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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-22 and 29 in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged.
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 4 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 4 recites the time of the first frequency which is a process limitation. The claims are directed to a system, and thus an apparatus. Thus, claim 4 is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. MPEP 2173.05(p) states:
“A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-2, 6-8, 10, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White US 2014/0138236.
Claims 1 and 10, White teaches a system for atmospheric water generation comprising: a dehumidifier configured to receive air (par 81), comprising: a desiccant core (294), a heater (298) configured to heat at least a portion of the desiccant core (par 81), and a condenser system (296) (par 81), configured to collect water from the desiccant core when the desiccant core is heated by the heater (par 81), and a fluid filter (299, 308) configured to filter the air (299) prior to the dehumidifier receiving the air and the water (308) after the water is collected by the condenser system (fig. 9).
Claims 2, 6-8, 10, 20 and 22, White further teaches a pitcher configured to hold the water (par 97); a first collection tank (302) configured to collect the water from the desiccant core when the desiccant core is heated by the heater, and a first pump (306) in fluid connection with the first collection tank (fig. 9); the first pump is configured to pump the water from the first fluid collection tank into a pitcher via a water outflow (fig. 9); the first pump is configured to pump water from the first collection tank into the pitcher when the water level in the first collection tank satisfies a threshold (par 59, 99). a water chiller of water heater configured to heat the water (par 84); and a power source configured to provide power to the dehumidifier or the fluid filter, the power source comprising a solar panel, turbine or battery (par 89-93).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White US 2014/0138236.
Claim 16, White teaches a desiccant core but does not teach the material of the desiccant core. The recited materials of silica, activated charcoal, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, activated alumina, zeolites, molecular sieves and metal organic frameworks are all common types of desiccants used in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3-5, 9, 11-14 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White US 2014/0138236 in view of Forsberg et al. US 2008/0245092.
Claim 3, White further teaches the system comprises a UV light (par 44) but does not teach the pitcher comprises a UV light.
Forsberg teaches a system for atmospheric water generation comprising a condenser (53) (par 196), a pitcher (5), an air filter (par 122) and a water filter (par 210), wherein the pitcher comprises a UV light (13) configured to direct UV light toward the water in the pitcher and to cycle between a powered on and powered off state at a first frequency (par 223). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the UV light because it kills bacteria to provide potable water (par 201). Forsberg teaches the UV light is designed so as to maximize the bacteria killing effect of an optimal frequency of UV radiation (par 201) but does not specifically teach the use of UV-C light. UV-C light is a well-known frequency of UV light in the art for killing bacteria and would have been an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 recites only a process limitation and does not provide any further structural limitation to the apparatus. The system of Forsberg does teach a frequency within the recited range (par 223).
Claims 5 and 9, White further teaches one or more sensors configured to determine a water level or a water amount in the pitcher (par 43), but does not teach the dehumidifier or the fluid filter are configured to disable is response to the water level or water amount in the pitcher satisfying a threshold.
Forsberg teaches the fluid filter is configured to disable in response to the water level of the water amount in the pitcher satisfying a threshold (par 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disable the dehumidifier in response to the water level reaching a threshold to prevent overflowing the pitcher (par 200).
Claim 11, White does not teach an air quality sensor. Forsberg teaches improving air quality after the air is filtered by the air filter (par 218) but does not teach an air quality sensor configured to monitor air quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sensor to monitor the air quality to ensure the quality of the air is improved to a particular desired level.
Claims 12 and 13, White teaches a water filter but does not teach a removable filter cartridge configured to perform a two-stage filtration process.
Forsberg teaches a water filter comprising a removable filter cartridge configured to perform a two-stage filtration process, the filter cartridge comprises a first and second filter in fluid connection and the first filter is configured to perform particle filtration and the second filter is configured to perform remineralization of the water after the water is filtered by the first filter (par 122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filter cartridge of Forsberg because it provides suitable filtration to kill bacteria as well as mineralize the pure water for taste (par 122).
Claim 14, neither White nor Forsberg teaches the use of a sensor configured to determine via RFID whether the filter is present and a length of time the filter has been present. Such sensors in conjunction with RFID tags are common in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 29, White teaches a device for atmospheric water generation comprising: a housing (par 77) comprising: an air filter (299), a dehumidifier comprising a desiccant core (294) in fluid connection with the air filter, a heater (298) in thermal connection with the desiccant core and a condenser (296) in fluid connection with the desiccant core, a water filter (308) in fluid connection with the condenser, a water outflow conduit in fluid connection with the water filter (fig. 9) but does not teach a pitcher cavity and a pitcher physically removable from the pitcher cavity.
Forsberg teaches a system for atmospheric water generation comprising a condenser, pitcher (par 205-206, 224), air filter, water filter, a pitcher cavity (122) and a canister with within the container (7) and within the housing (1), a pitcher physically removable from the pitcher cavity and in fluid connection with a water outflow conduit (fig. 1, par 196, 202, disposable canister connected to water storage tank (37)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pitcher and cavity of Forsberg as it allows for the water generated to be moved to a desired location.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White US 2014/0138236 in view of Tanasawa “Recent Progress of Japanese Research on Condensation Heat Transfer”.
White teaches a condenser system but does not teach tube condensers comprising plastic, ceramic, glass or metal.
Tanasawa teaches a system for condensing water, comprising tube condensers comprising metal (pg. 7, col. 2, par 4 – pg. 8, col. 2, par 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the condenser system of Tanasawa because it improves the efficiency of forming condensate water droplets (abstract, pg. 3, col. 2, par 2).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White US 2014/0138236 in view of Dorfman US 2016/0333553.
Claim 17, White further teaches the system comprises a computing device configured to obtain operation data and is connected to the internet to permit remote monitoring and control of the system (par 99) but does not teach a wireless network interface.
Dorfman teaches a system for atmospheric water generation comprising a dehumidifier, desiccant, condenser (par 55-56), air filter (par 137), water filter (par 77), and wireless network interface (par 92, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a wireless interface as an alternative way to connect to the internet without the use of a wired connection.
Claim 18, Dorfman further teaches the wireless network interface in configured to wirelessly connect to a display device. The additional limitations of the claim are directed to capabilities of the display device, which is not part of the claimed invention and therefore does not provide any further limitations to the claimed invention.
Claim 19, White further teaches a user control (par 47) but does not teach a power setting of one or both of the dehumidifier or the fluid filter.
Dorfman teaches a system for atmospheric water generation comprising a dehumidifier, desiccant, condenser (par 55-56), air filter (par 137), water filter (par 77), and a computer element configured to set a power setting of the dehumidifier (par 75, 132), the power settings comprise a first and second power level where the first and second power levels correspond to different operational rates for the dehumidifier (par 75).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White US 2014/0138236 in view of Ferreira et al. US 2014/0053580.
White teaches the system of claim 1 but does not teach a water flavoring unit, carbonating unit, tea unit or coffee unit.
Ferreira teaches a system for atmospheric water generation (par 8) and further comprising a water flavoring unit to add flavor to the water, including tea or coffee and a water carbonating unit to add carbonation to the water (par 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the units of Ferreira because it allows for the water to be customized according to the desire of the end user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0108344 Vollmer et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779