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 .
Claims 1-11 are cancelled and claims 12-22 are new.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a thermal machine configured to alternately heat and cool the first heat exchanger” includes the generic/nonce term “machine” coupled with the function of “configured to alternately heat and cool the first heat exchanger”. A return to the specification provides a Stirling engine. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 12-18 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 12 recites “wherein, in an operating condition of the system, the thermal machine cools the first heat exchanger and the blower directs the air towards said first heat exchanger to collect water from the air; or the blower stops the airflow towards the first heat exchanger and the thermal machine heats the first heat exchanger to regenerate the same.” A single claims both an apparatus and method steps of using that apparatus is indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(p). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the steps set forth or whether infringement occurs when the steps are actually performed.
Similar is found throughout claims depending therefrom.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathiprakasam et al (US 4,430,864).
Regarding claim 12, Mathiprakasam discloses a system for collecting water present in the air, the system comprising:
a first heat exchanger (30) configured to be cooled or heated and to collect water;
a thermal machine (figure 1 where a refrigeration cycle is regarded as an equivalent to a Stirling engine as interpreted under 112f) configured to alternately heat and cool the first heat exchanger; and
a blower (5:46) configured to direct or stop an airflow to the first heat exchanger;
wherein, in an operating condition of the system, the thermal machine cools the first heat exchanger and the blower directs the air towards said first heat exchanger to collect water from the air; or the blower stops the airflow towards the first heat exchanger and the thermal machine heats the first heat exchanger to regenerate the same.
Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to performing cooling/heating or blowing, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
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) 13 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiprakasam et al (US 4,430,864) in view of McGrail et al (US 2023/0233989).
Regarding claims 13 and 18-19, Mathiprakasam discloses a second heat exchanger (40) configured to be cooled or heated and to collect water,
the thermal machine being configured to heat and cool the second heat exchanger and a blower (5:46) being configured to direct or stop the airflow to the second heat exchanger,
wherein, in an operating condition of the system the thermal machine cools the first heat exchanger and the blower directs the air towards said first heat exchanger to collect the water from the air and, at the same time, the thermal machine heats the second heat exchanger to regenerate the same (the heat exchangers are alternatively heated and cooled); or the thermal machine cools the second heat exchanger and the blower directs the air towards said second heat exchanger to collect the water from the air and, at the same time, the thermal machine heats the first heat exchanger to regenerate the same (the heat exchangers are alternatively heated and cooled).
Mathiprakasam further includes maintaining the airflow toward the first heat exchanger until a reference value of collected water is reached (claim 19; corresponding to room humidity at col 6, lines 21-37)
Mathiprakasam is silent concerning both the first and second heat exchangers using the same blower.
McGrail discloses a system for water capture where first and second beds share the same fan/blower (shown in figure 1) linked with a valve (“diverter”). Moreover while the blower causes flow to the absorbing bed it is stopped relative to the regenerating bed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the single fan arrangement of McGrail to Mathiprakasam in order to allow the regenerating heat exchanger to drain away without capture in another airstream. Moreover it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Mathiprakasam provides for capturing water as a dehumidification means. McGrail evidences that it is known to capture water for use of the water ([0027]). Merely applying the known arrangement of Mathiprakasam to the known purpose of water capture is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Mathiprakasam further discloses wherein each of the first and second heat exchangers comprises a hygroscopic material, such that, when the first or second heat exchanger is cooled by the action of the thermal machine, the water contained in the air is adsorbed by the hygroscopic material, while, when the first or the second heat exchanger is heated, the water adsorbed by the hygroscopic material is desorbed (5:44-56).
Regarding claim 20, Mathiprakasam, as modified, further discloses when (when is a contingent limitation; The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II) the reference value of collected water is reached in the step of maintaining the airflow towards the first heat exchanger until a reference value of collected water is reached, it comprises the steps of: stopping the airflow by means of the blower towards the first heat exchanger; heating the first heat exchanger by means of the thermal machine; and extracting the water collected from the first heat exchanger (6:21-37 describes switching when the humidistat achieves a preselected humidity; McGrail as presented in the modification above provides for air switching).
Regarding claim 21, Mathiprakasam, as modified, further discloses the steps of (these steps continue from the contingency at claim 20): cooling the second heat exchanger by means of the thermal machine; directing the airflow by means of the blower towards the second heat exchanger to collect water from the air; and maintaining the airflow towards the second heat exchanger until a reference value of collected water is reached (6:21-37 describes switching when the humidistat achieves a preselected humidity; McGrail as presented in the modification above provides for air switching).
Regarding claim 22, Mathiprakasam, as modified, further discloses when (when is a contingent limitation; The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II) the reference value of collected water is reached in the step of maintaining the airflow towards the second heat exchanger until a reference value of collected water is reached, it comprises the steps of: stopping the airflow by means of the blower towards the second heat exchanger; heating the second heat exchanger by means of the thermal machine; and extracting the water collected from the second heat exchanger (6:21-37 describes switching when the humidistat achieves a preselected humidity; McGrail as presented in the modification above provides for air switching).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiprakasam et al (US 4,430,864) in view of Lang (US 12,312,777).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Mathiprakasam discloses the system of claim 12, but lacks a Stirling engine. Lang discloses a water capture arrangement utilizing a Stirling engine that is actuated by an engine as an alternative to a vapor compression cycle (3:45-51). It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of Stirling engines. It is known in the art to substitute a vapor compression cycle for a Stirling engine as evidenced by Lang. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Moreover in regard to claim 15, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Therefor it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of Stirling engines in order to predictably increase cooling/heating capacity.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiprakasam et al (US 4,430,864), in view of McGrail et al (US 2023/0233989), and in view of Lang (US 12,312,777).
Regarding claim 16, Mathiprakasam discloses the system of claim 12, but lacks a Stirling engine. Lang discloses a water capture arrangement utilizing a Stirling engine that is actuated by an engine as an alternative to a vapor compression cycle (3:45-51). It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of Stirling engines. It is known in the art to substitute a vapor compression cycle for a Stirling engine as evidenced by Lang. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Moreover it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Therefor it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of Stirling engines in order to predictably increase cooling/heating capacity.
Mathiprakasam is silent concerning both the first and second heat exchangers using the same blower.
McGrail discloses a system for water capture where first and second beds share the same fan/blower (shown in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the single fan arrangement of McGrail to Mathiprakasam in order to allow the regenerating heat exchanger to drain away without capture in another airstream. Moreover it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Mathiprakasam provides for capturing water as a dehumidification means. McGrail evidences that it is known to capture water for use of the water ([0027]). Merely applying the known arrangement of Mathiprakasam to the known purpose of water capture is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al (US 2025/0243648) atmospheric water capture
Yaghi et al (US 11,697,925) atmospheric water capture
Khelifa et al (US 5,335,719) dehumidification system
Piesker (US 11,278,845) gas dehumidification system
Unezaki et al (US 9,829,238) dehumidifier
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights