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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15, 17, 19, 23-24, 26 and 28, in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a fluid directing assembly” in claim 1.
“an airflow directing device” in claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patey (US 2020/0239329) in view of Yabe (US 2012/0175237).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Patey discloses a water purification system 700 comprising an evaporation region (evaporation panel assembly 100) and a condensation region (atmospheric water generator 710) (see Abstract; Figs. 33 & 50).
The evaporation region comprises:
an evaporation tower 100 including a series of shelves 16 to receive and increase a surface area of impure water while cascading downward from an upper shelf to lower shelves therebeneath as water evaporates therefrom to form water vapor (see Figs. 1-5; [0125]); and
a fluid directing assembly (pump 62, pipe 66, sprayer nozzle 64) to cyclically transport the impure water from a reservoir source 60 to the upper shelf (see [0221]).
The condensation region comprises:
a purified water-receiving vessel 714; and
a plurality of water collectors (condenser coils 712), wherein individual water collectors of the plurality include an exterior surface coolable to a temperature below a dew point of air carrying the water vapor 38 and shaped to channel water formed thereon by condensation to the purified water-receiving vessel (see [0254]).
Patey does not explicitly disclose that the evaporation region and the condensation region are housed in an enclosed chamber.
However, housing the two regions in an enclosed chamber is both well-known and common practice in the art (see Yabe: Fig. 1; evaporation-condensation system 10 is housed in enclosed chamber (casing 11); [0009]). Housing the two regions of Patey in an enclosed chamber would therefore have been an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art, required nothing more than routine experimentation, and would have been associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Patey discloses the evaporation tower including an evaporation panel assembly comprising a plurality of panels arranged in evaporation panel sub-assemblies (see [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Patey discloses wherein the series of shelves are horizontally oriented and vertically stacked and separated by support columns 30, wherein the support columns include a plurality of stacked and spaced apart evaporation fins oriented in parallel with the series of evaporation shelves (see Figs. 1-6; [0075]; [0079]-[0080]; [0126]).
Regarding claim 5, Patey discloses wherein the evaporation fins have the shape of a perpendicular cross-section of an airfoil (see [0078]).
Regarding claim 6, Patey discloses wherein the evaporation tower comprises orthogonally connected evaporation panels and wherein the evaporation panels individually include:
a plurality of female receiving openings 42 which are individually bordered by two evaporation shelves and two support columns, and
a plurality of male connectors 40 positioned at both lateral ends of the respective evaporation panel joined at one or both ends with corresponding female receiving openings of orthogonally oriented evaporation panels (see Figs. 1-6; [0080]; [0127]; [0135]).
Regarding claim 10, Patey discloses the system further comprising a heating source to increase a temperature of the evaporation region above ambient temperature to provide humidified air with a higher water-holding capacity than that of the ambient temperature (see [0170]).
Regarding claim 15, Patey discloses wherein the purified water-receiving vessel includes a purified water receiving tank fluidly coupled to a collection pan by a fluid directing channel (see Fig. 50, line connection 712 to 714).
Regarding claim 28, Patey discloses the system further comprising an airflow directing device (fan) to move humidified air from the evaporation region to the condensation region (see [0170]; [0253]).
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patey in view of Yabe, as applied to claims 1 and 10, in further view of Al-Garni et al (US 2008/0078670).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Patey discloses a heat source, as discussed above, but is silent with respect to the specifics thereof.
Al-Garni is directed to a water purification system which utilizes solar energy to provide heat for evaporation of impure water (see Abstract). In particular, Al-Garni discloses optics (mirrors 36) for directing or concentrating sunlight energy within the evaporation region of the enclosed chamber. The base of the evaporation region is transparent, enhancing vaporization (see Figs 1-4; [0025]-[0026]).
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 system of Patey by implementing the heating mechanism disclosed in Al-Garni, including mirrors which direct sunlight energy to a transparent cover of the evaporation region, in order to provide a suitable heat source from a renewable source (solar).
Claims 17, 19, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patey in view of Yabe, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Chen et al (US 2011/0284444) and Mehmi et al (US 2020/0078701).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Patey does not disclose the claimed configuration of the water collectors. As noted above, however, the water-receiving vessel is positioned beneath the water collectors.
Chen discloses a condensing tube (i.e., pillar) configuration as a component of a condensation chamber (see [0010]-[0011]). The tube is upright and has an orientation to allow purified water from water condensation to flow downward along a surface thereof to be collected. The exterior surface of the tube includes a plurality of outwardly protruding exterior condenser fins (see Fig. 2; [0016]). A cooling medium passes through a central hollow compartment of the tube to provide the temperature difference needed to effect condensation (see [0034]). Additionally, Chen discloses a plurality of condensing tubes (see [0012]).
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 system of Patey to include the condenser tube configuration of Chen, where Patey discloses condensation in general terms but does not provide any specific details with respect to the construction of the condensation chamber and Chen establishes that a finned tube-type condenser is suitable for the purpose of condensing water in a water purification system (see [0017]).
Further regarding claim 19 and claim 23, while Chen does not explicitly disclose that the cooling channel includes a closed loop system that is fluidly arranged to cycle coolant.
Mehmi discloses a condensation arrangement comprising cycling a refrigerant through a closed loop. The loop cycles cooler, deep water via a pump up through a loop to be in thermal contact with saturated air for condensation (see [0084]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Patey to include the closed loop refrigeration cycle of Mehmi in order to provide energy efficient means to cycle coolant through the condensers.
Regarding claim 24, Patey in view of Chen and Mehmi discloses the condensation configuration described above. The selection of a suitable number of water collectors (condenser tubes) is a matter of design choice based on the intended throughput of the water purification system and would be arrived at by routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the claimed parallel flow of coolant through the cooling channels of the multiple condenser tubes is an obvious arrangement based on a very finite number of options (i.e., individual or shared coolant loops arranged in parallel or series). Recitation of such in the claimed embodiment 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
Prosecution Insights