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 1-3, in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
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 discussed in detail below.
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.
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 limitation “heat collecting devices” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “devices” coupled with functional language “heat collecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
It is acknowledged that the claims specify that the “heat collecting devices” include “heat collectors” (not the “light-gathering heat collectors”). However, the term “heat collector” does not refer to any particular structure, and thus, does not amount to sufficient structure for accomplishing the function of “heat collecting”.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-3 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “In the heat collection process, series-connected-multiple groups of parallel solar heat collecting devices and series-connected light-gathering heat collectors with decreasing water levels are adopted, and a plurality of solar heat collectors are connected in series with cascade decreasing water levels are used for heating, so that the temperature rise is doubled, natural flow is realized by potential energy difference, energy consumption is not required, energy is effectively saved, and the heat collection efficiency is improved; the saline water heated by the series-connected-multiple groups of parallel solar heat collecting devices with decreasing water levels enters the series-connected light-gathering collectors and is heated again to generate high- temperature saline water, which enters the heating chamber to serve as the heat source for the evaporation process;” (paragraph [0023]).
Accordingly, the claimed “heat collecting devices” has been interpreted as solar energy collectors, as well as equivalents thereof.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites “A system for separating water and salt by sequential evaporation of multiple groups of heat collecting devices” in the preamble thereof (lines 1-2).
As written, this limitation requires that the system evaporate the groups of heat collecting devices. Examiner understands this is an error and believes that Applicant intended recite “a system for separating water and salt by sequential evaporation of water using multiple groups of heat collecting devices.”
This issue aside, it is not clear from the body of the claim that the system is one that actually supports sequential evaporation, by way of the heat collecting devices or otherwise. At present, the claimed system apparently only requires a single evaporation supporting element (the “evaporation chamber”). Should the preamble be taken as indicating that the heat collecting devices are functional as evaporators for evaporating a portion of a water stream supplied thereto? If not, in what way does the claimed system amount to one for “sequential evaporation”?
Applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites “a given initial stock solution temperature” in line 24.
It is unclear if the stock solution here is the “low water-temperature saline stock solution” introduced in line 5 of claim 1. Presumably such is Applicant’s intent, as otherwise “a given initial stock solution temperature” could refer to the temperature of some other stock solution.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 1 to recite --a temperature of the stock solution--.
Claim 1 recites “a tube-side inlet of the heating chamber is connected to an outlet of a
PNG
media_image1.png
66
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
heat collector of each group of the heat collecting devices,” (lines 18-19), where “Tv is a phase change temperature of saline water corresponding to a given evaporation chamber pressure, T0 is a given stock solution temperature, [and] T1- is an outlet temperature of the first heat collector” (lines 23-25).
It is unclear to what extent, if any at all, said language actually limits the identity of the
PNG
media_image1.png
66
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
heat collector. To elaborate, said language attempts to define the layout of the claimed system based on conditions (temperatures) which are subject to change over time based on factors outside of the claimed system. In other words, the values of Tv, T1, and T0 --are understood to be variable, i.e. Tv can vary with the composition (e.g. salinity) of the feed, T1 can vary with time of day and weather conditions (it is understood that the heat collectors of the groups of heat collecting devices are, or at least can be solar heat collectors), and T0 can vary with time of year, weather conditions, and the source of the stock solution. Therefore, the identity of the
PNG
media_image1.png
66
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
heat collector is either entirely open-ended (and thus not limited) or is only revealed given specific values for Tv, T1, and T0, which the claim has not adequately defined.
Examiner further notes that the values of Tv and T0 are properties of the material worked upon by the claimed system, and the value of T1 is determined at least in part by the way in which one uses the claimed system. System claims are not limited by the intended use or the material worked upon (see MPEP 2114 and 2115).
Claim 1 recites “a shell-side outlet of the heating chamber is connected to an inlet of a
PNG
media_image2.png
78
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
heat collector of each group of the heat collecting devices,” (lines 20-22).
This language is unclear for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to language concerning the
PNG
media_image1.png
66
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
heat collector.
Claim 1 recites “an outlet of the inner tube is connected to an inlet of a
PNG
media_image3.png
68
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
heat collector of each heat collecting device,” (lines 33-34), where Tc is an outlet temperature of the condenser.
This language is unclear for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to language concerning the
PNG
media_image1.png
66
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
heat collector.
Claim 1 recites “a
PNG
media_image3.png
68
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
heat collector of each heat collecting device” in line 34.
This limitation should be amended to recite --a
PNG
media_image3.png
68
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
heat collector of each group of heat collecting devices--.
Claim 2 is drafted in a manner which suggests it was intended to be a dependent of claim 1. However, claim 2 does not actually recite dependency on claim 1, or any other claim, and thus, is technically an independent claim.
If claim 2 was intended to be a dependent of claim 1, Applicant should amend claim 2 so that it properly recites such dependency.
If claim 2 was intended as a separate independent claim, it is replete with indefinite limitations (e.g. limitations which lack sufficient antecedent basis) and thus requires substantial redrafting.
Claim 2 recites “The system for separating water and salt by sequential evaporation of multiple groups of heat collecting devices” in the preamble thereof (lines 1-2).
This limitation suffers from the same lack of clarity as the preamble of claim 1.
Applicant should make clarifying amendments to claim 2 corresponding to those made to the preamble of claim 1.
Furthermore, assuming that claim 2 is meant to be a dependent of claim 1, “multiple groups of heat collecting devices” should be amended to recite --the multiple groups of heat collecting devices-- in the preamble of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “The system for separating water and salt by sequential evaporation of multiple groups of heat collecting devices according to claim 1” in the preamble thereof (lines 1-2).
This limitation suffers from the same lack of clarity as the preamble of claim 1.
Applicant should make clarifying amendments to claim 3 corresponding to those made to the preamble of claim 1.
Furthermore, “multiple groups of heat collecting devices” should be amended to recite --the multiple groups of heat collecting devices-- in the preamble of claim 3.
Discussion of Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent Applicant’s disclosure:
US 4046640 A; US 4330373 A; US 4376679 A; US 4756802 A; US 5645693 A; US 20110048006 A1; US 20120234667 A1; US 20140290247 A1; US 20150291463 A1; US 9428403 B2; US 9771278 B2; US 10532936 B2; US 10570025 B2; US 10689265 B2; US 11117814 B2; US 10987609 B1; US 12544685 B2; US 11505477 B2; US 11834348 B2; US 12312254 B2; CN 107628662 A; and CN 105588342 A.
At present, Examiner does not see a clear pathway to constructing the invention of claim 1 from the prior art of record without reliance on improper hindsight. However, claim 1 suffers from a number of serious clarity issues (see 112(b) rejections above). Therefore, Examiner cannot provide any indication of allowability at least until after said clarity issues are resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights