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: “evaporator component” in claims 1, 12 and 18.
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 § 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) 1-2, 4-7, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, Y, et al ("Flexible NIXene-based Janus porous fibrous membranes for sustainable solar-driven desalination and emulsions separation", Journal of Cleaner Production. May 2022 (05.2022). 347, p. 1-9).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a system and method of use of the system for solar energy driven seawater desalination, the system comprising a porous fibrous membrane (i.e. mesh) for solar seawater desalination having hydrophobic MXene/PDMS coating and hydrophilic polylactic acid/titanium dioxide membrane to drive desalination via evaporation across the membrane while functioning as a salt rejection barrier (title, abstract), the membrane is fabricated as a mesh on a support thereby forming evaporator (see sections 2.1-2.3, Fig 1), the mesh on a support member was evaluated for use in evaporation and solar conversion rates (see section 3.1, Figs 3-5), the use of embedded TiO2 improved hydrophobicity of PLA membranes and can be used to fabricate novel solar driven fibrous membrane materials (see section 4).
Regarding claim 2, in Li, Ti and PDMS read upon metal and polymer respectively.
Regarding claims 4-5, Li has taught Ti as part of hydrophilic layer.
Regarding claims 6-7, Li has taught PDMS as part of the hydrophobic layer.
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches a system and method of use of the system for solar energy driven seawater desalination, the system comprising a porous fibrous membrane (i.e. mesh) for solar seawater desalination having hydrophobic MXene/PDMS coating and hydrophilic polylactic acid/titanium dioxide membrane to drive desalination via evaporation across the membrane while functioning as a salt rejection barrier (title, abstract), the membrane is fabricated as a mesh on a support thereby forming evaporator (see sections 2.1-2.3, Fig 1), the mesh on a support member was evaluated for use in evaporation and solar conversion rates (see section 3.1, Figs 3-5), the use of embedded TiO2 improved hydrophobicity of PLA membranes and can be used to fabricate novel solar driven fibrous membrane materials (see section 4).
Regarding claim 13-14, in Li as set forth above the top layer absorbs sunlight and bottom layer retains salt with the membrane driving evaporation via trasnsport.
Regarding claim 15, in Li, Figures 3-7, as set forth above, the evaporation occurs within chambers to drive desalination.
Regarding claim 16, Li has taught Ti as part of hydrophilic layer.
Regarding claim 17, Li has taught PDMS as part of the hydrophobic layer.
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches a system and method of use of the system for solar energy driven seawater desalination, the system comprising a porous fibrous membrane (i.e. mesh) for solar seawater desalination having hydrophobic MXene/PDMS coating and hydrophilic polylactic acid/titanium dioxide membrane to drive desalination via evaporation across the membrane while functioning as a salt rejection barrier (title, abstract), the membrane is fabricated as a mesh on a support thereby forming evaporator (see sections 2.1-2.3, Fig 1), the mesh on a support member was evaluated for use in evaporation and solar conversion rates (see section 3.1, Figs 3-5), the use of embedded TiO2 improved hydrophobicity of PLA membranes and can be used to fabricate novel solar driven fibrous membrane materials (see section 4).
Regarding claim 20, Li has taught the hydrophilic PDMS layer.
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) 3 and 8-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Y, et al ("Flexible NIXene-based Janus porous fibrous membranes for sustainable solar-driven desalination and emulsions separation", Journal of Cleaner Production. May 2022 (05.2022). 347, p. 1-9) taken in combination with Wang et al (US 2020/0255303).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches all limitations as set forth above, however does not teach the sheets formed as a flower petal.
Wang teaches a photothermal solar evaporation system (title, abstract), Wang teaches the system 200 is solar powered with photothermal material having support portion 201A and evaporation portion 201B, the evaporation portion being cup-shaped (Fig 2, [0032]) or may be arms or like the petals of a flower ([0041] Fig 2-4) the physical separation of water evaporation and solar absorption portions allows adaptable design [0031].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the evaporator mesh of Li in the design of system of Wang having a cup/flower shaped evaporation portion, as taught by Wang, and integrate the adaptable design of Wang in the mesh evaporator of Li.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 19, Li teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Li does not teach sub-structure extending distally from evaporator component for enhanced salt nucleation and evaporation.
Wang teaches a photothermal solar evaporation system (title, abstract), Wang teaches the system 200 is solar powered with photothermal material having support portion 201A and evaporation portion 201B, the evaporation portion being cup-shaped (Fig 2, [0032]) or may be arms or like the petals of a flower ([0041] Fig 2-4) the physical separation of water evaporation and solar absorption portions allows adaptable design [0031], a support layer 210 is connected with pumping layer 212 and photothermal layer 214 (Fig 2, [0034]), salt 224 is precipitated along pumping layer 212 where evaporation occurs where it drops off from the outer surface (Fig 2, [0040]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the evaporator mesh of Li in the design of system of Wang having a cup shaped evaporation portion, as taught by Wang, along distal end of evaporator that splits in two, as taught by Wang to allow salt that builds up to drop off naturally as taught by Wang and integrate the adaptable design of Wang in the mesh evaporator of Li.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Y, et al ("Flexible NIXene-based Janus porous fibrous membranes for sustainable solar-driven desalination and emulsions separation", Journal of Cleaner Production. May 2022 (05.2022). 347, p. 1-9) taken in combination with Park et al (KR 20150052973, with reference made to Clarivate Analytics Machine Translation Obtained 16 July 2026).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Li does not teach the mesh is substantially a Dutch weave.
Park teaches a solar collector system for evaporation of water and forming salt using black steel mesh (title, abstract), Park teaches “it is preferable to use a twilled Dutch Weave mesh of 8 mesh which is dense and has a high density and is well permeable to liquid and air” (see P5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the evaporator mesh of Li in known methods of mesh used for solar evaporation such as the Dutch twill that Park substantially teaches is preferable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 11, Li, Y, et al ("Flexible NIXene-based Janus porous fibrous membranes for sustainable solar-driven desalination and emulsions separation", Journal of Cleaner Production. May 2022 (05.2022). 347, p. 1-9) taken in combination with Park et al (KR 20150052973, with reference made to Clarivate Analytics Machine Translation Obtained 16 July 2026) is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, Li teaches a system and method of use of the system for solar energy driven seawater desalination, the system comprising a porous fibrous membrane (i.e. mesh) for solar seawater desalination having hydrophobic MXene/PDMS coating and hydrophilic polylactic acid/titanium dioxide membrane to drive desalination via evaporation across the membrane while functioning as a salt rejection barrier (title, abstract), the membrane is fabricated as a mesh on a support thereby forming evaporator (see sections 2.1-2.3, Fig 1), the mesh on a support member was evaluated for use in evaporation and solar conversion rates (see section 3.1, Figs 3-5), the use of embedded TiO2 improved hydrophobicity of PLA membranes and can be used to fabricate novel solar driven fibrous membrane materials (see section 4), however Li does not teach wherein the mesh comprises three Shute wires in a repeating pattern and eight warp wires in pairs in a unit cell and one or more of the Shute wires and the warp wires have a diameter between 0.1 mm and 5 mm.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mount (US 3,159,554) teaches solar distillation. Lee (US 2015/0353379) teaches solar distillation. Al-Sulaiman (US 10,456,780) teaches solar distillation. Armstrong (US 2020/0071192 teaches solar distillation. Jang (US 2020/0101420) teaches solar distillation. Lee et al (US 12,157,683) teaches solar distillation composite material.
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
Prosecution Insights