the water vapor in the air exiting the vacuum section is concentrated and can be quickly absorbed by the desiccant solution in the absorber. In unmodified Moghaddam, the moisture in the process air flowing through the absorber is dilute; therefore, the desiccant solution would not absorb the water as efficiently.
Moghaddam discloses using hot oil (instead of water) as a heat exchange fluid. However, Official Notice is taken that using hot water as a heat exchange fluid is well-known and common knowledge. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Moghaddam wherein the desorber uses hot water instead of hot oil as a heat exchange fluid. The modification is a simple substitution of one type of heat exchange fluid for another. Moreover, the advantage of using water as a heat exchange fluid is that it is plentiful.
Regarding claim 3, modified Moghaddam discloses the absorption vacuum dehumidification system of claim 1, wherein the cooling water inputted in and outputted from the absorber is configured to facilitate absorption of the second water vapor inside the absorber into the strong desiccant solution and to dilute the strong desiccant solution [the cooling water cools the desiccant solution, which decreases the vapor pressure (see Fig. 7 of Moghaddam), and a decrease in vapor pressure increases the solution’s absorption efficiency], wherein the absorption of second water vapor makes the absorber maintained at a low pressure (modified Moghaddam discloses all of the elements required of claim 1; therefore, it would also produce the intended effect).
Regarding claim 4, modified Moghaddam discloses the absorption vacuum dehumidification system of claim 1, wherein pressure inside the condenser is equal to pressure inside the desorber (Moghaddam discloses where the two devices are fluidly connected without an intervening pump, compressor, or fan), and pressure inside the absorber is equal to pressure inside the permeate side of the vacuum section (see Comment 1).
Comment 1. In the combination, a blower/pump is needed to draw the water vapor laden air through the permeate side of the vacuum section (Claridge teaches the vacuum section with a vacuum pump 52), then to the process air side of absorber 802 of Moghaddam. If the blower is located upstream the vacuum section or downstream the absorber, then the pressure inside the absorber would be equal to the pressure inside the permeate side of the vacuum section. And since the placement of the blower is a matter of design choice, then a person skilled in the art would likely have placed the blower in one of said locations such that the pressure inside the absorber is equal to the pressure inside the permeate side of the vacuum section.
Regarding claim 5, modified Moghaddam discloses the absorption vacuum dehumidification system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the weak desiccant solution and the strong desiccant solution comprises lithium bromide (Moghaddam, para. 70).
Regarding claim 6, modified Moghaddam discloses a method for absorption vacuum dehumidification (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted), comprising:
pumping a weak desiccant solution to a desorber, wherein the weak desiccant solution is heated up at the desorber by hot water inputted into the desorber such that first water vapor is desorbed from the weak desiccant solution and is then transferred to a condenser;
inputting cooling water to the condenser, such that the transferred first water vapor is cooled down to become liquid water at the condenser;
transferring a strong desiccant solution from the desorber to an absorber, wherein a heat exchanger is instructed to pre-cool the strong desiccant solution before the strong desiccant solution enters the absorber; and
extracting second water vapor from a moist air stream which enters a feed side of a vacuum section through a hydrophilic membrane, so as to output a dehumidified air stream from the vacuum section, wherein the strong desiccant solution is diluted by absorbing the second water vapor inside the absorber.
Regarding claim 8, modified Moghaddam discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the absorber is with cooling water in and out so as to facilitate the absorption of the second water vapor into the strong desiccant solution and the dilution of the strong desiccant solution, wherein the absorption of water vapor makes the absorber maintained at a low pressure (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 9, modified Moghaddam discloses the method of claim 6, wherein pressure inside the condenser is equal to pressure inside the desorber, and pressure inside the absorber is equal to pressure inside a space of the permeate side of the vacuum section (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, modified Moghaddam discloses the method of claim 6, wherein at least one of the weak desiccant solution and the strong desiccant solution comprises lithium bromide (see rejection of claim 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts the following on page(s) 5 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
386
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
92
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Claridge teaches using a hydrophilic membrane to dehumidify the air and produce a separate stream of concentrated water vapor. This separated stream of concentrated water vapor would be more easily absorbed by the desiccant of Moghaddam.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
