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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 11-21, in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/2/2025.
Claims 22 is eligible for rejoinder, and applicant should amend the claim throughout prosecution to agree with elected claims to ensure proper rejoinder
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 11-21 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 claims 11-21, in claim 11, the recitation in line 11 of “a surface height of which” in insufficiently clear as to which surface height is being limited, as the paragraph discusses both “storage container” and “overflow pot” therefore the recitation must more clearly recite which surface heigh is being limited in this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foley (GB 1516683).
Regarding claim 11, Foley teaches a water treatment system and method of use comprising at least one storage container (31) for storing the water (Feed Water) to be treated, at least one evaporator (1) for evaporating the water (Feed Water) to be treated, at least one condenser (3) for condensing the water (Distilled Water) evaporated in the evaporator, wherein the condenser is fed, on the cooling water side, with water (Feed Water) to be treated which is on its way to the evaporator, characterized in that the storage container is arranged above the evaporator, and the condenser is arranged at the level of the foot of the evaporator, wherein the storage container is able to be closed in an airtight manner and opens by way of a drain into an overflow pot (33), the liquid level height of which is arranged slightly below a steam outlet of the evaporator, and wherein the overflow pot is connected to the cooling water inlet of the condenser, and wherein a cooling water outlet of the condenser is connected to an input of the evaporator (see Fig 1, P1:L85-P2:L78).
Regarding claim 14, the storage container (31) is connected to a head of evaporator (1) via a tap (see inlet lines 25 to container 31 connected via tap (fig 1).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hausmann (US 2006/0113179).
Regarding claim 11, Hausmann teaches a water treatment plant, comprising at least one storage container 1 for storing the water (raw water) to be treated, at least one evaporator 10 for evaporating the water (raw water fed via supply line 13) to be treated, at least one condenser 23 for condensing the water (via connecting line 47) evaporated in the evaporator, wherein the condenser is fed, on the cooling water side, with water (via sprayers 39) to be treated which is on its way to the evaporator, the storage container 1 is arranged above the evaporator 10, and the condenser 23 is arranged at the level of the foot of the evaporator 10 (see fig 1), wherein the storage container 1 is able to be closed in an airtight manner and opens by way of a drain into an overflow pot 41 (see container 1, depicting closed container), the liquid level height of which is arranged slightly below a steam outlet of the evaporator (vent line 12 arranged at height), and wherein the overflow pot 41 is connected to the cooling water inlet of the condenser (vi a pump 40 to sprayers 39), and wherein a cooling water outlet of the condenser is connected to an input of the evaporator (via line connecting 41 and 1) (see Fig 1, [0016-0035]).
Regarding claim 14, the storage container 1 is connected to heat of evaporator 10 via tap line 13 (see Fig 1).
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) 12-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley (GB 1516683) and/or Hausmann (US 2006/0113179) as applied above and further in combination with Tindell (US 4,841,731).
Regarding 12, Foley and Hausmann teach all limitations as set forth above including collecting the condensate, however do not teach feeding a smaller part of condensate water into an electrolytic cell to decompose to hydrogen and oxygen and flowing as condensate to the distillate tank.
Tindell teaches a solar powered system for electrolysis of water to generate electrical energy (title, abstract), Tindell teaches system 10 comprises array 11 of PV cells 12 that generate oxygen gas and hydrogen gas in anode 14 and cathode 17 respectively from feed water 39 in water jacket 28, the recombination of which creates steam in chamber 33 that is fed to steam turbine 47 (see Figs 1-3, C2:L25-C3:L43), the resulting condensed steam is resulted in purified distilled water that is stored for domestic use (Fig 1, C3:L44-55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Foley and Hausmann to both generate power and distilled purified water from the resulting condensate water of Foley or Hausmann as taught by Tindell to result in an overall more efficient and self-sufficient apparatus that both generates power via electrolysis of water and distilled water.
Regarding claim 13, in both Foley and Hausmann the evaporator portions as self-contained as depicted, and therefore understood by PHOSITA to be insulated.
Regarding claim 15, Tindell as set forth above has taught PV cell 12 (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 16, in both Foley and Hausmann as set forth above, including additional storage vessels was routine for PHOSITA in order to provide buffers for different production rates of condensed water flowing between different portions of the system and to ensure safe operation of the system.
Regarding claims 17-19, Tindell as set forth above provides for plurality of safety valves between components of the system (Fig 1, 25/27/53/57/59/77, etc) and selecting the response pressure was routine motivated to ensure safe operation of the system.
Regarding claims 20-21, all limitations as set forth above are taught, while the references are silent to the size and portability/foundation as claimed, changes in size/shape were routine to PHOSITA in order to ensure the application is fit for purpose, and making a system portability, or conversely, setting it upon a permanent foundation was also routine, see MPEP 2144.04.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further citations to desalination systems include: Huhta-Koivisto (US 3,783,108), Conger (US 4,083,781), Palmer (US 5,178,734), Schlesinger (US 5,538,598), Wang (US 5,565,065), Gode (US 5,645,693), Land (US 5,932,073), Chang (US 6,303,006), Otukol (US 7,608,171), Anderson (US 7,886,557), Boylan (US 10,421,030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772