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 .
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.
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 water collection unit” in claim 33, line 5 and claim 50, line 7. Both claim 33 and the specification (e.g. in ¶¶ 17 and 90 as numbered in US Publication No. 2025/0034847 A1) teach the “water collection unit” to include a “cooling register”, but this structure and its function of “cooling” is not sufficient to perform the claimed function of “water collection”. The specification does not teach any structure beyond this “cooling register” for the water collection unit and attention is directed to the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
“at least one control unit” in claim 33, line 10, and claim 50, line 9, interpreted as a processor as taught in ¶ 26 of the specification and equivalents thereof.
“a re-cooling unit” in claim 33, line 18, and claim 50, line 18 and “a liquefying unit” taught in claim 37, line 2. The specification does not appear to describe any structure of the re-cooling unit or the liquefying unit except for teachings of further function such as the liquefying unit being cooled by ambient air (¶ 92) or the re-cooling unit being “directly or indirectly thermally coupled” to the liquefying unit “for liquefying the refrigerant” (¶ 97). Attention is directed to the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
“an evaporating unit” in claim 34, line 2. Similar to the “liquefying unit” discussed above, the specification teaches in ¶ 122, “a directly coupled and/or integrated evaporating unit in the suction unit 101, in which evaporating unit the refrigerant 107 is evaporated and therefore cooled” but does not teach the structure of the evaporating unit or its relation to the water collection unit and attention is therefore directed to the rejections of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)
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 Objections
Claims 33, 42, 43, 47, 48, and 50 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 33, the word “is” should be replaced with “are” as it refers to both “water and humidity-reduced product air”.
In line 16 of claim 33, the word “comprises” should be replaced with “has” or similar in the phrase “the compressor comprises a maximum connection power in the range from 70 KW to 200 KW” as the word “comprises” means “is made up of” and the compressor is not physically made of its maximum power draw.
In line 12 of claim 42, the word “comprises” should be replaced with “has” or similar in the phrase “the gas leakage sensor for determining the refrigerant comprises a sensitivity of more than 20 ppm” as the word “comprises” means “is made up of” and the sensor is not physically made of its degree of sensitivity.
At the end of line 22 of claim 42, the slash (/) should be removed from the word “and/”.
In line 4 of claim 43, the word “containeris” should be corrected to “container is”.
In line 4 of claim 47, the word “compresoris” should be corrected to “compressor is”.
In line 5 of claim 48, the words “after passing” should be replaced with “that has passed” or “after it has passed” in the phrase “the ventilator sucks the product air after passing the water collection unit” because the verb “passing” refers to the air rather than to the ventilator.
In line 2 of claim 50, the word “comprises” should be replaced with “has” or similar in the phrase “the water generator comprises an energy efficiency of less than 250 W/liter water yield” as the word “comprises” means “is made up of” and the generator is not physically made of its level of energy efficiency.
In line 16 of claim 50, the word “comprises” should be replaced with “has” or similar in the phrase “the compressor comprises a maximum connection power in the range from 70 KW to 200 KW” as the word “comprises” means “is made up of” and the compressor is not physically made of its maximum power draw.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “WT” has been used to designate four different heat exchangers in fig. 3 (including two in the circuit of carrier medium 303 and two in the circuit of carrier medium 304). Further, one of these heat exchangers (communicating with the evaporating unit 305) is also designated by reference numeral “(307)” in ¶ 127, but this numeral does not appear in the figures.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, claim 33 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for its recitation of “a water collection unit”, combining the generic placeholder term “unit” with the functional language “water collection”, but the specification does not teach the structure of this element beyond its inclusions of “a cooling register”, with the function of “cooling” not being sufficient to perform the recited operation of “water collection” which is required for this “unit”. For this reason, claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Similar to “a water collection unit” as discussed above, “a re-cooling unit” in claim 33, line 18 and “a liquefying unit” taught in claim 37, line 2 each invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the combination of the generic placeholder term “unit” with the functional language “re-cooling” or “liquefying”. The specification does not describe any structure of the re-cooling unit or the liquefying unit except for teachings of further function such as the liquefying unit being cooled by ambient air (¶ 92) or the re-cooling unit being “directly or indirectly thermally coupled” to the liquefying unit “for liquefying the refrigerant” (¶ 97). For this reason, claims 33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 50 includes equivalent teachings regarding the “re-cooling unit” and is rejected for the same reasons set forth with regard to claim 33.
Further, claim 34 teaches in line 2 “an evaporating unit”, which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the combination of the generic placeholder term “unit” with the functional language “evaporating”, but similar to the “liquefying unit” of claim 37, this “evaporating unit” is taught only in terms of its connection to the suction unit and its function in evaporating refrigerant (¶ 122). For the same reasons set forth above, claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 35, 36, 38-49 and 51-52 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 33-52 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.
As discussed above, claim 33 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for its recitation of “a water collection unit”, combining the generic placeholder term “unit” with the functional language “water collection”, but the specification does not teach the structure of this element beyond its inclusions of “a cooling register”, with the function of “cooling” not being sufficient to perform the recited operation of “water collection” which is required for this “unit”. As such, the structure for accomplishing the function of “water collection” which does and does not fall within the scope required by claim 33 cannot be definitely identified and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Similar to “a water collection unit” as discussed above, “a re-cooling unit” in claim 33, line 18 and claim 50, line 7, “an evaporating unit” in claim 34, line 2, and “a liquefying unit” taught in claim 37, line 2 each invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the specification teaches each of these “units” only in terms of its connections to other elements of the system and the functions it performs without providing any teachings of the structure required to perform these functions so that the actual structure required by the scope of the claims cannot be positively ascertained. For this reason, claims 33, 34, and 37 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 12 of claim 33, the teaching of “the metal portion of the technical components” lacks antecedent basis. Where “the technical components” were previously taught in line 10 of the claim, it is taught only that they are disposed in the technical region and comprise at least one control unit so that there is no teaching which identifies “the metal portion” of these components, including any teaching identifying whether this “metal portion” refers to a specific portion of the components or includes the entirety of all portions made of metal within and among the technical components. For this reason, the scope required by this teaching in claim 33 cannot be clearly identified and claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 4 of claim 35, the teaching of “the cooling power of the refrigerant” lacks antecedent basis. Where “cooling power” was previously recited in claim 33 (upon which claim 35 depends), it was taught as “a refrigerant cycle for generating cooling power” (in line 3) with condensation of water performed “by the cooling power of the refrigerant cycle” (in line 7). It is unclear from the teachings of claim 35 whether “the cooling power of the refrigerant” refers to the same feature or effect as “the cooling power of the refrigerant cycle” or to some other feature or effect of the claimed water generator and associated system. For this reason, the scope of claim 35 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The same recitation of “the cooling power of the refrigerant” appears in claim 36, line 4 and this claim has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 35.
In line 3 of claim 40, the teaching of “the energy efficiency under predetermined conditions” lacks antecedent basis. No previous teaching in this or in any preceding claim identifies “the energy efficiency” or defines whether this efficiency is of the claimed water generator as a whole or of some components or subsystems thereof (such as whether the refrigerant cycle operating with this efficiency but the efficiency (in W/liter water yield) of the water generator as a whole being greater due to inefficiencies elsewhere in the system would fall within the scope of the claim). The claims further fail to identify the “predetermined conditions” so that it is unclear whether such conditions must be conditions the water generator is capable of operating, or if an efficiency achievable only under ideal and optimal conditions would fall within the scope of the claim. For these reasons, the scope required by claim 40 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 3 of claim 45, the term “short” in the phrase “a short power failure” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short” 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. Because of this, it is unclear what structure, capacity, or features are required by the recitation that the auxiliary energy system is “configured to supply at least the control unit during a short power failure with auxiliary energy”.
Further, the phrase “at least the control unit” does not identify the relevant structure as claim 33 upon which claim 45 depends teaches in line 10 “at least one control unit” rather than a single control unit so that it is unclear, in a system having more than one control unit, whether the teaching of “at least the control unit” in claim 45 requires that the auxiliary energy system be able to provide energy only to at least one of the “at least one control unit” or to all of the “at least one control unit”.
For these reasons, the scope of claim 45 cannot be properly ascertained and the claim is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 51 includes limitations equivalent to those found in claim 45 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
In line 5 of claim 49, it is taught that “a heat exchanger is arranged”. As this teaching ends without specifying where or how the heat exchanger is arranged, and does not teach any other features, locations, or connection of the heat exchanger, it appears that some teaching has been omitted from the claim. For this reason, the limitations which are intended for this claim with regard to the heat exchanger cannot be positively established and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In the specification, ¶ 119 appears to be an equivalent passage to claim 49 and teaches that “in the suction region 101, a heat exchanger, in particular a cross heat exchanger, is arranged”. Because of this teaching, claim 49 has been interpreted as reciting that “a heat exchanger is arranged in the suction region”.
Claims 38, 39, 41-44, 46-48, and 52 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-52 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including a water generator having a suction region including a water collection unit, a technical region including technical components which comprise a control unit operating the water generator, and a blowout region including a re-cooling unit, the water collection unit and re-cooling unit being joined by a refrigerant cycle which cools air at the water collection unit using a refrigerant when is then re-cooled at the re-cooling unit to release waste heat, the suction region, technical region, and blowout region being arranged so that humidity reduced air from the suction region is caused to flow through the technical region in thermal coupling with the technical components, and then into the blow out region to be mixed with ambient air and flowed through the re-cooling unit as taught in instant independent claim 33, and an equivalent method of operating an atmospheric water generator as taught in instant independent claim 50. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office Action regarding terms which invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but which are not described structurally in the specification. Further, claims 33-52 are also subject to various rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite based on terms which lack antecedent basis or are otherwise presented in a manner which does not clearly identify the scope of the claims. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2017/0247862 A1 to Giacomini teaches in figs. 1 and 4, shown above, teaches an atmospheric water generation system (20) which is divided into an air treatment unit (40), a chiller unit (80), a water treatment unit (100) and a generator unit (120) (¶ 85). A water condensing heat exchanger (62) is disposed in the air-treatment unit (40) for condensing water vapor from air to generator water and is provided with refrigerant for cooling the air by a refrigeration cycle device including a condenser (84), evaporator (88), and compressor (82) disposed in the chiller unit (80) (¶¶ 100-101). Giacomini teaches the air inlet (42) and outlet (70) of this system both being formed in the air treatment unit (40) and does not teach a stream of air from which humidity has been removed by the heat exchanger (62) being flowed into the other units of the water generation system as taught in the instant independent claims, such as flowing through a technical region in heat exchange communication with technical components and a control unit of the system or flowing through the condenser (84) in the chiller unit to re-cool or liquefy the refrigerant, instead teaching a separate flow of air into and through the chiller unit (80) to exchange heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchangers disposed therein. Finally, although Giacomini teaches an electronic control system (500) for monitoring and controlling the operation of the water generation system (20) (Abstract and ¶ 116), there is no teaching or suggestion regarding its placement within the system (20) so that Giacomini does not teach this control system being disposed in a technical region which is provided with humidity-reduced air from the heat exchanger (62) for colling the control unit or other technical components in that region as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
350
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2023/0258345 A1 to Sloan et al. teaches in fig. 6A a dehumidification system (602) in which air drawn into the system at an inlet (601) is cooled by a secondary evaporator (640) and then cooled further by a primary condenser (610) to cause water to be removed from the airflow (¶ 67) before the air flows through a secondary condenser (620) to re-cool the refrigerant which has exchanged heat in the secondary evaporator (640) (¶ 68) before leaving the unit at a fan (670). Sloan does not teach the system including a technical region disposed between the primary evaporator (610) and the secondary condenser (620) and including a controller controlling the operation of the dehumidification system (602) and placing such components in thermal communication with the airstream or additional ambient air being drawn in and mixed with the air flowing from the primary evaporator (610) to the secondary condenser (620) as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image4.png
674
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2019/0150321 A1 to Hirai et al. teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a device for cooling electronic components (including a processor 21 and memory 22 and a plurality of hard drives 24) which are disposed within an information processing apparatus (10). The cooling device comprises a heat exchanger (12) arranged at an air inlet of the device and receiving cooling water from a colling water supply device for exchanging heat to cool air at the inlet and teaches a receiving pan (15) for collecting condensation occurring on the heat exchanger (12) and further teaches an evaporator (13) disposed at the discharge side of the information processing apparatus (10) to receive water from the receiving pan (15) via a pump (72) to evaporate this water into the flow of air exiting the device (10). Hirai does not teach the cooling water supply device (19) having a heat exchanger or equivalent structure exposed to the flow of air after the electronic components to be cooled (21, 22, 24), such as in the position of the evaporator (13) but instead teaches it as a separate and external device (e.g. as an air-cooled chiller as taught in ¶ 38) and does not teach the electronic components (21, 22, 24) including a controller for controlling the operation of the cooling heat exchanger (12) or the extraction of water from the air by this heat exchanger in the manner taught in the instant independent claims for the control unit disposed in the technical region.
PNG
media_image5.png
462
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
290
454
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
692
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
482
492
media_image8.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2019/0024910 A1 to Jung et al. teaches in figs. 3, 4, 10, and 15, shown above, an air conditioner (10) having an outdoor side thereof which includes an outdoor suction part (102) formed in a casing (100) and adjacent to which is located a control box (200) including a printed circuit board (231) and elements (233) which control the operation of the air conditioner (10). The control box is provided with heat rejecting fins (235) for rejecting heat to an air stream flowing into the air conditioner casing (100) at the outdoor air suction part (102) before flowing to a condenser (130) and out of the casing (100) (¶¶ 123-138), this condenser (130) cooling refrigerant used to cool air at an evaporator (140) on an indoor side of the air conditioner (10). Jung does not teach a single air stream being formed through the casing so that air is cooled and humidity condensed at the evaporator before flowing to the control box and then the condenser, equivalent to the sequence of airflow taught in the instant independent claims, and further teaches the system of their invention as a window air conditioner (Abstract) so that configuring it according to the instant claims with a metal portion of the technical components of the system which comprises “more than 500 kg” of mass would constitute a significant reconfiguration and change to the principle of operation of the system of Jung beyond what would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763