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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 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.
The term “near” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the context of the claims and corresponding specification what distance from center (claim 1) or from the bottom or top (claim 8) would be considered within the scope of “near.”
Regarding claim 1, recitation of “its” is ambiguous with respect to which feature “its” is intended to refer.
The term “gradually” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what structural requirements are implied by a gradual decrease in perimeter as it relates to the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what the relationship is between “a top portion” recited therein and recitation of the same in claim 5. Is claim 7 referring to the same top portion or intending to introduce a new element? If the former, the claim should be amended to recite “the (or said) top portion.” If the latter, distinct terminology should be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Augustin (US 7,534,327).
Regarding claim 1, Augustin discloses a water recovery system comprising (see Figs. 1 & 5; col. 5, lines 35-56; col. 6, lines 27-35):
a base portion (collecting channel 15) having an outer perimeter with a receiving member adapted to attach to a side portion (lower section 14), the base portion further having an interior that rises from the outer perimeter to an aperture at the center of the base portion (open bottom area 16);
the side portion rising from the receiving member of the base potion substantially perpendicular to the base portion (refer specifically to Fig. 5, which depicts the inner wall present as a straight surface); and
a top portion (upper section 13) having a second receiving member adapted to attach to the side portion at an outer perimeter thereof, the perimeter of the top portion decreasing to form an aperture 20 at the center of the top portion.
Regarding claim 8, Augustin discloses a water recovery system comprising (see Figs. 1 & 5):
a side wall (lower section 14);
a first inner cone (inner wall 18), the first inner cone mounted against the interior of the side wall at the bottom of the side wall; and
a second inner cone (upper section 13), the second inner cone mounted against the interior of the side wall near the upper to of the side wall.
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.
Claims 2-4, 5-7, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, as applied to the claims above.
Regarding claims 2-4, Augustin does not disclose the number of pieces which make up the base portion, side portion, and top portion, respectively. However, the use of multiple pieces to construct the various system parts is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice and is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Augustin discloses a water recovery system comprising (see Figs. 1 & 5; col. 5, lines 35-56; col. 6, lines 27-35):
a base portion (collecting channel 15), a side portion (lower section 14), and a top portion (upper section 13), wherein the base portion is joined to the side portion, and the side portion is joined to the top portion.
Augustin does not disclose wherein the vertical height of the side portion is greater than the height of the top portion. However, the claimed relative dimensions are not considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art, where the system of Augustin is understood to perform in the same manner as that claimed. MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 7, Augustin discloses wherein the top portion comprises a plurality of perforations 23 (see Fig. 1). Augustin fails to disclose the size of the perforations. However, the reference discloses that the perforations function to serve as a holding handle for additional attachments and increase the stability in the upper section. Therefore, determining a suitable size which achieves this objective would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed surface area of the perforations is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Augustin discloses a water recovery system comprising (see Figs. 1 & 5):
a side wall (lower section 14);
an inner cone (inner wall 18); and
an upper cone (upper section 13).
Augustin does not disclose the number of pieces or subparts which make up the side wall, inner cone, and upper cone, respectively. However, the use of multiple pieces to construct the various system parts is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice and is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention over the cited prior art. MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 13, Augustin discloses the system further comprising an electrolyte (mineral) containing cartridge (see col. 3, lines 51-54).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, as applied to the claims above, in view of Baggen et al (US 2008/0142428).
Regarding claim 10, Augustin does not disclose the system comprising means for strengthening the connections when assembled.
Baggen is directed to a device for recovering purified water (see [0001]). Baggen discloses that watertight tape may be applied to areas to seal seams of the device in a watertight manner (see [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the system of Augustin by applying watertight tape, as suggested by Baggen, in order to seal any seams, as needed, and prevent leakage of water into the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, as applied to the claims above, in view of Mahanes (US 2019/0126159).
Regarding claim 11, Augustin does not disclose the system comprising a magnetically attachable fin and an anchoring magnet.
Mahanes discloses floating devices which have magnetic attachment members with an anchor device (see [0012]). The use of magnets as attachment members are ideal because they can be simply attached and detached from each other requiring minimal effort to connect and disconnect (see [0022]).
The office notes that Augustin’s device is a float (see col. 2, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the system of Augustin to include the magnetic attachment members disclosed in Mahanes for the purpose of providing anchoring means of the floating device to other structure(s) in a simple design, thereby improving the security of the device when in use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, as applied to the claims above, in view of Andersen (US 2018/0002194).
Regarding claim 12, Augustin does not disclose a source water tray.
However, it is known in the art to use a tray for the purpose of providing source water for a solar evaporation water purification device (see, e.g., Andersen: [0052]; [0084]; [0088]; [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to include a tray component in the system of Augustin, as suggested by Andersen, in order to provide the capability of using the water recovery system to purify source water housed therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772