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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-11, drawn to a water distillation device.
Group II, claim(s) 12-18, drawn to a water distillation method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I & II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Foschini et al (EP 426 929). Foschini is considered to fully teach and/or suggest the apparatus of claim 1, as outlined below in the prior art rejection, which applies equally herein to the reasons for establishing lack of unity between groups I & II (see below).
During a telephone conversation with David Underwood on 3 December 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology and exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 5, “and” should be inserted between “active cooler” and “a cooling action”.
line 9: “and” should be inserted between “distillation chamber” and “a pressure present”.
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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples include:
Claim 1: “configured to heat the amount of water to distill present, in use…”
Claim 1: “deriving from the heating of the water”
Claim 1: “determining, in use, a heating of the latter”
Claim 1: “determining, in use, a cooling of the distillation steam”
Claim 1: “connected in correspondence of an its own first ending”
Claim 1: “in correspondence of an its own second ending”
Claim 3: “substantial correspondence of”
Claim 3: “substantial temporal simultaneity with”
Claim 4: “such as to allow to house in its inner part of the refrigerator compressor”
Claim 4: “detecting…a channel”
Claim 9: “in substantial correspondence of”
Claim 10: “investing a bottom portion”
The above list is non-exhaustive given, as noted, the claims are overall generally narrative and replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The office recommends redrafting the claims to clearly and distinctly recite the elements intended to be within the scope of the claimed apparatus. For the sake of compact prosecution, the office has attempted to ascertain the structural components required by the claimed apparatus, represented in the prior rejections below.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gases" in the first line of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 3, 7 and 9, it is unclear whether the limitations that follow recitation of “in particular” are intended to limit the scope of the claims or not.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification how much of the refrigerator compressor must be housed within support in order to be within the scope of “substantially to house part of the refrigerator.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said fan" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foschini et al (EP 426 929).
Regarding claim 1, Foschini discloses a distillation apparatus comprising (see Fig. 1, in particular the marked-up version provided below):
a body 1 having a lateral wall and defining a cavity, wherein a distillation chamber and a condensation chamber are defined within the cavity and the condensation chamber comprises a collection portion designed to collect distillate (see Abstract; col. 4, lines 55-58);
a heater 4,5 configured to heat the feed material present, in use, in the distillation chamber, wherein the heater is a refrigerator condenser (see col. 5, lines 4-6);
a cooler, configured to cause a condensation of distillate, wherein the cooler is a refrigerator evaporator (see col. 4, lines 55-58);
a refrigerator compressor 10 connected to the refrigerator evaporator and to the refrigerator condenser, the compressor being configured to compress a gas directed within the refrigerator condenser to provide heat sufficient to cause boiling of the feed material in the distillation chamber, the refrigerator evaporator being configured to allow an expansion of the gas previously compressed by the compressor and cool the distillate to cause condensation thereof in the collection portion (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 24);
an intermediate duct connected to the refrigerator condenser and to the refrigerator evaporator and being configured and designed to transport a fluid and/or gas outflowing from the refrigerator condenser toward the refrigerator evaporator (see col. 5, lines 7-8); and
a pre-cooling system for the gases outflowing from the refrigerator condenser, configured to cool at least part of the intermediate duct, the pre-cooling system comprising an active cooler (fan) configured to subtract heat from the intermediate duct (see col. 5, lines 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Foschini is considered to fully teach the structural features of the claimed apparatus. Recitations with respect to the material worked upon by the apparatus are not structurally limiting. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 2, the pre-cooling system depicted in Fig. 1 (marked up version above) is a fan. Electrical connection to operate and convey an air flow is implied.
Regarding claim 11, the fan depicted in Fig. 1 is an axial fan.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foschini, is applied to claims 1 and 2, in view of Morgan et al (US 2005/0284167).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Foschini does not disclose wherein the pre-cooling system is installed in a manner configured to cool at least part of the refrigerator compressor.
Morgan discloses that installing a fan directly in front of a compressor, which runs when the compressor is running, helps the compressor to run cooler (see [0077]).
In light of the above teaching, 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 apparatus of Foschini such that the pre-cooing system, comprising a fan, is installed in close proximity to the compressor, such that the fan may also provide cooling functionality to the compressor, as suggested by Morgan. Given the cited prior art individually discloses a fan being suitable for the purpose of cooling a duct and cooling a compressor, integrating the two to be cooled by a shared fan amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, with respect to claim 4, Morgan discloses the compressor 14 and fan being housed within a support (top shelf 22, top 3, panels 45, 56, 57), the support comprising a lateral wall shaped such as to allow to house in its inner part the compressor and comprises a channel for the passage of cooling air, the channel being delimited in a radially inner zone by the compressor and in a radially outward zone, at least partially by the wall of support (see Figs. 1-4). Implementation of a support in the modification of Foschini would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of housing the components in a secure manner.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, determining the locations of the components with respect to each other amounts to obvious engineering design choices for a person of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine the relative placements of the fan, duct, and compressor which achieves the desired cooling of the duct and the compressor by the fan. The claimed configurations are not considered to provide patentably distinguishing features over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Morgan discloses attaching elements to the support (see Figs. 1-4; [0056]-[0059]; [0058]). While Morgan does not explicitly disclose flanges and screws, such elements are well known in the art to achieve the function of attaching. Recitation of such in the claims is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foschini in view of Morgan, as applied to claim 4, in further view of Whitley et al (US 2007/0137487).
Regarding claim 6, Foschini in view of Morgan does not disclose shock absorbing elements interposed between the support and the compressor.
Whitley discloses using shock absorbing elements to protect a compressor element of a system, where the compressor is attached to the bottom of a support by a plurality of shock-absorbing flexible mounts (i.e., installed in a movable way with respect to the support) (see [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Foschini to include shock absorbing elements interposed between the support and the compressor, as suggested by Whitley, in order to provide protection of the compressor when in use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foschini, as applied to claim 1, in view of Stevens et al (US 4,278,502).
Regarding claim 7, Foschini does not disclose a data processing unit configured to carry out control of the active cooler (fan).
Stevens is directed to an apparatus for purifying liquid including a container for the liquid, means for heating the liquid to vaporize the liquid, means for cooling the vapor to form a condensate, and a collector for the condensate. The heating means comprises a condenser of a refrigerant circulatory system and the cooling means comprises an evaporator of the refrigerant circulatory system (see Abstract). In particular, Stevens discloses cooling a coil containing refrigerant via an electrically operated fan 34. The fan is controlled by an electric circuit 35 (data processing unit) which includes a thermistor 36 located in an upper portion of the compressor 20 (see Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 33-38). In other words, Stevens discloses a data processing unit (electric circuit) configured to carry out control of the fan and automatically adjust at least one of an activation of the fan, a deactivation of the fan, or a cooling action intensity brough by the fan, according to a temperature of the cooler compressor.
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 apparatus of Foschini by including the fan control configuration disclosed in Stevens, in order to realize control of the fan according to a temperature of the compressor, thus providing tailored control to maintain a desired compressor temperature during operation of the apparatus.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foschini, as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Foschini discloses the apparatus further comprising a vacuum pump connected with the cavity and configured to create a vacuum therein and an air extraction duct connected with the vacuum pump connected with an opening of air extraction present in the body of the apparatus (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 50-52; col. 3, lines 14-18).
Foschini does not explicitly disclose the air extraction duct positioned in an upper portion of the body. Nevertheless, it is considered that determining a suitable location to place the air extraction duct would require nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the stated objected of establishing vacuum conditions within the vessel. Absent a showing of particular significance associated with the claimed location, the claim limitation is not considered to provide a patentably distinguishing feature over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
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