DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on December 11, 2023, and any subsequent filings.
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 because they fail to meet requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(l) for dark uniformly thick lines and text. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the preamble of each claim “multistage distillation” must be inserted before “system” to be consistent with Claim 1 from which all claims depend. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitations are:
In Claim 1, “a plurality of stages configured to be flowed through in series by a main feed liquid”;
In Claim 1, “the plurality of stages is configured to generate steam and feed the steam to a subsequent stage”;
In Claim 1, “the first stage of the plurality of stages is configured to heat the main feed liquid and/or to be fed with heated main feed liquid;”
In Claim 1, “an intermediate cooling device configured to cool the heated main feed liquid before flowing to at least one of the second to last stages of the plurality of serial stages”;
In Claim 2, “the intermediate cooling device is configured to cool the main feed liquid by at least one heat transfer to a cooling feed liquid and mixing with a cooling feed liquid”;
In Claim 3, “a feed liquid mixer configured to feed a cooling feed liquid to the main feed liquid before flowing to at least one of the second to last stages”;
In Claim 6, “a first area configured to be flowed through by the main feed and a second area configured to be flowed through by the cooling medium and/or cooling feed liquid”;
In Claim 7, “the intermediate cooling device comprises an external heat exchanger being external to the module and configured to cool the main feed liquid between two stages”;
In Claim 13, “a heating stage configured to at least one of: generate steam and feed the steam to the first stage, and heat the main feed liquid and feed it to the first stage”;
In Claim 14, “a vapor compressor configured to generate steam and feed the steam to the first stage”; and,
In Claim 15, “a feed liquid distribution device configured to: feed the main feed liquid from the source to the heating stage and/or the first stage, and feed the cooling feed liquid to the intermediate cooling device.”
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claims 1-15 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 “stage” yet neither the claim, specification, nor drawing provide a definition for this term rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of stages configured to be flowed through in series by a main feed liquid” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of stages is configured to generate steam and feed the steam to a subsequent stage” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 1 recites “the first stage of the plurality of stages is configured to heat the main feed liquid and/or to be fed with heated main feed liquid” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 1 recites “an intermediate cooling device configured to cool the heated main feed liquid before flowing to at least one of the second to last stages of the plurality of serial stages” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 2 recites “the intermediate cooling device is configured to cool the main feed liquid by at least one heat transfer to a cooling feed liquid and mixing with a cooling feed liquid” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 3 recites “a feed liquid mixer configured to feed a cooling feed liquid to the main feed liquid before flowing to at least one of the second to last stages” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 4 recites the intermediate cooling device is both integrated into and external to the frame elements yet does not indicate how two opposite positions may be maintained by a single structural element.
Claim 4 recites “provided by” yet neither the claim, specification, nor drawing provide a definition for this limitation rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “provided by” multiple times yet neither the claim, specification, nor drawing provide a definition for these limitations rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “a first area configured to be flowed through by the main feed and a second area configured to be flowed through by the cooling medium and/or cooling feed liquid” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cooling medium" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "cooling feed liquid" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the intermediate cooling device comprises an external heat exchanger being external to the module and configured to cool the main feed liquid between two stages” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 10 recites a first steam space partly limited by a condensation wall yet how a space may be partly limited is not made clear by the claim, specification, or drawings.
Claim 11 recites a second steam space partly limited by a membrane wall yet how a space may be partly limited is not made clear by the claim, specification, or drawings.
Claim 12 recites wherein the cooling feed liquid is the main feed liquid which renders the claim indefinite as not intermediate cooling device would be required yet is part of the structure recited in Claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 13 recites “a heating stage configured to at least one of: generate steam and feed the steam to the first stage, and heat the main feed liquid and feed it to the first stage” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 14 recites “a vapor compressor configured to generate steam and feed the steam to the first stage” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 15 recites “a feed liquid distribution device configured to: feed the main feed liquid from the source to the heating stage and/or the first stage, and feed the cooling feed liquid to the intermediate cooling device” yet the claim, specification, and drawings do not provide any structure that may perform this function.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "heating stage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "cooling feed liquid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Prior Art Rejections
Although an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention, the indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any cognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention, which may or may not be correct, either singly, or in combination, Heinzl, U.S.. Patent No. 10,143,971, Swaminathan, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2017/0014773, and Summers, et al., U.S. Publication No. 2014/0263060, appear to disclose the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights