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 .
Examiner’s Comment on Election/Restrictions
Election was made with traverse.
Any amendments to elected independent claim 1 should be made to withdrawn claim 12 to ensure full and proper rejoinder can be completed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 9/8/25 have been fully and carefully considered.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments (see argument P5).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102, applicant argues that the amendments of subject matter of claims 5 and 6 into independent claim 1 have overcome the claim rejections (see arguments p 5-6). This is found persuasive. However upon updated search and consideration new grounds of rejections under 35 USC 103 necessitated by amendment are included in this Office action. This action will be made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonov et al (US 6,258,215) taken in combination with Trusch (US 4,316,774).
Regarding claim 1, Samsonov teaches a distillation urine processor assembly comprising: a first collection tank (urinal 1 to tank 2) that is operative to collect urine (Figs 1-3, C10:L9-30, having a series of pretreatments); a heat exchanger (29,61) disposed downstream of the first collection tank and in fluid communication with first collection tank (Figs 1-3, C10:L30-45, C11:L17-31); where the heat exchanger is operative to heat urine with heat generated by phase separation of urine (Figs 1-3, C10:L30-45, C11:L17-31); a first separating apparatus comprising: a first separator (gas-liquid rotary separator 5 in pre-treatment unit I, Figs 1-3, C10:L30-65, C11:L56-C12:L8), where the first separator is operative to separate urine into water vapor and brine; at first pump (urine feed pump 22) in fluid communication with the first separator; a second collection tank (elastic containers 10); wherein the second collection tank is operative to store the brine discharged from the first separator; where the first separating apparatus lies downstream of the heat exchanger (29,61); a second separator (gas-liquid rotary separator 28 in water reclamation unit II, Figs 1-3, C10:L30-65, C11:L56-C12:L8); where the second separator lies downstream of the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the heat exchanger; where the second separator is operative to separate water from the gas; and a storage tank (elastic containers 110) that is operative to store water discharged from the second separator (Figs 1-3, C10:L4-C13:L19).
However Samsonov only teaches single pump therefore does not teach first and second pump both as claimed.
Trusch teaches a distillation urine processor assembly comprising: a first collection tank (5) that is operative to collect urine; a heat exchanger (6) disposed downstream of the first collection tank and in fluid communication with the first collection tank (5); where the heat exchanger (6) is operative to heat urine with heat generated by phase separation of urine; a first separating apparatus comprising: a first separator (heater 9 and membrane 11 module); where the first separator is operative to separate urine into water vapor and brine; Trusch teaches From the recycle tank the flush is then pumped by recirculation pumps 8 to the hot junction surface 9 of the thermoelectric heat pump where the waste fluid is heated…The slightly cooled…and concentrated urine is returned to the recycle tank 7 after passing through the module 11 passing by a concentration sensor 12 and filtered by an approximately thirty micron conventional fiber-wrapped precipitate filter 13. It is then pumped back to the hot junction surface 9 by recirculation pumps 8 where it is reheated and recycled…The removed condensate is pumped by pump 16” (C3:L18-C4:L11); a second collection tank (7); wherein the second collection tank is operative to store the brine discharged from the first separator; where the first separating apparatus lies downstream of the heat exchanger; a second separator (charcoal and ion exchange bed 18); where the second separator lies downstream of the heat exchanger 6 and in fluid communication with it; where the second separator is operative to separate water from the gas (potable water out) and a storage tank (19) that is operative to store water discharged from the second separator (Fig 1, C3:L10-C4:L14, claim 1).
Therefore Trusch substantially recognizes inclusion of “recirculation pumps 8” to ensure flow of liquid through urine feed system, as well as pumps in product filtering systems, and in view of this one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention substantially knew that plural pumps may be included in liquid lines as needed to ensure proper pressure in feed and product lines of urine distillation processor system and therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add additional pumps as needed in the system of Samsonov with the expected result of pumping liquid in the preferred direction of Samsonov as suggested by Trusch.
Regarding claims 2-3, Samsonov teaches condensate formed by condenser integrated into in rotary distiller 28 is sent via line 39 to condensate purification unit III (Fig 2, C10:L35-53).
Regarding claim 4, Samsonov teaches urine feed pump 22 integrated within pretreatment unit first separating apparatus (Fig 1, C10:L30-34).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the first separator 5 and second separator 28 in Samsonov as set forth above are rotary separators.
Regarding claim 8, Samsonov teaches closed urine circulation loop 30 connected with distiller 28 (see Fig 1-2, C10:L35-45).
Regarding claim 9, Samsonov further teaches urine filter 24 as well as intermediary storage tanks 9/10 (Fig 1, C10:L20-34).
Regarding claim 11, Samsonov further teaches pump 41 integrated into water reclamation unit II (see Figs 1-2, C10:L35-58).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights