Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/551,039

EVAPORATOR AND SEPARATION METHOD USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Examiner
BUI, DUNG H
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hanwha Solutions Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
962 granted / 1227 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
1312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1227 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is acknowledged. 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. Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland et al (US 20150375139; hereinafter Wieland) in view of Zheng et al (US 20170368471; hereinafter Zheng). As regarding claim 1, Wieland discloses the claimed invention for an evaporator comprising: a column (1) in which a plurality of packings (11) are stacked; an upper inlet (2), and a lower inlet (2 of fig. 1) provided in an upper portion, and a lower portion of the column, respectively; an upper outlet (61) and lower outlet (62) provided in the upper portion and the lower portion of the column, respectively. Wieland does not disclose a pump connected to the lower outlet; and a heater connected between the pump and a middle inlet provided a middle portion. Zheng teaches a pump (about 25) connected to a lower outlet (25); and a heater (41) connected between the pump and a middle inlet (45) provided a middle portion (fig. 2). Both Wieland and Zheng are directed to process equipment for handling and distributing fluids within a column or vessel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a pump connected to the lower outlet; and a heater connected between the pump and a middle inlet provided a middle portion as taught by Zheng in order to improve separation efficiency and fluid distribution in a packed column while simultaneously enhancing thermal control and process stability. As regarding claim 2, Wieland as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Wieland as modified discloses the claimed invention for a first supply unit (upper pine/line 2) and a second supply unit (lower pine/line 2) supplying target substances to the column, wherein the first supply unit is connected to the upper inlet, and the second supply unit is connected to the lower inlet. As regarding claim 3, Wieland as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Wieland as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the target substances to be separated are stored in the first supply unit, and the second supply unit includes a first storage tank storing the target substances. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the target substances to be separated are stored in the first supply unit, and the second supply unit includes a first storage tank storing the target substances in order to provide steady feed and improve fluid delivery and separation performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Nolkamper (US 4501657; pre-heating unit 2 is storage unit). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a second storage tank storing gas to be supplied with the target substances in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As regarding claim 4, Wieland as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Wieland as modified discloses the claimed invention for a first heater (Nolkamper - 2) positioned between the first supply unit and the column; and It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a second heater positioned between the second supply unit and the column in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As regarding claim 5, Wieland as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Wieland as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the column includes: a first column to which the target substances are supplied from the first supply unit through the upper inlet, and a second column positioned below the first column (fig. 1). As regarding claim 6, Wieland as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Wieland as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first column and the second column include a plurality of structured packings, the number of packing stages of the first column and the number of packing stages of the second column are different from each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first column and the second column include a plurality of structured packings, the number of packing stages of the first column and the number of packing stages of the second column are different from each other in order to tailor separation efficiency to different process requirement, optimize energy usage and pressure drop, improve control temperature and concentration profiles, and enhance overall process flexibility while reducing capital and operating costs, since it was known in the art as shown in Ito et al (US 10569190; hereinafter Ito; figs. 1 and 4; packed columns – 17, 18, 33a and 33b). As regarding claim 7, Wieland as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Wieland as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein substances discharged through the lower outlet (Zheng – 25 of fig. 1) are supplied to the column through the middle inlet (Zheng – 45 of fig. 1) after passing through the pump and the heater (Zheng – pump 35 and heater 41). Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20120004473; hereinafter Lee) in view of Hofmann et al (US 20170152345; hereinafter Hofmann). As regarding claim 1, Lee discloses the claimed invention for an evaporator comprising: a column; an upper inlet, a middle inlet, and a lower inlet (200, “(VB)” – about middle region, and 400) provided in an upper portion, a middle portion, and a lower portion of the column, respectively; an upper outlet (300) and a lower outlet (500) provided in the upper portion and the lower portion of the column, respectively ([0055], [0061], claim 1 and fig. 5); and heater (41). Lee does not disclose column in which a plurality of packings are stacked; and a pump connected to the lower outlet; and the heater connected between the pump and the middle inlet. Hofmann teaches column in which a plurality of packings ([0051] and [0067]) are stacked; and a pump (18) connected to the lower outlet. Both Lee and Hofmann are directed to purifying apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide column in which a plurality of packings are stacked; and a pump connected to the lower outlet; and the heater connected between the pump and the middle inlet as taught by Hofmann in order to improve liquid distribution, enhance mass and heat transfer, stabilize column operation, and provide precise thermal control while maintaining the low pressure drop advantages of packing. Lee as modified discloses the heater (41) connected between the pump (Hofmann - 18) and the middle inlet. As regarding claim 2, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a first supply unit and a second supply unit supplying target substances to the column, wherein the first supply unit is connected to the upper inlet, and the second supply unit is connected to the lower inlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a first supply unit and a second supply unit supplying target substances to the column, wherein the first supply unit is connected to the upper inlet, and the second supply unit is connected to the lower inlet in order to improve liquid distribution and mass-transfer efficiency, reduce pressure drop and flooding, enhance thermal control, and increase operational flexibility and separation performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Deibele et al [US 7435319; hereinafter Deibele; V1 to i), ii) and iii)]. As regarding claim 3, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the target substances to be separated are stored in the first supply unit, and the second supply unit includes a first storage tank (Deibele - 10) storing the target substances Lee as modified does not disclose a second storage tank storing gas to be supplied with the target substances. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a second storage tank storing gas to be supplied with the target substances in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As regarding claim 4, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for a first heater (Deibele – heat exchange in the line from 10 to about “V1” of fig. 1; no number) positioned between the first supply unit and the column. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a second heater positioned between the second supply unit and the column in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As regarding claim 5, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the column includes: a first column (Deibele – 3) to which the target substances are supplied from the first supply unit through the upper inlet, and a second column (Deibele – 4) positioned below the first column. As regarding claim 6, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first column and the second column include a plurality of structured packings, the number of packing stages of the first column and the number of packing stages of the second column are different from each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first column and the second column include a plurality of structured packings, the number of packing stages of the first column and the number of packing stages of the second column are different from each other in order to tailor separation efficiency to different process requirement, optimize energy usage and pressure drop, improve control temperature and concentration profiles, and enhance overall process flexibility while reducing capital and operating costs, since it was known in the art as shown in Ito et al (US 10569190; hereinafter Ito; figs. 1 and 4; packed columns – 17, 18, 33a and 33b). As regarding claim 7, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein substances discharged through the lower outlet (Deibele – lower outlet 6 to 10 and back to 5) are supplied to the column through the middle inlet [Deibele – ii)] after passing through the pump (Hofmann - 18) and the heater (41). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET. 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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. /DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601509
MULTI-STAGE DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM FOR LOCAL AREA DEHUMIDIFICATION OF DRY ROOM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599248
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR ELIMINATING AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594516
FRAME FOR COLLAPSIBLE AND FOLDABLE PLEATED DISPOSABLE AIR FILTER WITH DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE SENSOR AND COMMUNICATION CAPABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594510
REINFORCED MEMBRANE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594561
A MODULAR CENTRIFUGAL SEPARATOR FOR CLEANING GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1227 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month