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 with traverse of Group II, claims 13-20, in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office “has not carried forward its burden of proof to establish that searching and examining the noted sets of claims [i.e. both groups I and II] would be an undue burden”, and that there would be no serious burden on account of an apparently overlapping search area.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that would not be a serious burden in examining both claim sets.
Regardless, the present Application has been filed under 35 U.S.C. 371. Accordingly, the claims have been restricted based on the “unity of invention” standard, as is required for applications filed under 371 (see MPEP 823). Serious burden, or lack thereof, is not taken into account when determining whether or not restriction is proper under the unity of invention standard (See MPEP 1850). Thus, the notion that there would be no serious burden in examining both groups I and II is moot, as is the notion that the Office has not carried out its duty of establishing undue burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
With regard to claim 18: In line 3, replace “condensate” with --condense--.
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.
Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the vapors generated between the plural transport layers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for “the vapors” but not for “the vapors generated between the plural transport layers”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dooley (US 1,812,516).
With regard to claim 13: Dooley teaches a solar-driven evaporation system (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85), the system comprising:
A support frame comprised of bottom 2, walls 3-6, and rails 8-11 (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
A mass and heat transport component supported by the support frame, the mass and heat transport component having a plurality of transport layers (wicks) 22 (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
A solar absorber layer (sheet/screen) 21 (Figures 1-3, page 1 lines 15-30, page 2 lines 40-75).
A sorption system (body of water) in which a bottom of the plural transport layers 22 is located (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
Wherein the plural transport layers 22 support capillarity (capillary action), promote a flow of atmospheric water toward the solar absorber layer (Figures 1-3, page 1 lines 30-35, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
Because the plural transport layers support capillarity (capillary action), they necessarily comprise a plurality of microchannels which facilitate the movement of liquid by capillary action.
Said transport layers 22 are at least capable of generating vapors due to heat generated by the solar absorber layer 21 (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Said transport layers 22 are at least capable of absorbing atmospheric water, i.e. water vapor in the atmosphere within the body 1 of the water purifying apparatus (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Wherein the solar absorber layer 21 is formed directly on top of the plural transport layers 22 (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
The system of Dooley qualifies as a solar-driven atmospheric water extraction system at least because it satisfies the structural requirements of claim 13. (See MPEP 2114 and 2111.02 II for guidance).
With regard to claim 14: The sorption system includes a sorption fluid (salt water) that travels through the plural transport layers 22 toward the solar absorber layer 21 (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
The sorption fluid is at least capable of absorbing the atmospheric water from the atmosphere within the body 1 and carrying absorbed atmospheric water through the plural transport layers 22 toward the solar absorber layer 21 (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
With regard to claim 17: Heat generated by the solar absorber layer 21 heats the sorption liquid and the atmospheric water, which flow through microchannels of the plural transport layers 22, and generates vapors (Figures 1-3, page 1 lines 15-30, page 2 lines 40-75).
With regard to claim 18: The system further comprises a cover 16 located over a top portion of the plural transport layers 22, the cover being configured to condense vapors generated between the plural transport layers 22 (Figures 1-3, page 1 lines 15-30, page 2 lines 40-75).
With regard to claim 19: The support frame includes a top body comprised of rails 8-11, a bottom body 2, and a plurality of pillars (walls) 3-6 that separate the top body 8-11 from the bottom body 2 (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
With regard to claim 20: The plural microchannels are at least capable of acting as a conduit for sorption particles to backflow from the solar absorber layer 21 toward a tank of the sorption system (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
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) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley.
With regard to claim 15: Dooley teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as described in the 102 rejections above.
In Dooley, the plural transport layers 22 are parallel to one another (Figures 1-3, page 1 line 95-page 2 line 85).
Dooley is silent to the plural transport layers being perpendicular to the solar absorber layer.
However, mere changes in shape are considered to be matters of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dooley by reshaping the device such that the solar absorber layer is disposed perpendicular to the transport layers in order to obtain a predictably functional solar evaporation system.
With regard to claim 16: Dooley teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Dooley is silent to the plural transport layers including 32 layers.
However, the precise number of transport layers would be understood as a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a greater number of transport layers should allow faster wicking of a greater amount of water to the solar absorber layer 21. On the other hand a person having ordinary skill in the art would also expect there to be diminishing returns from greater and greater numbers of layers. "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dooley by providing the transport layers in an optimal or workable number, e.g. by providing 32 to the transport layers, in order to obtain a predictably functional system capable of expediently wicking water from the pool in the bottom of the system to the solar absorber layer.
Dooley is silent to the plural transport layers having a top water evaporation zone that is about 3 cm tall, for generating water vapor, and a bottom atmospheric water capture zone that is about 5 cm tall, for capturing the atmospheric water.
However, the height of the transport layers, and various portions thereof, are mere matters of scale/proportion which would not significantly affect the functionality of Dooley’s system. Absent some difference in performance, changes in scale and/or proportion are patentably significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dooley by changing the scale and/or proportion of the system so that the plural transport layers were to have a top water evaporation zone that is about 3 cm tall, for generating water vapor, and a bottom atmospheric water capture zone that is about 5 cm tall, for capturing the atmospheric water, in order to obtain a predictably functional solar evaporation system.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following patent documents are cited for their relevance to the elected invention:
US 2412466 A, US 3104210 A, US 6869464 B2, US 20040026225 A1, US 20080099324 A1, US 7722706 B2, US 9770672 B2, US 9440862 B1, CN 110655135 A, US 11186497 B2, US 11312640 B2; US 20210047203 A1, US 12623924 B2, US 20240416256 A1.
Of these references, Examiner considers US 11186497 B2, US 11312640 B2, and US 20210047203 A1 to be of particular note.
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
Prosecution Insights