DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on 09/19/2023, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "103" and "106" have both been used to designate a collection chamber. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 11, in step 1104, reads “reduce average size of water particles of the aerosol to 10 micrometer or less”, whereas the specification reads “reducing the average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 4 µm or less”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference characters 103 and 106 have both been used to designate a collection chamber.
Fig. 11, in step 1104, reads “reduce average size of water particles of the aerosol to 10 micrometer or less”, whereas the specification reads “reducing the average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 4 µm or less”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 9 and 12, Marsh teaches a desalination system (abstract), comprising:
an ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1, [0055], container 104) configured to receive saline water (Fig. 1, [0055], salt water 102) in a lower region of the ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1);
an ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, [0055], source of ultrasonic energy/ultrasound transmitter 106) located in the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1) and configured to generate an aerosol comprising water particles from the saline water ([0058]);
a collection chamber (Fig. 1, [0069], condensation container 118) configured to be in fluid communication with an upper region of the ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1, [0065]); and
a fan ([0065]) configured to transfer the aerosol from the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber to the collection chamber ([0065]),
wherein the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber and the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber have a vertical distance above a pre-determined threshold value so that, in the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber, an average size of the water particles of the aerosol is reduced by gravity to 5 μm or less ([0060]), and
wherein the collection chamber is configured such that water particles in the aerosol condense to form liquid water in the collection chamber ([0069]), and the liquid water has a lower salt concentration than the saline water ([0069]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 6: the collection chamber is positioned on a side of the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1).
Claim 9: a conduit (Fig. 1, [0065], conduit 114) connecting the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber ([0065]) to the upper region of the collection chamber (Fig. 1).
Claim 12: the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber and the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber are configured so that, in the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber, the average size of the water particles of the aerosol is reduced by gravity to 2.5 μm or less ([0060]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of U.S. Publication US20230032611A1 (‘Patton’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 7, Marsh teaches the desalination system of Claim 1, including that the water particles in the aerosol are configured to condense to form the liquid water, which is collected by the collection chamber (Marsh, [0069]), except no additional separation process (Fig. 1) to remove salts from the water particles before the water particles condense to form the liquid water, wherein the additional separation process comprises an energy input of heat, vortex or electrical charges.
Patton also relates to a desalination system (Fig. 1, [0043]), comprising no additional separation process (Fig. 21) to remove salts from the water particles before the water particles condense to form the liquid water, wherein the additional separation process comprises an energy input of heat, vortex or electrical charges (Fig. 21, [0041-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the desalination system of Marsh to comprise no additional separation process to remove salts from the water particles before the water particles condense to form the liquid water, wherein the additional separation process comprises an energy input of heat, vortex or electrical charges, to take advantage of the low temperature of the mist and low energy required to return the vapor to liquid (Patton, [0043]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 7: the ultrasonic chamber has a slanted top having a lower end towards the collection chamber (Patton, Fig. 21, [0041-0042], duct 142) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ultrasonic chamber of the desalination system of Marsh to have a slanted top having a lower end towards the collection chamber, as demonstrated by Patton, to remove vapor as it is produced to avoid recondensing into the water body (Patton, [0041]) and to discharge vapor through a duct to an appropriate area, such as the condenser (Patton, [0041-0042]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of Publication Achievement of humidification and dehumidification desalination system by utilizing a hot water sprayer and ultrasound waves techniques (‘Shehata’, Energy Conversion and Management 201 (2019) 112142) and in further view of Chinese Publication CN2687107Y (‘Chen’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, Marsh teaches the desalination system of Claim 1, except that the fan is configured to continue operation, after the ultrasonic transducer is turned off, to prevent water particles with an average size of larger than 5 μm from entering the collection chamber.
Shehata also relates to a desalination system (abstract), wherein the fan is configured to continue operation, after the ultrasonic transducer is turned off (Figs. 19-20, without ultrasonic fogger).
Chen also relates to a desalination system ([0002]), wherein the fan is configured to continue operation ([0019], continuous) to prevent water particles with an average size of larger than 5 μm from entering the collection chamber ([0019], results in fine suspended droplets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fan of Marsh to be configured to continue operation, as demonstrated by Chen, so water droplets are continuously stirred and transported by the fan, so this prolonged suspension and drifting results in fine suspended droplets that are continuously assimilated by airflow, constantly rising and being rapidly evaporated (Chen, [0019]). It would have been obvious for the fan of Marsh to be configured to continue operation after the ultrasonic transducer is turned off, as demonstrated by Shehata, because fresh water production increases with air mass flow (Shehata, Fig. 21 and pg. 11, left column) while reducing electricity consumption (Shehata, pg. 12, right column).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of U.S. Publication US20220135437A1 (‘Perryman’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 5, Marsh teaches the desalination system of Claim 1, except that the collection chamber is positioned above the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber.
Perryman also relates to a desalination system (abstract), wherein the collection chamber (Fig. 2, [0031], condenser 280) is positioned above the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 2, [0025-0026], rapid evaporation system 230 comprises vaporizer 240 employing an ultrasonic atomizing transducer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the collection chamber above the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber, as demonstrated by Perryman, to collect the rising mist (Perryman, [0031]) as mist continues to rise after breaching the water surface (Perryman, [0018]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of Chinese Publication CN103693700B (‘Gong’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, Marsh teaches the desalination system of Claim 1, except that the upper region of the collection chamber is dome-shaped so that the water particles in the aerosol are configured to condense to form the liquid water on the upper region of the collection chamber.
Gong also relates to a desalination system ([0002]), wherein the upper region of the collection chamber is dome-shaped (Fig. 1, [0031], condensation guide plate 9 has an arc-shaped cross section) so that the water particles in the aerosol are configured to condense to form the liquid water on the upper region of the collection chamber ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper region of the collection chamber of Marsh to be dome-shaped, as demonstrated by Gong, so that water vapor condenses on the condenser guide plate (Gong, [0029]) and, due to the arc-shaped design of the condenser guide plate, the droplets converge into streams and flow down to be continuously discharged (Gong, [0033]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of U.S. Publication US20190060778A1 (‘Chang’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, Marsh teaches the desalination system of Claim 1, except that the collection chamber is detachable from the ultrasonic chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the collection chamber to be detachable from the ultrasonic chamber in the desalination system of Marsh, as demonstrated by Chang ([0123]), should the need arise, such as if cleaning or replacements are needed (Chang, [0123]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of Publication Design and evaluation of a novel ultrasonic desalination system by response surface methodology (‘Hosseingholilou’, B. Hosseingholilou et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 164 (2019) 263–275).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 11, Marsh teaches the desalination system of Claim 1, including that the liquid water has a salt concentration lower than the saline water, except that the liquid water has a salt concentration at least 60% lower than the saline water.
Hosseingholilou also relates to a desalination system (abstract), comprising:
an ultrasonic chamber configured to receive saline water (Fig. 1, section 2.2. Experimental equipment, inlet saline water reservoir) in a lower region of the ultrasonic chamber;
an ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, section 2.2. Experimental equipment, piezoelectric crystals of ultrasound) located in the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber and configured to generate an aerosol comprising water particles from the saline water (section 2.3. Experimental procedure);
a collection chamber (Fig. 1, section 2.3. Experimental procedure, condenser) configured to be in fluid communication with an upper region of the ultrasonic chamber; and
a fan (Fig. 1, section 2.3. Experimental procedure, fan) configured to transfer the aerosol from the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber to the collection chamber (section 2.3. Experimental procedure),
wherein the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber and the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber have a vertical distance above a pre-determined threshold value (Fig. 1), and
wherein the collection chamber is configured such that water particles in the aerosol condense to form liquid water in the collection chamber (section 2.3. Experimental procedure), and the liquid water has a lower salt concentration than the saline water (section 3.2.3. The effects of inlet hot air temperature (X3) on responses),
wherein the liquid water has a salt concentration at least 60% lower than the saline water (Table 2 and section 3.3. Process optimization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the desalination system of Marsh can produce liquid water having a salt concentration at least 60% lower than the saline water, as demonstrated by Hosseingholilou, due to the desalination systems of Marsh and Hosseingholilou both comprising an ultrasonic chamber configured to receive saline water in a lower region of the ultrasonic chamber; an ultrasonic transducer located in the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber and configured to generate an aerosol comprising water particles from the saline water; a collection chamber configured to be in fluid communication with an upper region of the ultrasonic chamber; and a fan configured to transfer the aerosol from the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber to the collection chamber, wherein the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber and the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber have a vertical distance, and wherein the collection chamber is configured such that water particles in the aerosol condense to form liquid water in the collection chamber, and the liquid water has a lower salt concentration than the saline water.
Claims 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) in view of Publication Influence of liquid properties on ultrasonic atomization (‘Lozano’, ILASS – Europe 2017, 28th Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, 6-8 Sep. 2017, Valencia, Spain).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 13 and 19-20, Marsh teaches a method of water desalination ([0001]), comprising:
generating an aerosol from saline water by an ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, [0055], source of ultrasonic energy/ultrasound transmitter 106) located in a lower region of an ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1, [0055], container 104), wherein the aerosol comprises water particles ([0001]);
an average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less ([0060]);
transferring the aerosol to a collection chamber by a fan ([0065]), the collection chamber (Fig. 1, [0069], condensation container 118) configured to be in fluid communication with the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber (Fig. 1, [0065]); and
condensing ([0069]) the water particles in the aerosol to form a liquid water that has a lower salt concentration than the saline water ([0069]).
However, Marsh does not teach reducing, by gravity, an average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less as the aerosol goes from the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber to an upper region of the ultrasonic chamber across a vertical distance above a pre-determined threshold value.
Lozano also relates to a generating an aerosol from water by an ultrasonic transducer (abstract), comprising: reducing, by gravity, an average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less (section Droplet size distribution measurements) as the aerosol goes from the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber to an upper region of the ultrasonic chamber across a vertical distance above a pre-determined threshold value (Fig. 3 and section Droplet size distribution measurements, large droplets are effectively filtered out by the effect of gravity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of Marsh can comprise reducing, by gravity, an average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less as the aerosol goes from the lower region of the ultrasonic chamber to an upper region of the ultrasonic chamber across a vertical distance above a pre-determined threshold value, as demonstrated by Lozano, because both Marsh and Lozano both involve generating an aerosol from water by an ultrasonic transducer (Marsh, [0055] and Lozano, abstract). Furthermore, as they are dragged out by a slow air flow, large droplets are effectively and easily filtered out (Lozano, section Conclusions) by the effect of gravity (Lozano, Fig. 3 and section Droplet size distribution measurements).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 19: reducing, by gravity, the average size of the water particles of the aerosol (Lozano, section Droplet size distribution measurements) to 2.5 μm or less (Marsh, [0060]) as the aerosol goes across the vertical distance.
Claim 20: the collection chamber is positioned above the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber or on a side of the upper region of the ultrasonic chamber. (Marsh, Fig. 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) and Publication Influence of liquid properties on ultrasonic atomization (‘Lozano’, ILASS – Europe 2017, 28th Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, 6-8 Sep. 2017, Valencia, Spain) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Publication Sedimentation of harmful dust by means of ultrasonic waves and additional disperse phase (‘Titov’, Arab J Geosci 8, 11321–11328 (2015)) and Chinese Publication CN103693700B (‘Gong’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Marsh and Lozano teaches the method of Claim 13, except determining the pre-determined threshold value for reducing the average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less.
Titov also relates to a method comprising generating an aerosol by an ultrasonic transducer wherein the aerosol comprises water particles (abstract, water aerosol), comprising determining the pre-determined threshold value for reducing the average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less (sections Smoluchowski balance equation to describe aerosol coagulation, mass function of distribution of sizes of particles (equation 1) changes over time in part due to the sedimentation of large particles (I1), where I1 is an integral from t=0 and t=Dcr(t), where Dcr(t) depends on the height (H) of the aerosol cloud).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the pre-determined threshold value for reducing the average size of the water particles of the aerosol to 5 μm or less, as demonstrated by Titov, in the method of Marsh and Lozano to choose a pre-determined threshold value that adjusts the size of the atomized particles to change the evaporation surface area and evaporation rate (Gong, [0017]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) and Publication Influence of liquid properties on ultrasonic atomization (‘Lozano’, ILASS – Europe 2017, 28th Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, 6-8 Sep. 2017, Valencia, Spain) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20230032611A1 (‘Patton’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 15-16, the combination of Marsh and Lozano teaches the method of Claim 13, except that the water particles in the aerosol are condensed to form the liquid water with no additional separation process to remove salts from the water particles before the water particles condense to form the liquid water, wherein the additional separation process comprises an energy input of heat, vortex or electrical charges.
Patton also relates to a method of water desalination (Fig. 1, [0043]), wherein the water particles in the aerosol are condensed to form the liquid water with no additional separation process (Fig. 21) to remove salts from the water particles before the water particles condense to form the liquid water, wherein the additional separation process comprises an energy input of heat, vortex or electrical charges (Fig. 21, [0041-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Marsh and Lozano to comprise no additional separation process to remove salts from the water particles before the water particles condense to form the liquid water, wherein the additional separation process comprises an energy input of heat, vortex or electrical charges, to take advantage of the low temperature of the mist and low energy required to return the vapor to liquid (Patton, [0043]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) and Publication Influence of liquid properties on ultrasonic atomization (‘Lozano’, ILASS – Europe 2017, 28th Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, 6-8 Sep. 2017, Valencia, Spain) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Publication Achievement of humidification and dehumidification desalination system by utilizing a hot water sprayer and ultrasound waves techniques (‘Shehata’, Energy Conversion and Management 201 (2019) 112142) and in further view of Chinese Publication CN2687107Y (‘Chen’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Marsh and Lozano teaches the method of Claim 13, except turning off the ultrasonic transducer to stop generating the aerosol; and operating the fan to prevent water particles with an average size of larger than 5 μm from entering the collection chamber.
Shehata also relates to a method of desalination (abstract), comprising turning off the ultrasonic transducer to stop generating the aerosol; and operating the fan (Figs. 19-20, without ultrasonic fogger).
Chen also relates to a method of desalination ([0018]), comprising operating the fan ([0019], continuous) to prevent water particles with an average size of larger than 5 μm from entering the collection chamber ([0019], results in fine suspended droplets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Marsh and Lozano to include turning off the ultrasonic transducer, as demonstrated by Shehata, and operating the fan, as demonstrated by Chen, because fresh water production increases with air mass flow (Shehata, Fig. 21 and pg. 11, left column) while reducing electricity consumption (Shehata, pg. 12, right column) and so water droplets are continuously stirred and transported by the fan, so this prolonged suspension and drifting results in fine suspended droplets that are continuously assimilated by airflow, constantly rising and being rapidly evaporated (Chen, [0019]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20210171366A1 (‘Marsh’) and Publication Influence of liquid properties on ultrasonic atomization (‘Lozano’, ILASS – Europe 2017, 28th Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, 6-8 Sep. 2017, Valencia, Spain) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chinese Publication CN209322505U (‘Hu’) and U.S. Publication US20190060778A1 (‘Chang’). Machine translations accompany this detailed action and the claims are mapped to those translations and the drawings in the original documents.
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Marsh and Lozano teaches the method of Claim 13, except turning off the ultrasonic transducer to stop generating the aerosol; and detaching the collection chamber from the ultrasonic chamber.
Hu also relates to a method of desalination ([0002]), comprising turning off the ultrasonic transducer to stop generating the aerosol ([0026], power supply cut off when water collector 28 is full of desalinated seawater).
Chang also relates to a method of desalination ([0002]), comprising detaching the collection chamber from the ultrasonic chamber ([0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Marsh and Lozano to comprise turning off the ultrasonic transducer to stop generating the aerosol, as demonstrated by Hu, and detaching the collection chamber from the ultrasonic chamber, as demonstrated by Chang, should the need arise, such as if cleaning or replacements are needed (Chang, [0123]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779