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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/11/2026.
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: the “spacing elements” in claims 6 and 7.
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
Claim(s) 9, 11, and is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the solution that is supplied to the one or more evaporation surfaces" in lines 1-2. There is no explicit antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this limitation is more complex than is necessary.
Applicant should amend claim 9 by replacing "the solution that is supplied to the one or more evaporation surfaces" with --the solution--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the condensed vapor that is collected" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no explicit antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this limitation is more complex than is necessary.
Applicant should amend claim 9 by replacing " the condensed vapor that is collected" with --the condensed vapors--.
Claim 11 recites “the condensed vapor” in lines 4-5. For the sake of consistency, the term “the condensed vapor” should be replaced with --the condensed vapors--.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gap" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the condensed vapors that flow off the condensation surfaces" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unevaporated portion of the solution" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the distance between each evaporation surface and a corresponding condensation surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the condenser [of a heat pump]" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the evaporator of a heat pump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-14 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “fins… in close thermal contact with the tubes” (lines 3-4). The scope of “close thermal contact” is an unclear term of degree. In other words, it is unclear where the line is drawn between thermal contact which is “close” and thermal contact which is not “close”.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests deleting the term “close” from the claim. Claims 11-14 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom edges of the fins that function as evaporating surfaces" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom edges of the fins that function as condensing surfaces" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a first set of one or more collection troughs” in line 3. It is unclear if said first set of one or more collection troughs are part of the “means for collecting the unevaporated portion of the solution” as recited in claim 1.
As presently claimed, the “first set of one or more collection troughs” is implicitly distinct from “means for collecting the unevaporated portion of the solution”, such that claim 11 requires the first set of one or more collection troughs AND an additional “means for collecting the unevaporated portion of the solution”. However, a review of Applicant’s specification suggests that this is not what Applicant intends for the claims to capture.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should either:
amend claim 11 to specify that the claimed “first set of one or more collection troughs” are or are part of the “means for collecting the unevaporated portion of the solution”; or
provide in their response written a statement explicitly confirming that the “first set of one or more collection troughs” is in fact distinct from the “means for collecting the unevaporated portion of the solution”.
Claim 11 recites “an unevaporated portion of the solution” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this is the same “unevaporated portion of the solution” recited in line 20 of claim 1.
Assuming that the “first set of one or more collection troughs” recited in claim 11 are a component of the “means for collecting the unevaporated portion of the solution” recited in claim 1, then the “unevaporated portion of the solution” recited in claim 11 would be the same unevaporated portion recited in claim 1. Assuming this is the case, claim 11 should be amended to replace “an unevaporated portion of the solution” with --the unevaporated portion of the solution--.
Claim 11 recites “a second set of one or more collection troughs” in line 5. It is unclear if said second set of one or more collection troughs are part of the “means for collecting the condensed vapors” as recited in claim 1.
As presently claimed, the “second set of one or more collection troughs” is implicitly distinct from ““means for collecting the condensed vapors”, such that claim 11 requires the second set of one or more collection troughs AND an additional ““means for collecting the condensed vapors”. However, a review of Applicant’s specification suggests that this is not what Applicant intends for the claims to capture.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should either:
amend claim 11 to specify that the claimed “second set of one or more collection troughs” are or are part of the “means for collecting the condensed vapors”; or
provide in their response written a statement explicitly confirming that the “second set of one or more collection troughs” is in fact distinct from the ““means for collecting the condensed vapors”.
Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the surfaces of the fins that function as evaporating surfaces" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “an annular washer-like element” in line 8. The scope of “washer-like” is unclear.
Examiner believes “washer-like” is meant to refer to the shape of a washer. The shape of a washer is an annulus. Claim 14 already specifies that the element in question is an annulus, i.e. “annular”. Thus, the inclusion of “washer-like” is believed to be unnecessary.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending claim 14 to delete the term “washer-like”.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domen (US 2004/0026225).
With regard to claim 1: Domen teaches a thermal distillation apparatus for separating a volatile solvent from a solution composed of the solvent and one or more non-volatile components (Figure 10, paragraph [0097]), the apparatus comprising:
A plurality of vertical, planar evaporation surfaces 224 on which the solution flows as thin films, the planar evaporation surfaces being the external surfaces of a first heat exchanger within which flows a first fluid that supplies heat to convert at least some of the volatile solvent to a vapor (Figure 10, paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
A plurality of vertical, planar condensation surfaces 226 spaced apart and parallel to a corresponding one of the one or more vertical, planar evaporation surfaces 224, the planar condensation surfaces being the external surfaces of a second heat exchanger within which flows the first fluid or a second fluid that absorbs the thermal energy that is released as vapors of the solvent condensed on the condensation surfaces (Figure 10, paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Air at ambient pressure filling a gap between the condensation surfaces 226 of the evaporation surfaces 224 (Figure 10, paragraphs [0057], [0083], [0097] and [0098], especially paragraph [0057]; note that the disclosure of paragraph [0057] is directed to a third particular process according to Domen’s invention, as is the embodiment of Figure 10).
Means, i.e. pipes 230 and a header 232, for supplying a flow of the solution from a solution feed source to the one or more evaporation surfaces 224 (Figure 10, paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Means, i.e. troughs (shoes) 261, for collecting condensed vapors that flow off the condensation surfaces (Figure 10, paragraph [0099]).
And means, i.e. troughs (shoes) 256, for collecting unevaporated portion of the solution that flows off the evaporation surfaces 224 (Figure 10, paragraph [0099]).
With regard to claim 2: A distance between each evaporation surface and a corresponding condensation is less than 5 mm, i.e. 3.3 mm (Figure 10, paragraph [0097]).
With regard to claim 3: The planar evaporation surfaces have a treatment (hydrophilic coating) that wicks the solution, i.e. the treatment (hydrophilic coating) spreads out solution to be evaporated in part by “capillary effect” (Figure 10, paragraphs [0097], [0104], [0112]).
With regard to claim 4: The surface treatment may be at least sheets of woven fibers or non-woven fibers bonded or otherwise attached to the evaporation surfaces, where the fibers are hydrophilic or otherwise wettable and may be at least natural fiber (paragraph [0071], claim 19).
With regard to claim 5: The planar condensation surfaces have a treatment (hydrophilic coating) that promotes film-wise condensation and inhibits drop-wise condensation (Figure 10, paragraph [0105]).
With regard to claim 6: Wherein spacing elements (lateral reinforcements; not shown in Figure 10) 14a-b maintain the gaps between the planar evaporation surfaces 224 and the planar condensation surfaces 226 (paragraph [0097]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domen in view of Lowenstein (US 9,770,673).
With regard to claim 7: Domen teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Domen does not explicitly teach that surfaces of the spacing elements are hydrophobic or otherwise treated to inhibit wetting by either the solution or the condensed vapor.
However, it is well-known in the art to configure and/or treat surfaces such spacing elements so that they are hydrophobic. For example, Lowenstein teaches a distillation system having hydrophobic spacers 470 to prevent contact between adjacent evaporation and condensation surfaces (Figure 5A, abstract, Column 12 Line 43-Column 13 Line 3). Lowenstein indicates that making the spacers hydrophobic is advantageous, as it discourages liquid from flowing from the evaporation and condensation surfaces to the surfaces of the spacers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Domen in view of Lowenstein by configuring the surfaces of the spacing elements to be hydrophobic, in order to inhibit wetting by either the solution or the condensed vapor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 8 specifies that “the first heat exchanger is [a] condenser [of a heat pump] and the second heat exchanger is [an] evaporator of [the] heat pump, with the first fluid and second fluid being refrigerant that circulates in the heat pump.” Thus, in the invention of claim 8, the vertical, planar evaporation surfaces and the vertical planar condensation surfaces are heated and cooled by a refrigerant flowing in a heat pump loop.
The closest prior art of record is Domen (US 2004/0026225) as applied to the 102 rejection of claim 1 above. Domen does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claim 8.
The use of a heat pump loop for heating and cooling evaporating and condensing surfaces in a humidification dehumidification distillation device is by no means a novel idea and is taught, for example, by Antar et al. (US 10,493,373).
However, to incorporate a heat pump into the system of Domen would require substantial redesign of Domen’s system, as it would necessitate removal or significant modification of Domen’s means for preheating liquid to be evaporated. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify Domen’s system to arrive at the invention of claim 8.
Therefore, claim 8 and its dependents are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Domen et al. (US 2006/0272933) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figures 3 and 4).
Le Goff (US 4,507,175) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figures 1 and 4).
Petrek et al. (US 4,329,204) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figure 2).
Petrek et al. (US 4,402,793) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figure 2).
Tsumura et al. (US 4,329,205) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figure 1).
Tsumura et al. (US 4,421,606) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figure 1).
Tsumura et al. (US 4,475,988) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figure 1).
Park et al. (US 9,884,265) teaches devices which anticipate some of the claims (Figures 1 and 2).
Antar et al. (US 10,493,373) teaches a distillation device which uses a heat pump to heat and cool evaporation and condensation surfaces respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772