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 uses the word “means,” and rare 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.
Claim limitation “water collection means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” coupled with functional language “for collecting water exiting the evaporator” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-10 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
for collecting water exiting the evaporator →sump 42
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to include internal instructions that should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim refers to “the tank” whereas claim 1 refers to a “storage tank”. It is recommended that the terminology for the storage tank is kept consistent for continuity of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim refers to “the temperature” and “the water temperature”. It is recommended that the terminology for the water temperature is kept consistent for continuity of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims appear to refer to a “fresh air shutter” and a “fresh air shutter window”. It is recommended to keep the terminology for the fresh air shutter window consistent for continuity of the claims. 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 7-10 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 7 recites the limitation, “the cooling is ceased”. The cooling lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is unclear if this is flowing the water over the evaporator in claim 1, by the pump or valve of claim 7 or some other operation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cooled fin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 currently ends “and from there they to a water sump”. This term is missing a verb and it therefor cannot be determined what the water droplets do at the water sump.
Claim 8 requires the water droplets drop along the cooled fin and from there they (so something) to a water sump. Thus claim 8 requires a water sump, (from claim 1) water collection means which are described in applicant’s specification as a sump, and a storage tank. Thus the claim requires three distinct components. However, according to Applicant’s specification, the is no disclosure of any embodiment having anything more than a single sump (42) in combination with a single storage tank (62). There is no disclosure of any embodiment with the claimed two sumps and a storage tank. Accordingly, claim 8 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 8 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “water cooling process”. The term is missing an article which leads to confusion as to if this water cooling process is the process described in claim 1 of the water flowing over and cool at the evaporator, or if this is a different process.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the condenser" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2013/0047655 to White, hereinafter referred to as White.
In reference to claim 1, White discloses the claimed invention including:
An atmospheric water generator (AWG), see figure 1, comprising:
a refrigeration cycle (34, 36, 38, etc.) for condensing water from the atmosphere into stored water comprising an evaporator (34) comprising a water inlet (at 70) designed to drip water over the evaporator [0035],
a water collection means (12) for collecting water exiting the evaporator,
a storage tank (80, see [0041] where 80 is described as holding from 8-16 ounces of water) for storing the stored water comprising a stored water inlet (from 82) and a stored water outlet (leading to 74/52),
wherein the stored water outlet of the storage tank (80) and the water inlet of the evaporator (at 70) are in fluid communication (via valve 52, pump 64, etc.) designed to bring stored water from the storage tank (80) to the evaporator (34) allowing it to flow and cool over the evaporator (the water will inherently be cooled such as during defrost as described in [0035]); and
wherein the cooled water exiting the evaporator is collected in said water collection means (80).
In reference to claim 2, White discloses the claimed invention including:
a water line equipped with a pump (116, as illustrated in figure 3a) for transferring cooled water from the water collection means (12) to the storage tank (80).
In reference to claim 4, White discloses the claimed invention including:
a water line (70) that brings stored water from the storage tank (80) to the evaporator (34) of the refrigeration cycle, see figure 1.
In reference to claim 5, White discloses the claimed invention including:
the water line comprises a water pump (64) to pull stored water from the tank (80), see figure 1.
In reference to claim 6, White discloses the claimed invention including:
the water line comprises an on-off valve (52).
In reference to claim 8, White discloses the claimed invention including:
the water line comprises holes or slits through which water droplets drip along the cooled fin (30) and from there they to a water sump. Note that there must be holes or slits in (70) in order to dispense water on the coils as described in [0035].
In reference to claim 9, White discloses the claimed invention including:
a fresh air shutter window in an enclosure of the AWG, wherein the fresh air shutter is located downstream of the evaporator and is designed to be open during water cooling process.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of DE102014018254 to Ordernheimer, et al., hereinafter referred to as Ordernheimer.
In reference to claim 3, White as modified by Ordernheimer discloses the claimed invention.
White fails to disclose the storage tank is positioned above the evaporator, and passage of water from the storage tank to the evaporator is gravitational.
However, Odernheimer teaches that providing an elevated tank such that fluids flow due to gravity and without pumps is a known technique for reducing energy consumption, see underlined portion of page 3 of the English language translation. This is strong evidence that modifying White as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., eliminate the need for a pump and reduce energy consumption). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify White by Odernheimer such that the storage tank is positioned above the evaporator, and passage of water from the storage tank to the evaporator is gravitational since using the known technique of fluid transfer would improve the apparatus of White in the same way and would produce the predictable result of eliminating the need for a pump and reduce energy consumption.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of US5259203 to Engel et al., hereinafter referred to as Engel.
In reference to claim 9, White as modified by Engel discloses the claimed invention.
White fails to disclose a fresh air shutter window in an enclosure of the AWG, wherein the fresh air shutter is located downstream of the evaporator and is designed to be open during water cooling process.
Engel teaches that in the art of atmospheric water generators, that it is a known method to provide a fresh air shutter window (65) in an enclosure of the AWG, wherein the fresh air shutter is located downstream of the evaporator (39) and is designed to be open during water cooling process, see column 7 lines 31-39. Here Engel teaches that this method keep out undesirable environmental elements when the system is in a non-operating state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify White by Engel such that the system included a fresh air shutter window in an enclosure of the AWG, wherein the fresh air shutter is located downstream of the evaporator and is designed to be open during water cooling process, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of keeping out undesirable environmental elements when the system is in a non-operating state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights