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 with traverse of Group II, claims 9-17 in the reply filed on 16 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case for why restriction is required or reasonably necessary and has failed to establish a showing that a reasonable search and/or examination burden exists. With respect to Group I, Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive in view of the amendment to more closely align Group I with Group II, and the restriction requirement between Groups I and II has been withdrawn. Accordingly, Groups I and II, encompassing claims 1-17 have been examined. With respect to Group III, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because the process of Group III may be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, namely an apparatus where the condensate passes through the walls/containment traps instead of over the walls/containment traps and the apparatus of Groups I and II may be used to practice another and materially different process, namely filtering the air for the heat pump system.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 16 October 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: distribution system (i.e. system [generic placeholder] for distribution [functional language]) in claims 1-17 and humidification system (i.e. system [generic placeholder] for humidification [functional language]) in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the case of distribution system, pump is found to be the corresponding structure. In the case of humidification system, please see below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitations “wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall including a first plurality of contaminant traps and a second wall including a second plurality of contaminant traps that are different from the first plurality of contaminant traps”. It is unclear if the first plurality of containment traps and the second plurality of containment traps are the same or different from the plurality of containment traps of claim 1. It is believed Applicant should link the first and second plurality of containment traps back to the plurality of containment traps of claim 1, as Applicant did with the plurality of walls.
Claim 11 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 limitation “humidification system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The humidification system is only described functionally in the disclosure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitations “wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall having a first plurality of contaminant traps and a second wall having a second plurality of contaminant traps that are of a different type from the first plurality of contaminant traps”. It is unclear if the first plurality of containment traps and the second plurality of containment traps are the same or different from the plurality of containment traps of claim 9. It is believed Applicant should link the first and second plurality of containment traps back to the plurality of containment traps of claim 9, as Applicant did with the plurality of walls.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan (US 2014/0109602) in view of Engelhart (US 2010/0307910).
Regarding claim 1, Cerdan discloses a separation plate for a heat pump system (see at least baffles #30/#32/#34 and housing #12 of assembly #10), said heat pump system comprising:
a first heat exchanger that forms a condensate (see at least paragraph [0026]: first heat exchanger (i.e. an evaporator) forming a condensate is inherent to air handler #58 of air conditioner);
a second heat exchanger positioned opposite the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0026]: second heat exchanger (i.e. a condenser) situated on the opposite end of the air conditioner from air handler #58 is inherent to air conditioner);
a condensation pan positioned downstream of the first heat exchanger and fluidly coupled to a filtration system comprising the separation plate (see at least Figure 10, pan/tank/collector #102 in communication with filtration system within housing #12 via #104), the condensation pan configured to collect the condensate formed by the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0025]: the water comes from the air handler, and thus from the first heat exchanger); and
a distribution system fluidically coupled to the separation plate (see at least Figure 10, pump #108, pipe #110), and
said separation plate comprising:
a proximal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with water chamber #78), a distal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with outlet of pipe #110), and a body extending from the proximal end to the distal end (see Figure 10, interior of housing #12), the distal end being elevated relative the proximal end such that the body is sloped (see at least Figure 10, the body is vertically sloped such that the distal end is at the top and the proximal end is at the bottom);
a plurality of walls formed across the body (see at least Figure 10, baffles #30/#32/#34);
Cerdan does not disclose a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls.
Engelhart teaches another plate filtration system comprising a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least paragraphs [0031]; [0035]; [0036]: the distillation apparatus (i.e. plate filtration system) includes fabric or etching that act to contain the liquid by increasing the surface area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plate of Cerdan with a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls, as taught by Engelhart, to improve the plate of Cerdan by increasing the surface area of the walls in the separation plate and ensuring a more even flow (see at least Engelhart paragraph [0031]).
Cerdan as modified by Englelhart further discloses wherein the condensate passively flows from the distal end of the body to the proximal end of the body, such that the condensate flows over each of the plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least Figure 10, the condensate water flows across the baffles #30/#32/#34).
Regarding claim 2, Cerdan further discloses wherein the body further includes a minimum level of condensate stored within the body (see at least paragraph [0025]: a minimum level of condensate is required to accumulate within water chamber #78 of housing #12 before transfer to pan/tank/collector #102; c.f. Figure 10).
Regarding claims 3-7, Cerdan in view of Englehart does not disclose wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include baffle chambers; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include magnetic traps, instead teaching fabric (wick) or etched containment traps (see at least Englehart paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include baffle chambers; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include magnetic traps would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Englehart system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed containment trap types. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed containment trap types solve any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may include” the claimed types or others (see paragraphs [0036]-[0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the containment trap types as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart with wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include baffle chambers; and/or wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include magnetic traps as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Cerdan as modified by Englehart to include the containment traps further discloses wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall including a first plurality of contaminant traps (see for example baffle #30) and a second wall including a second plurality of contaminant traps (see for example baffle #32) that are different from the first plurality of contaminant traps (the baffle walls are isolated from each other, thus the containment traps on each wall will be different from one another).
Claim(s) 9-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan (US 2014/0109602) in view of Engelhart (US 2010/0307910).
Regarding claim 9, Cerdan discloses a heat pump system (see at least air handler unit #58, which is part of an air conditioner (heat pump) unit comprising:
a first heat exchanger that forms a condensate (see at least paragraph [0026]: first heat exchanger (i.e. an evaporator) forming a condensate is inherent to air handler #58 of air conditioner);
a second heat exchanger positioned opposite the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0026]: second heat exchanger (i.e. a condenser) situated on the opposite end of the air conditioner from air handler #58 is inherent to air conditioner);
a compressor positioned between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0026]: compressor situated between first and second heat exchangers is inherent to air conditioner);
a condensation pan positioned downstream of the first heat exchanger (see at least Figure 10, pan/tank/collector #102, the condensation pan configured to collect the condensate formed by the first heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0025]: the water comes from the air handler, and thus from the first heat exchanger);
a filtration system fluidly coupled to the condensation pan to receive the condensate collected by the condensation pan, the filtration system further including a separation plate (see at least baffles #30/#32/#34 and housing #12 of assembly #10), the separation plate comprising:
a proximal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with water chamber #78), a distal end (see at least Figure 10, end of housing #12 with outlet of pipe #110), and a body extending from the proximal end to the distal end (see Figure 10, interior of housing #12), the distal end being elevated relative the proximal end such that the body is sloped (see at least Figure 10, the body is vertically sloped such that the distal end is at the top and the proximal end is at the bottom);
a plurality of walls formed across the body (see at least Figure 10, baffles #30/#32/#34);
and a distribution system fluidly coupled to the proximal end of the separation plate (a distribution system fluidically coupled to the separation plate (see at least Figure 10, pump #108, pipe #110).
Cerdan does not disclose a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls.
Engelhart teaches another plate filtration system comprising a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least paragraphs [0031]; [0035]; [0036]: the distillation apparatus (i.e. plate filtration system) includes fabric or etching that act to contain the liquid by increasing the surface area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plate of Cerdan with a plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls, as taught by Engelhart, to improve the plate of Cerdan by increasing the surface area of the walls in the separation plate and ensuring a more even flow (see at least Engelhart paragraph [0031]).
Cerdan as modified by Englelhart further discloses wherein the condensate passively flows from the distal end of the body to the proximal end of the body, such that the condensate flows over each of the plurality of contaminant traps formed on each of the plurality of walls (see at least Figure 10, the condensate water flows across the baffles #30/#32/#34).
Regarding claim 10, Cerdan further discloses wherein the distal end of the separation plate fluidly couples the filtration system to the condensation pan (see at least Figure 10, the distal end of housing #12 receives the water from the pan/tank/collector #102).
Regarding claim 11, Cerdan further discloses further comprising a humidification system fluidly coupled to the distribution system (see, for example, paragraph [0025]; c.f. Figure 5: air stream #70 flows counter to the water flow, and contacts the water, thus the counter stream acts as a dehumidification system fluidly coupled to the above discussed distribution system).
Regarding claim 13, Cerdan further discloses wherein the body of the separation plate further includes a minimum level of condensate stored within the body (see at least paragraph [0025]: a minim level of condensate is required to accumulate within water chamber #78 of housing #12 before transfer to pan/tank/collector #102; c.f. Figure 10).
Regarding claims 14-17, Cerdan in view of Englehart does not disclose wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall having a first plurality of contaminant traps and a second wall having a second plurality of contaminant traps that are of a different type from the first plurality of contaminant traps; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media, instead teaching fabric (wick) or etched containment traps (see at least Englehart paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall having a first plurality of contaminant traps and a second wall having a second plurality of contaminant traps that are of a different type from the first plurality of contaminant traps; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media would result in a difference in function of the Cerdan in view of Englehart system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed containment trap types. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed containment trap types solve any stated problem, indicating that the traps “may include” the claimed types or others (see paragraphs [0036]-[0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the containment trap types as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart with wherein the plurality of walls includes a first wall having a first plurality of contaminant traps and a second wall having a second plurality of contaminant traps that are of a different type from the first plurality of contaminant traps; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include perforations; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include mesh screens; wherein the plurality of contaminant traps include filter media as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerdan in view of Englehart as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Riccardi (US 2006/0249028).
Regarding claim 12, Cerdan in view of Englehart does not disclose further comprising a misting nozzle fluidly coupled to the distribution system.
Riccardi teaches another plate filtration system comprising a misting nozzle fluidly coupled to a distribution system (see at least paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart with further comprising a misting nozzle fluidly coupled to the distribution system, as taught by Riccardi, to improve the system of Cerdan in view of Englehart by ensuring even application of the water/fluid to the plate(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763