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 the specification and to claims 1-18 are noted.
The amendments overcome the objection to the specification and most, but not all, of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), as well as present some new issues outlined in this office action.
Applicant states that replacement drawings were submitted. However, replacement drawings have not been received by the office. The drawing objections are therefore maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-15, filed 04 February 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 1, as amended, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 119 and 500.
With respect to 119, the office notes that there are two items labeled 19 in Fig. 1, where one may be mislabeled and intended to be 119.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a annular” is a typo of –an annular—.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what the relationship is between “an own main axis” recited therein and the main axis introduced in claim 1. Are they the same or different? The office understands them to be the same and recommends amending claim 3 to recite “develops along the (or said) main axis” or, if different, the recitation in claim 3 should clearly distinguish from the axis introduced in claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
claim 5 recites the broad recitation “said non-hygroscopic material is a polymeric material”, and the claim also recites “preferably perfluorocarbon (PFC)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the vacuum present in the cavity”, and the claim also recites “in particular inside the distillation chamber and the condensation chamber” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bottom zone" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said vacuum determining a reduction of the boiling temperature of the water” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the vacuum performs the act of determining. The office believes Applicant may have intended “causing” or something similar.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “plurality of division planes being configured to determine the curved path.” It is unclear how the division planes perform the function of determining. The office believes Applicant may have intended “configured to force the distillation steam into the curved path”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-14 and 16-18 are allowed.
Claim 4 requires overcoming the claim objection and claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 15 require overcoming the rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claim amendments are considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations from dependent claim 15 as well as further characterize the configuration of the septum, specifically wherein the septum is installed in a cavity of the intermediate or separating element, the cavity having a cross section of variable area, progressively tapered along the main axis between a lower portion and an upper portion of the intermediate or separating element. This configuration is illustrated in Fig. 12.
The closest prior art references are Chang et al (US 6,303,006) and Kurematsu et al (US 5,439,560), relied upon in the previous office action. Chang was not relied upon for teaching claim 15, as Chang does not disclose an intermediate septum, as claimed.
Kurematsu is considered to disclose a septum installed within an intermediate separating element (see Fig. 4). However, Kurematsu does not disclose the configuration now required by the claims, wherein the cavity of the separating element has a cross section of variable area, progressively tapered along the main axis between a lower portion and an upper portion of the separating element. Nor does there appear to be sufficient teachings and or suggestions in the prior art which would lead a person of ordinary skill to modify either Chang or Kurematsu in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
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