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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1 and 3-8; and cancelation of claim 2 are noted.
The amendments overcome the claim objection and rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Due to amendments to the claims, the previous prior art rejections are modified herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants arguments with respect to the Wu reference are moot, as Wu is no longer being relied upon for rejection of the claims due to the amendments presented.
Applicant argues with respect to the modifying reference Kuang that the microchannels disclosed therein are different from those of the present invention, where Kuang’s macrochannels are perpendicular to the surface and the macrochannels of the present invention are adjacent to the surface of the outer surface of the funnel shape in a circular array, citing Fig. 2F and [0065].
In response, the office respectfully submits that Applicant is applying an overly narrow interpretation of the invention as claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require “macrochannels on the outer surface.” Kuang is considered to fully teach this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US 2019/0106335) in view of Li et al ("Highly Salt-Resistant 3D Hydrogel Evaporator for Continuous Solar Desalination via Localized Crystallization") and Kuang et al ("A High-Performance Self-Regenerating Solar Evaporator for Continuous Water Desalination).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8, Zhu discloses a buoyancy-driven convection based 3D solar evaporator for simultaneous salt rejection and evaporation of saline water (see Abstract; Fig. 10; [0006]; [0041]; [0118], used for desalting sea water), comprising:
an interconnected porous matrix (base 2) comprising cellulose, polyurethane, and mixtures thereof; (see [0073]-[0074]; [0078]); and
a photothermal material (carbon material layer 1) comprising carbon nanotubes or graphene (see [0011]).
Zhu does not disclose wherein the 3D solar evaporator comprises (1) a funnel-shaped structure and (2) macrochannels on the outer surface.
Regarding (1), Li discloses a solar evaporator comprising a bilayer structure including a light absorber and a brine transport substrate, i.e., a photothermal material and a porous matrix, respectively (see pp. 1-2). The disclosed 3D evaporator achieves a stable solar desalination performance even in high-salinity brine by enabling edge-preferential salt crystallization. This advantage is observed due to the shape of the structure, which is a conical frustrum (i.e., funnel-shaped) structure. The conical frustrum structure allows for radial brine transport in the evaporator, leading to edge-preferential salt crystallization, where conventional cylindrical shaped evaporators accumulate salt crystals all over the top surface and compromise sunlight absorption (see pp. 1-2).
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 solar evaporator of Zhu by implementing the conical shape of the evaporator as suggested by Li, in order to allow for radial brine transport and thus edge-preferential salt crystallization, thereby improving the light absorption performance of the evaporator.
Regarding (2), Kuang discloses a solar evaporator comprising millimeter-sized drilled channels which function as salt rejection pathways, allowing for improved efficiency and long-term stability (see Abstract).
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 solar evaporator of Zhu by implementing millimeter-sized channels in the outer surface of the evaporator (i.e., macrochannels), as suggested by Kuang, in order to provide salt rejection pathways which have the effect of improving efficiency and stability of the evaporator.
Zhu in view of Li and Kuang is considered to fully teach the structural features of the claimed apparatus. The intended manner of operating the apparatus is not considered to structurally distinguish the instant claimed invention over the prior art. MPEP 2114. However, the office notes that the cited references disclose evaporation of salt solutions having a salt concentration of at least 8 wt.% (see Li: p. 1; Kuang: p. 1).
The office additionally notes that Li discloses that the conical shape causes salt crystallization to concentrate on the outer perimeter of the surface and bulk water is formed in an interior of the evaporator. As a result, evaporation rate is improved (see pp. 1-2; Fig. 1). Furthermore, given that the combination of references discloses construction materials in line with those claimed, the corresponding evaporation rate and water absorption capabilities are reasonably expected to be as claimed. In the alternative, the office is of the position that selecting materials and construction which maximize evaporation rate and water absorption would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed evaporation rate and water absorption are not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu in view of Li and Kuang is considered to fully teach the structural features of the claimed apparatus, in particular where Li discloses that the conical shape causes salt crystallization to concentrate on the outer perimeter of the surface, as described above. In other words, the remainder of the surface is available for light absorption. Furthermore, given that the combination of references discloses construction materials in line with those claimed, the corresponding light absorption is reasonably expected to be as claimed. In the alternative, the office is of the position that selecting materials which maximize light absorption would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed light absorption is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Kuang discloses the macrochannels having a diameter of approximately 1 mm (see p. 4, second paragraph).
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 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
Prosecution Insights