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.
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: “vapor reduction system” in claims 1 and 19; “temperature measurement device” in claim 20.
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 § 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.
Claim 8 is 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 claim 8, the recitation “until it cools” is narrative and inexact with use of “it” and has unclear metes and bounds. Applicant should replace “it” with clear antecedent terminology, it appears “the vapor” is the intended limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-22 are allowed. Claim 8 would be allowable if amended as suggested above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Considering claim 1, 19 and 20, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed system or method of use of the system of a substantially-horizontal, rotatable, reflux distillation system, comprising: a substantially-horizontal, rotatable, reflux distillation column, wherein substantially horizontal is defined as angled between 10-20 degrees from horizontal, wherein the reflux distillation column has a lower end that is an input end and an upper end that is an exit end, wherein the lower end of the reflux distillation column is operatively associated with a lower seal housing that includes inserted seals and bearings, and wherein the upper end of the reflux distillation column is operatively associated with an upper seal housing that includes inserted seals and bearings; a lower end transition pipe operatively associated with the lower end of the reflux distillation column and the lower seal housing, the lower end transition pipe including a lower thermocouple; an upper end transition pipe operatively associated with the upper end of the reflux distillation column and the upper seal housing, the upper end transition pipe including an upper thermocouple and a fluid exit gate, wherein the fluid exit gate is controlled by dynamic linear feedback temperature control that keeps the fluid exit gate in a closed state until temperature monitoring using the lower thermocouple and the upper thermocouple determines that an entirety of an internal volume of the reflux distillation column is homogenized in an azeotropic temperature state, at which point the fluid exit gate moves into an open state, until the azeotropic temperature state of the reflux distillation column is no longer maintained and the fluid exit gate moves back into a closed state; a drive assembly operatively associated with the reflux distillation column that rotates the reflux distillation column; and a vapor reduction system operatively associated with the upper end transition pipe, wherein the vapor reduction system enables vapor travelling upward in the reflux distillation system to reduce into condensate liquid and return back downward into the reflux distillation column.
McKellar (US 11,033,832) is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, McKellar teaches a convertible laboratory condenser 1 associated with boiling chamber (from 10) that receives vapors and in a reflux mode is inclined at an angle of from 10-90 degrees from horizontal to having lower inlet end (by ball and socket joint 14, from connector 11), and upper outlet 6 with stopcock valve 5, the system comprises flow reversing valve 20 that rotates, or flips the reflux distillation head into a distillation mode (see Figs 1, C5:L10-C6:L19), however the device lacks the claimed thermocouples/temperature measurement devices as claimed as well as rotating about the horizontal, rather than the axis of the distillation column, and therefore does not perform the controlling in the same manners as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watt (US 2,975,108) teaches a rotatable fractionation system. Sweeney (US 3,039,941) teaches controlling a distillation system. Glover (US 3,607,662) teaches a distillation system. Zenty (US 4,306,940) teaches solar distillation system. Van der Heijden (US 5,340,44) teaches a distillation system. Camiener (US 6,638,397) teaches a distillation system. Adjabeng (US 10,898,828) teaches a distillation system. Swain (US 2022/0049163) teaches a distillation system. Wen (US 12,115,475) teaches a distillation system.
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