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 .
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 in length. 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 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 1-9 and 12-16 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: “within which the distilled water…is made flown outside of”
Claim 1: “in the continuation of said operating configuration”
Claim 5: “in correspondence of the first end stroke position”
Claim 5: “in correspondence of the second end stroke position”
Claim 6: “in substantial correspondence of”
Claim 9: “in such a way that the vacuum value is again between”
Claim 14: “in correspondence of”
Claim 16: “resulting again fillable”
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 introduces “an outlet configured to allow an outflow of the distilled water” and later introduces “optionally an outlet duct” which also functions to provide outflow of distilled water collected in the collection portion. It is unclear what the relationship is between these two limitations and what the nature of outlet(s) for distilled water from the collection portion is required by the claimed invention.
Claim 7 refers to “the body”. It is unclear to which body Applicant is referring: the body having a lateral wall defining a cavity, or the extraction pump body?
Regarding claims 9 and 15, it is unclear whether or not the limitations that follow recitation of “in particular” are intended to limit the scope of the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the data processing unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may have intended for claim 12 to depend from claim 9 instead of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the data processing unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the inlet valve" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fawcett et al (GB 434,726).
Regarding claim 1, Fawcett discloses a vacuum distillation device comprising (see Figures):
a body having a lateral wall and defining a cavity (vacuum chamber 1), wherein: a distillation chamber 3 and a condensation chamber 5 are defined within the cavity, the condensation chamber comprises a collection portion (at the bottom thereof) designed to collect distillate, and the condensation chamber comprises an outlet (D1-D6) configured to allow an outflow of distillate from the collection portion (see p. 1, lines 52-65; p. 3, lines 122-124);
a heater 4 configured to heat the feed material present, in use, in the distillation chamber (see p. 1, lines 55-58);
a cooler (condensation surfaces within the condensation chamber), configured to cause a condensation of distillate (see p. 1, lines 59-60 and 106; p. 3, lines 120-124); and
an extraction pump P8 connected with the outlet D6, the extraction pump being configured to be activated during operation for extracting distillate from the collection portion and maintain the vacuum inside the cavity (see p. 3, lines 68-70; p. 4, lines 3-41).
Fawcett further discloses wherein the device is configured to maintain within the cavity a predetermined vacuum level (see p. 3, lines 8-19; p. 4, lines 3-41).
Accordingly, Fawcett is considered to fully teach the structural features of the claimed apparatus. Recitations with respect to the material worked upon by and intended manner of operating the apparatus are not structurally limiting. MPEP 2114 & 2115.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Fawcett discloses wherein the extraction pump comprises (see Fig. 2; p. 4, lines 8-41, where the discussion of the pump below is considered to teach the pump encompassed by claim 3):
a pump body that defines a first inlet 2 for the distillate to extract from the collection portion and a first outlet 3 from which outflows the distillate; and
a piston 5 configured to push the distillate from the first inlet to the first outlet defined on the pump body,
wherein the pump body defines a cylinder for the piston.
Regarding claim 5, Fawcett discloses wherein the piston is axially movable within the pump body and is configured to move between a first end stroke position and a second end stroke position. The extraction pump comprises a first compression chamber (chamber 1 with spring 8), the compression chamber being defined between the piston and the body, wherein, in the first end stroke position, the first inlet is placed in direct communication with the first compression chamber and, in the second end stroke position, the first inlet is insulated from the first compression chamber by means of the piston (see Fig. 2; p. 4, lines 8-41).
Regarding claim 6, Fawcett discloses wherein the extraction pump comprises a first unidirectional valve (ball valve 4) configured to permit the outflow of distillate from the first compression chamber (see Fig. 2; p. 4, lines 10-12).
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 7, 8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett, as applied to the claims above.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 14, implementing a pump with a second inlet, second outlet, and second compression chamber amounts to a duplication of parts of the pump disclosed in Fawcett and is prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
Further regarding claim 14, it is considered that the duplication of parts within the pump would result in operation as claimed, in light of the teachings in Fawcett with respect to moving between end stroke positions (see p. 4, lines 8-41).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed configuration/operation of the extraction pump in the first and second end stroke positions is considered to result naturally from the duplication of parts and is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Claims 2, 9, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawcett, as applied to the claims above, in view of Schlesinger et al (US 5,538,598).
Regarding claim 2, Fawcett discloses the device comprising an inlet duct for the incoming feed configured to supply feed material to the distillation chamber. The inlet duct comprises a pump to control the inflow of feed (see p. 1, lines 66-70).
However, Fawcett does not explicitly disclose an inlet valve connected with the inlet duct.
Schlesinger is directed to a vacuum distillation system, wherein a feed line which supplies feed material to a distillation (evaporation) chamber 21 comprises a pump 15 and an inlet valve 17. The valve comprises an open configuration and a closed configuration and provides control over the liquid level in the distillation chamber (see Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 50-67; col. 6, lines 5-13).
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 device of Fawcett to include an inlet valve on the inlet duct, as suggested by Schlesinger, in order to provide control of the liquid level within the distillation chamber.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Schlesinger further discloses a data processing unit configured to cause a maintenance of vacuum within the cavity, where control entails control of the vacuum pressure (i.e., threshold values as claimed). The data processing unit is configured to carry out controlled opening of the inlet valve (see col. 2, lines 24-28; col. 6, lines 5-13; claim 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the device of Fawcett to include the control unit of Schlesinger in order to provide control capabilities of the system when in use, including maintaining a desired vacuum level therein.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Schlesinger further discloses a vacuum pump connected to the distillation system cavity which is configured to create a predetermined vacuum therein and wherein the data processing unit is configured to activate the vacuum pump so that the vacuum is automatically kept at a certain level (see col. 4, lines 17-39; col. 8, lines 34-67). As discussed above, Schlesinger further discloses control of the inlet valve.
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